John Calvin's Use of Erasmus

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 176–192

brill.com/eras

John Calvin’s use of Erasmus*

Max Engammare University of Geneva [email protected]

Abstract

It is well known that Calvin made important use of Erasmus—the most quoted author in Calvin’s Commentaries on the New Testament—although he criticized him and contested his position more than regularly. This paper is focusing on a philological use of Erasmus by Calvin in his commentaries to the Canonical Epistles, particularly in the first Epistle of John with the Comma Joanneum (chapter 5). Two questions emerge. First, in which places (loci) did Calvin quote Erasmus in an exegetical or philological way of commenting the New Testament? Second, what did Calvin take and leave from Erasmus’s annotations? At the end of the demonstration, Max Engammare proves that Calvin did not read 1John 5 with Erasmus’ help. The Reformer was well acquainted both with the problem and Erasmus’ solution, but he accepted the Comma Joanneum without any reservation as something good, even excellent for Christians.

Keywords

Erasmus – Jean Calvin – New Testament – commentary – Trinity – Olivetan

In September 1539, Christophe Fabri, pastor in Thonon, at that time a posses- sion of Bern, wrote to John Calvin in Strasbourg. Olivetan, the translator of the first French reformed Bible, who died during the summer in Italy, had given him and his brother Antoine half of his library.1 Olivetan owned a copy of the New

* This paper was part of a session on Erasmus at the Sixteenth Century Studies and Conferences in Bruges in August 2016, organized by my good and long friend Christopher Ocker, I thank him, and Riemer Faber too for his comment. 1 See A.-L. Herminjard, Correspondance des réformateurs dans les pays de langue française,9 volumes, Geneva-Paris, 1866–1897, vol. 6, 1883, Nr. 816, 13–27.

Testament in Greek, published by Simon de Colinæus (Colines) in 1534, and a copy of Erasmus’ bilingual edition of the New Testament with his annotations. However Calvin did not want Fabri to keep for him any of these editions, and he simply asked him to keep the Hebrew Bible in two volumes (“Biblia Venetiana”) and to sell all other books.2 It appears to me as evident that Calvin in Fall 1539 already had his own copy of Erasmus’ Latin-Greek edition of the New Testa- ment with annotations. Which one? It is difficult to answer: with the secondary literature, I guess either the fourth (1527) or the fifth (1535). If Parker considered Calvin’s indebtedness to Erasmus in his Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, but also in his own critical edition of Romans,3 he did not consider in detail that 1539 letter.4 It struck me that Parker and other scholars have thought that Calvin could have owned Colinæus’ Greek edition and the fourth or the fifth edition of Erasmus’ New Testament with translation and annotations, without considering that 1539 letter.5 Nevertheless, Faber non Stapulensis—if I may invent this humanist joke—has shown that Calvin preferred to use the 1535 edition of Eras- mus in his Galatians Commentary, open on his desk, and considered that the Genevan Reformer discontinued use of the 1534 Colinæus edition of the Greek text in the 1540s.6 On the other side, Helmut Feld does not think that Calvin ever used the Colinæus edition.7

With that single example, we may affirm that exploring the biblical relations between Erasmus and Calvin requires reading an entire library, because so many studies, articles and books have chosen to compare both monstres sacrés of the sixteenth century.8 It is well known that Calvin made important use

2 Ibid., letter Nr. 818, by the end of September 1539, 29–32, here 30–31. Olivetan had numbered all verses of the Psalter (“Scio enim psalterium a majori volumine abesse. Causa hæc est meæ cupiditatis, quod Olivetanus diligenter omnes versus suis numeris notavit.”) 3 See Ioannis Calvini opera exegetica volumen xiii: Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Roma- nos, ediderunt T.H.L. Parker and D.C. Parker (Calvini opera denuo recognita ii/13); Geneva, 1999, xli–li. 4 See T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, London, 1971, n. 1, p. 105f. (with some inaccuracies). 5 See T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, London, 1971, 93–123. 6 See Riemer A. Faber, “The Influence of Erasmus’Annotationes on Calvin’s Galatians Commen- tary,”Dutch Review of Church History 84 (2004), 268–283, here 271. 7 See Ioannis Calvini opera exegetica volumen xi/1: In Evangelium secundum Johannem commentarius pars prior, edidit Helmut Feld (Calvini opera denuo recognita ii/11/1); Geneva, 1997, xxii (“Ob er [Calvin] dagegen auch das griechische Neue Testament von Simon Colinæus (de Colines; Paris 1534) herangezogen hat, scheint fraglich”). 8 There is a huge bibliographical forest with Calvin and Erasmus. See among others: Vivianne

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 176–192 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:11:49PM via free access 178 engammare of Erasmus although he criticized him and contested his position more than regularly.9 Nevertheless, Calvin’s rhetoric was framed and shaped by the great Humanist, and Bouwsma has argued that “unlike Luther, [Calvin] rarely attacked Erasmus”.10 It is true, but unlike in Luther’s time, when Calvin wrote his pamphlets, Erasmus was dead. It was not necessary to write too many books against dead people. Bouwsma did not read many of Calvin’s biblical commentaries, which may explain his clement judgment for his hero. What is the more adequate interpretation? Did Calvin criticize Erasmus or not? We have firstly to distinguish exegetical works from the Institutes of the Christian Religion, and dogmatic theology as well as ecclesiastical books to answer the question ade- quately. I would like to focus here on a philological use of Erasmus by Calvin in his commentaries to the Canonical Epistles, in particular the first Epistle of John with the Comma Joanneum (chapter 5). Two questions emerge. First, in which places (loci) did Calvin quote Erasmus in an exegetical or philological way of commenting the New Testament? Second, what did Calvin take and leave from Erasmus’ annotations? We know that Erasmus was the most quoted

Mellinghoff-Bourgerie, “Calvin émule d’Erasme. L’irréductibilité d’une conscience humaniste” in Calvin et ses contemporains. Actes du colloque de Paris de 1995, Olivier Millet (éd.), Genève, 1998, 225–246; Michael Becht, Pium concensum tueri. Studien zum Begriff consensus im Werk von Erasmus von Rotterdam, Philipp Melanchthon und Johannes Calvin, Münster, 2000 (more juxtaposition than real comparison); id., “Rezeption oder Nachleben? Johannes Calvins Konzept der accommodatio und Erasmus von Rotterdam”, in Theologie aus dem Geist des Humanismus. Festschrift für Peter Walter, hrg. von Hilary A. Mooney, Karlheinz Ruhstorfer und Viola Tenge-Wolf, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2010, 13–41; Riemer Faber, “The Influence of Erasmus’ Annotationes on Calvin’s Galatians Commen- tary”, Dutch Review of Church History 84, 2004, 268–283; James Brashler, “From Erasmus to Calvin: Exploring the Roots of Reformed Hermeneutics”, Interpretation 63, 2009, 154– 166; A.N.S. Lane, “Anthropology: Calvin between Luther and Erasmus”, in Calvin—Saint or Sinner? Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis, Tübingen, 2010, 185–205; John L. Thompson, “John Calvin on Biblical Interpretation. Tradition and Innovation in Early Reformed Exe- gesis of 1Corinthians”, Coram Deo 1, 2010, 211–236 (and I thank very much my friend John to have sent me a pdf of his article); Kirk Essary, “The Radical Humility of Christ in the Sixteenth Century: Erasmus and Calvin on Philippians 2:6–7”, Scottish Journal of Theology 68, 2015, 398–420 (and I also thank the author for the provided pdf as well as others); etc. 9 See e. g. Vivianne Mellinghoff-Bourgerie, “Calvin émule d’Erasme”, here 227f.; Olivier Millet, Calvin et la dynamique de la parole. Etude de rhétorique réformée, Paris, 1992, in particular ch. 5, 153–181. 10 See William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin. A Sixteenth-Century Portrait, New York and Oxford, 1988, 13.

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/23/2021 (2017) 176–192 02:11:49PM via free access john calvin’s use of erasmus 179 author in Calvin’s Commentaries on the New Testament.11 We might even say more used than simply quoted.

Canonical Epistles

Editing Calvin’s Commentarii in epistolas canonicas, Kenneth Hagen remarked:

When he mentions Erasmus’s rendering, Calvin generally disapproves, sometimes with qualification (Prior sensus magis Erasmo placuit, neque ego illum improbo [disapprove]; secundus tamen videtur melius quadrare [to accord]) other times outright rejection (Erasmus male vertit). Once he approves (verior tamen est Erasmi interpretatio). This all on 1Peter.12

The question remains: what did Calvin disapprove? Calvin’s Latin commentary to the Canonicals was first published 1551 in Geneva by Jean Crespin with a second enlarged and corrected edition in 1556.13 Erasmus was quoted sixteen times by name, but he may also be involved in many other expressions like “non convenit inter omnes”,“qui … longe falluntur” or “hic secundus magis videtur congruere”, etc.14 In his Commentary on John, Calvin adopted Sermo not Verbum in 1, 1, but he did not quote there Erasmus, only later, to criticize Erasmus’ condemnation by theologastri, theologians who walk on their stomach.15 Which is to say that the method of only counting citations by name does not entirely hit the target. Moreover, my first amount shows another difficulty of the exercise. Parker numbered 148 citations of Erasmus in Calvin’s commentaries on the New

11 See T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, London, 1971, 129–142, here 132f. See also Erika Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament. From Philologist to Theologian, Toronto, 1986. 12 See Ioannis Calvini opera exegetica volumen xx: Commentarii in Epistolas canonicas, edidit Kenneth Hagen (Calvini opera denuo recognita ii/20), Geneva, 2009, xix. Abbre- viated hereafter Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ. It is coherent with Parker’s analysis (see T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, London, 1971, 132f.). 13 See Bibliotheca Calviniana 51/5. 14 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 14, 17, 33, etc. 15 See Ioannis Calvini opera exegetica volumen xi/1: In Evangelium secundum Johannem commentarius pars prior, edidit Helmut Feld (Calvini opera denuo recognita ii/11/1); Geneva, 1997, 14: “Unde apparet, quam barbaram tyrannidem exercuerint theologastri, qui Erasmum adeo turbulente vexarunt ob mutatam in melius vocem unam.”

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 176–192 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:11:49PM via free access 180 engammare

Testament,16 and only seven in the canonicals instead of the sixteen I counted myself,17 or the four that Faber found in Calvin’s commentary on Galatians (six in the second edition, probably based on Parker’s numbering).18 I will limit myself to these sixteen places before developing in a second part the question of the Comma Joanneum.

Calvin’s Citations of Erasmus by Name

– 1Peter 1, 13: in revelatione Christi … Prior sensus magis Erasmo placuit.19 The two explanations are: a) the doctrine of the Gospel reveals to us Jesus Christ. b) As we see Jesus like in a mirror (see 1Corinthians 13, 12), the full revelation will arrive only on the last day. Calvin did not disapprove entirely of Erasmus’ position, but he prefers the second. – 1Peter 1, 22: Purificantes animas vestras … Erasmus male vertit, ‘Qui purifi- castis’.20 It is better to translate “purifying your souls” than “you who have purified your souls”, a more active and present action. – 1Peter 2, 2: Lac rationale.Vulgo exponunt hunc locum, qualiter Erasmus transtulit, ‘Lac non corporis, sed animæ’.21 The question is the meaning of the rational milk; for Calvin it refers to Paul’s sentence: ‘Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men’ (1Corinthians 14, 20). Calvin quotes here the Greek text, two words for rationale, λογικὸν καί ἄδολον, to correct Erasmus and to give his own interpretation. Unlike Calvin, Luther identified Milch with das Evangelion.22 – 1Peter 3, 4: Sed interior cordis homo, qui in incorruptione situs est placidi et quieti spiritus … Itaque Erasmi versio a genuino sensu dissidet.23 The hidden man of the heart is without corruption and his ornament is a “meek and quiet spirit”. The incorruptibility concerns the contrary of all ornaments

16 See T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, London, 1971, here 132f. 17 Ibid., 133 (two for James instead of five, and five for 1Peter instead of seven; with no change in the 1556 second edition). Parker has also forgotten 2Peter (three times), Jude (one time). 18 See Riemer A. Faber, “The Influence of Erasmus’ Annotationes on Calvin’s Galatians Com- mentary,” 274 (same number found by Parker). 19 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 35. 20 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 45. 21 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 53. 22 Ibid., note 6. 23 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 86. Erasmus translated: “qui est in corde homo, si is careat omni corruptela, ita ut spiritus placidus sit ac quietus, qui spiritus in oculis dei magnifica ac sumptuosa res est” (asd vi-4:410).

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/23/2021 (2017) 176–192 02:11:49PM via free access john calvin’s use of erasmus 181

used by women to adorn their body. For Erasmus, the one who is a man in his heart takes care to avoid all corruption. – 1Peter 4, 1: Quod scilicet qui passus … Male Erasmus, meo judicio, qui vertit ‘patiebatur’, ad Christum referens.24 Erasmus translated, “qui patiebatur in carne, destitit a peccato” (asd vi-4:418) referring to Christ. For Calvin the reign of sin should be abolished in us to allow God to govern our lives. – 1Peter 5, 2a: Pascite, quantum in vobis est … Vetus interpres reddiderat, ‘Qui in vobis est’: atque hic potest esse verborum sensus: verior tamen est Erasmi interpretatio, quam sequutus sum: etsi alteram illam non refello, neque improbo.25 ‘Feed the flock, which is in you’ instead of ‘as much as the power given by God is in you.’ Finally, after five criticisms, for the sixth mention of Erasmus in 1Peter, Calvin quoted Erasmus in bonam partem. Here he still criticizes a translation (Jerome’s) but not Erasmus’ version. – 1Peter 5, 2b: Episcopatu fungentes. Erasmus reddidit, ‘Curam illius agentes’: sed quum sit Graece ἐπισκοποῦντες, non dubio quin Petrus ipsum Episcopatus officium et nomen exprimere voluerit.26 Calvin translated “acting as bishops”, when Erasmus has given “taking care of it [= the flock]”. The Genevan Reformer quoted the Greek word episkopountes to keep the etymology of ‘bishop’ and explained that Peter had in mind the name and the office of the bishop, the supervisor. Avoiding the word bishop, Erasmus gave the responsibility to all Christians. We know the importance of ecclesiastical discipline for Calvin, and pastors are the real supervisors, while ecclesiastical thought was not Erasmus’ main interest. – James 1, 10: Tanquam flos herbæ … Tametsi recepta est lectio ἐν ταῖς πορείαις, tamen Erasmo assentior, potius legendum esse πορίαις absque diphthongo: In opibus, vel cum opibus, quod posterius mihi magis placet.27 With Erasmus Calvin prefered to read “with his riches” (poriais) rather than his journeys or ways (poreiais). As his Latin text Calvin has however chosen in suis viis (en ses voyes in French). Both editions give in the margin Vel, copiis / ou en ses abondances. Estienne 154628 and Estienne 155029 give ἐν ταῖς πορείαις, Calvin in the 1546 second Bible à l’épée, “en toutes ses voies”, without any marginal note. We must note that Beza in the 1565 edition of his annotationes majores

24 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 108. 25 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 127. 26 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 128. 27 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 256. 28 See Novum Testamentum. Ex bibliotheca regia, Paris, Robert Estienne, 1546, 252. 29 See Novum Jesu Christi D.N.Testamentum. Ex bibliotheca regia, Paris, Robert Estienne, 1550, 2nd part, 143.

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 176–192 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:11:49PM via free access 182 engammare

preferred also to keep πορείαις in his text, and he defended the lectio ‘viis’ in the annotation.30 A Greek variant pleased Calvin, and he used Erasmus to legitimate his lectio difficilior. – James 1, 26: Sed cor suum decipit. Mihi non placet Erasmi versio, ‘sinit aber- rare’.31 Once again Calvin did not like Erasmus’ translation, “he lets his heart wander”. In his commentary Calvin attacked hypocrites blinded by immod- erate self-love (quo immodico sui amore caeci).32 Calvin reinforces here the responsibility of the human being. – James 2, 18: Quin dicet quispiam. Quod Erasmus duos hic colloquentes inducit … mihi videtur esse nimis coactum.33 As we know, Erasmus liked dialogues, and he introduced here a dialogue between two characters, the one bragging about faith without works, the other works without faith. The faith-works dialectic in the Epistle of James is very important, and Calvin tried to min- imise it, speaking here of James’ irony (in Greek εἰρωνικά). Further in the same verse, Calvin, without quoting Erasmus, preferred sine operibus rather than ex operibus. Erasmus with “ex factis meis” (asd vi-4:364) and the whole tradition are against Calvin’s interpretation, even the 1511 first “critical edition” of the Vulgate with ex operibus34 or Castellio’s 1551 Latin Bible (“ex meis operibus”). Nevertheless Calvin argued that “melius tamen vetus Latina convenit [sine operibus], quæ in nonnullis Graecis exemplaribus legitur”.35 I do not know where Calvin read the Vetus Latina nor where he checked Greek manuscripts nor from whom he dared to comment like that. Unfortunately Kenneth Hagen has forgotten to add a footnote. Nonetheless we will find the same argument with the Comma Joanneum. – James 3, 4: Affectum dirigentis verti, ubi Erasmus Impetum transtulit, quia ὁρμὴ appetitum significat. Fateor quidem hac voce notari apud Græcos cupid-

30 “Eras.[mus] suspicatur legendum potius πορίαις, id est (inquit) in abundantia. Ego neque usquam inveni ita scriptum, neque memini Græcum illud vocabulum usquam legere. Dicunt enim Græci potius αἰπορίαν, cui opponitur ἀπορία.” See Jesu Christi D.N. Novum Testamentum sive Novum fœdus … eiusdemTh. Bezæ Annotationes, quas itidem hac secunda editione recognovit, [Geneva], Henri Estienne, 1565, 546. 31 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 266. 32 Ibid. 33 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 278. 34 See Biblia cum concordantiis Veteris et Novi Testamenti, Venice, Lucantonio Giunta, 1511, 506v (Alberto da Castello). 35 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 278. The 1556 French commentary has “Toutesfois la lecture ancienne Latine convient mieux, Sans tes œuvres, laquelle aussi on trouve en quelques exemplaires grecs.” See Commentaires de M. Jehan Calvin sur les Epistres Canoniques …, Geneva, Conrad Badius, 1556, 118.

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/23/2021 (2017) 176–192 02:11:49PM via free access john calvin’s use of erasmus 183

itates, quæ rationi non obtemperant; sed hic Jacobus simpliciter de arbitrio naucleri agit.36 Once again Calvin criticized a translation given by Erasmus who translated ὁρμὴ impetuosity, and Calvin preferred appetite. For Calvin language has a great power, and James speaks here simply of the skipper’s will. – James 4, 7: Subjecti igitur … Sedquum in aliis non legatur,suspicaturErasmus, a studioso quopiam annotatam in margine, postea in contextum obrepisse.37 The exegetical question is to be entirely subject with humility to God. Calvin added the conjunction ‘thus’ (igitur; donc in French) to reinforce in the Epis- tle of James that Christian existence is totally subject to God. In that context Calvin quoted Erasmus to say that numerous manuscripts (multi codices) have inserted here “God resists arrogant people and gives mercy to the hum- ble”.38 In the Annotations, Erasmus indeed suggested that a scholar wrote those words in the margin and a dull copyist interpolated them in the biblical text itself. As Kenneth Hagen has noted, “In his 1516 Annotationes, Eras- mus only says Hoc verbum humilibus in nonnullis græcorum exemplaribus non repereiebatur [sic]”,39 but in 1519 Erasmus deleted this phrase and added, “Verum ea suspicor a studioso quopiam huc addita in marginali spacio ex epistola Petri priore, deinde a scriba parum erudito in contextum translata” (asd vi-10:416). This reading remains in the Annotations through the 1535 edition. – 2Peter 1, 16: Neque enim fabulas … Vetus interpres ‘fictas’ vertit; Erasmus ‘arte compositas’. Mihi videtur subtile ad fallendum artificium notari. Nam inter- dum Græcis est verbum σοφίζεςθαι.40 The point is that Peter speaks of Christ not by hearsay, nor with fables ( fabulas subtiliter excogitatas / σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις) but as a witness of the majesty of Christ. Once again Calvin quoted theVetus latina “feigned fables” ( fictas) and Erasmus “composed by art” (arte compositas), not the tralatio communis which has fabulas, and he preferred ‘a trick to fool people’ while underlining the ugliness of the human being. – 2Peter 2, 13: Pro voluptate ducentes … deliciantes in erroribus, conviventes vobiscum … Erasmus sic reddidit, ‘Convivantes in erroribus suis, insultant vobis’. Sed illud nimis coactum est … Ego tamen quod maxime probabile vide- batur, reddidi.41 Calvin could have adopted Erasmus’ translation though it

36 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 285. 37 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 295. 38 Ibid. “Deus superbis resistit, humilibus vero dat gratiam.” 39 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 295, note 12. 40 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 337. 41 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 355.

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 176–192 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:11:49PM via free access 184 engammare

was too constricted (nimis coactus), but he preferred ‘banqueting with you’ to ‘banqueting in their errors,’ considering that Erasmus made a mistake taken from Bede.42 However, Calvin did not quote the Greek text in explaining that verse. – 2Peter 2, 14: Cor exercitatum cupiditatibus. Erasmus ‘rapinas’ vertit, et ambi- gua est Græcæ vocis significatio. Ego ‘cupiditates’ malo, quia secuti prius incon- tinentiam damnavit in eorum oculis, ita nunc videtur quæ in corde latent vitia notare.43 Here, Calvin criticized another translation of Erasmus: rapinas instead of cupiditatibus. He considered that the Greek word is ambiguous without quoting it (πλεονεξίας), and he decided to use what he considered the true meaning. – Jude 22: Hos quidem miseramini … Participium διακρινόμενοι, nesciocurEras- mus passive reddere maluerit, quum sit ambiguum; activa autem significatio contextui longe melius quadret.44 In the sixteenth place, Calvin quoted Eras- mus one last time to criticize a translation. Calvin pointed out a rude correction for the obstinate, but mercy for the obedient (erga dociles … clemen- tia). Remarks about active/passive voice disappear in the French translation, which uncharacteristically omits all discussion of the Greek word.45

In summary, Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum is a real instrument in Calvin’s hands. He criticized it, he took it, he put it away, he interpolated Erasmus’ Greek text and annotations, but above all he read it. With Faber we certainly may say that “Calvin appreciates Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum and Annotationes for what they were intended to be: an accurate text of the Greek original, a sound Latin translation, and a proper explication of the literal sense of Scripture.”46 Moreover, Calvin often criticized Erasmus’ translation, but in some places he used him to confirm a difficult choice. Surprisingly, twice Calvin ignored his principle of the primacy of the Greek text in the process of giving the best Latin translation of the Canonical Epistles, and he quoted and adopted the Vetus Latina; or when he accepted Erasmus’ lesson, he criticized the old tralatio communis (an expression I continue to prefer to the Vulgate before the 1592 Sixto-Clementine). Calvin’s biblical context is always a polemical context.

42 Ibid., note 26. 43 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 356. 44 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 388. 45 See Commentaires de M. Jehan Calvin sur les Epistres Canoniques …, Geneva, Conrad Badius, 1556, 118. 46 See Riemer A. Faber, “The influence of Erasmus’ Annotationes on Calvin’s Galatians commentary”, art. cit., 269.

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/23/2021 (2017) 176–192 02:11:49PM via free access john calvin’s use of erasmus 185

I have shown that in the years 1557–1559 when Calvin preached on Isaiah he often criticized Johann Brenz without once mentioning him by name. In the years 1559–1560, when he preached on Genesis, Calvin criticized in the same manner Luther, as he did in his 1554 commentary on Genesis. Calvin often looked for an opponent to criticize when he wrote commentary on the Bible. In the 1540s and 1550s Erasmus remained the great opponent in New Testament scholarship. This is due to Calvin’s adversative thought. We may also remark that Calvin as often as possible attacked Erasmus’ position on free will, to underline the bondage of the will (servum arbitrium). Calvin also pointed out the responsibility of Christians, the respect of the biblical text (against the introduction of a dialogue), and he avoided a too swift spiritualization of a pericope and a too fast and immediate interpretation to Christ (Erasmus’ well known philosophia Christi). If Calvin was without doubt a humanist, he was not a philologist. He read Greek fluently, but took or left some words in relation to the analogia fidei or the regula fidei used by Augustine. In some loci the text is even at the service of the dogma, because philology is always a servant of the faith.

Comma Joanneum

I come now to my second point, the Comma Joanneum. We know that Calvin in his commentary on John’s Epistles did not quote Erasmus a single time by name.47 However the Comma is so important in Erasmus’ progress, that we must keep it in mind. The Comma Joanneum is an interpolation in the fifth chapter of the First Epistle of John which leaned on the mention of a trilogy, the spirit, the water and the blood in a passage of the Epistle to become verse 8, to add before it the trilogy of the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, a rare Trinitarian witness in the Bible. In chapter 5, “the Apostle” declares that Jesus came by water and blood, and it is the Spirit that gave evidence, specifies verse 6. The water is the water of the baptism, the blood, that of the Passion. The mention of three terms makes the gloss almost gnostic that the spirit, the water and the blood are one (today verse 8). The Comma says: ὁτι τρεις εἰσι σε μαρτυροντες ἐν τω οὐρανω, ὁ πατηρ και ὁ λογος και το ἁγιον πνευμα, και οἱ τρεις εἰς το ἑν εἰσι. All old Greek manuscripts lacked this interpolation until an English manuscript

47 See Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 139–245.

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 176–192 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:11:49PM via free access 186 engammare turned up, the Monfortianus or Britannicus, which was copied early in the 16th century, maybe even after the first edition of Erasmus’Novum Instrumentum in 1516.48

Unlike Zwingli, who had it printed in smaller font, and Luther, who deleted it completely without any marginal note, Olivetan, the first translator of the French reformed Bible, kept the Comma, while annotating it philologically:

*Car il en y a troys qui donnent tesmoingnage au ciel: le pere, la parolle, et le sainct esperit, et ces troys sont ung. Aussi en y a trois … [in the margin] *Ceste sentence commenceant à Car, jusque à Aussi, ne se trouve point en plusieurs exemplaires anciens, tant Grecz que Latins.49

The Olivetan Bible was out the 4th of June, 1535, and on the 11th of September of the same year John Calvin wrote to Christophe Fabri, pastor in Bole and a close friend as we have seen, that he was dedicating one hour a day to the correction of the New Testament, as he had promised to Olivetan. In the Latin privilege of 1535, Calvin already indicated that the translation was not exempt from errors, that it could be amended and that alternative solutions existed, in brief that it could be amended and improved. Olivetan himself in his “Translator’s Apology” had recognized his difficulties by specifying: “others will come after me who can better repair the path and make it smoother.”

Still when the New Testament came out in 1536, followed by a second edition in 1538, and a third in 1539 by Jean Girard, the Comma is there50 with no note. These first two revisions slightly modified the translation by coming back to the Greek text, as I have already shown: words present in French, but not in Greek, were deleted while Greek words not translated in 1535 are now present. Olivetan was in Geneva, Calvin too, since the end of July or the beginning

48 In Fall 2016 was published Grantley McDonald’s excellent study, Biblical criticism in Early Modern Europe. Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate, Cambridge, Cam- bridge University Press, 2016. See also my review in the Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 79, 2017, to be published in December 2017. 49 See my “La Trinité à l’épreuve du texte. Traduction et annotation du Comma Johanneum (1 Jean 5, 7) dans les bibles genevoises du xvie siècle” in Ecrire la Bible au Moyen Age et à la Renaissance, Véronique Ferrer & Jean-René Valette (eds), Geneva, 2017, 241–257 (colloquium at the University of Bordeaux in November 2012). 50 Cf. LeNouveauTestament,c’estàdire,LanouvelleAlliancedenostreSeigneuretseulSauveur Jesus Christ, translaté de Grec en Françoys, [Jean Girard, Genève], 1539.

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/23/2021 (2017) 176–192 02:11:49PM via free access john calvin’s use of erasmus 187 of August 1536, and he had written that he spent one hour a day revising Olivetan’s work, but we have no proof of who was the main author of the first two revisions, although I tilt for Olivetan. In 1539, when Olivetan was dead and Calvin chased away, the small modifications may have been done by the pastors who replaced Calvin. To the revision of the translation was joined a first modification of the footnotes, which pushed aside some philological elements in favor of more spiritual and more doctrinal notes, exactly as Olivetan did in his 1537 revision of the Song of Songs, which is why I attribute the first two revisions to Olivetan, without excluding the possibility that Calvin gave his notes to his relative. However, the Comma was no longer annotated.

After that Genevan context of the first French reformed translation of the Bible, I come back to Erasmus and Calvin.

Lorenzo Valla was the first one to raise the question of the Comma, because at his time no old Greek manuscripts or new ones included the interpolation.51 In 1516 and 1519 Erasmus translated the Greek of 1John 5, 8 (πνευμα και ὑδωρ και αἱμα, και οἱ τρεις εἰς το ἑν εἰσιν): “Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt.”52 In his 1522 Annotations, Erasmus quoted Cyril of Alexandria and the Venerable Bede to mention that old Greek manuscripts did not know the Comma (asd vi-10:540–542). “The translator of an ancient text cannot begin until he understands the differences between his own context and that of the original text.”53 We might say that Erasmus translated as if he were an ancient Greek author living in the sixteenth century. It was only in a Latin edition published in June 1521 by Johann Froben in Basel, and then in the 1522 third edition of his Novum Testamentum that Eras- mus added “tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo, pater, sermo, et spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt” (asd vi-4:482) under the pressure of Edward

51 Valla’s annotation was limited to “in one”: “Gr. Et hi très in unum sunt, εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.” See Critici sacri, tome 5, Francfort on Main, 1695, 1823. We know that Erasmus published those annotations in 1505. 52 See Novum Instrumentum omne, Basel, Johann Froben, 1516 (reprint Stuttgart-Bad Cann- statt, 1986), 183 and asd vi-4:482–484 with apparatus. In 1516 the annotation was not very developed. It limited itself to note that the triple testimony in heaven is not in the Greek (618). 53 Paul Botley, Latin translation in the Renaissance.The theory and practice of Leonardo Bruni, Giannozzo Manetti and Desiderius Erasmus, Cambridge, 2004, 153.

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 176–192 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:11:49PM via free access 188 engammare

Lee’s criticisms,54 and to avoid any calumny (“ne cui sit ansa calumniandi” asd vi-10:546) because Erasmus was accused by the English theologian of supporting Arianism.55 In so doing Erasmus anticipated his more prudent and traditional position after his 1524 De libero arbitrio and his dispute with Luther. In his 1546 NovumTestamentum (“O mirificam”) Robert Estienne has kept the Comma (see p. 293), even in his 1550 so-called royal edition (2nd part, p. 267). If Castellio adopted it in his 1551 first Latin Bible, he did not add much of an annotation. The Comma is just between brackets with a marginal note: “Haec [ ] in quibusdam exemplaribus non extant” (Novum Testamentum, col. 264). In 1551 was published Calvin’s Latin Commentary to the Canonical Epistles followed the same year by the French translation. Calvin began to give his own translation of the passage before commenting on it.

1John 5, 6–8: 6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.56

54 See Robert Coogan, Erasmus, Lee and the Correction of the Vulgate: The Shaking of the Foundations (thr 261), Geneva, 1992, 101–113; see also Henk Jan De Jonge, “Erasmus and the comma Johanneum”, EphemeridesTheologicæLovaniensis 56, 1980, 381–389, 382 for the 1521 edition of the New Testament; and now Grantley McDonald, Biblical criticism in Early Modern Europe. Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate, Cambridge, 2016, 29–35. 55 De Jonge has shown that Erasmus never wrote that the codex Montfortianus was copied to oblige him to accept the comma Johanneum in his edition, although he thought that that manuscript was very recent (ibid., 386–389). 56 See Commentaires de M. Jean Calvin sur les Epistres canoniques de S. Pierre, S. Jean, S. Jaques et S. Jude, lesquelles sont aussi appelées Catholiques, Genève, Jean Bonnefoy, 1562 (Biblio- theca Calviniana 51/5 et 51/2.4), 50v–51r. “6. C’est cestuy Jesus Christ qui est venu par eau et par sang, non pas seulement par eau, mais par eau et par sang, et c’est l’Esprit qui en tesmoigne, veu que l’Esprit est la verité. 7. Car il y en a trois qui donnent tesmoignage au ciel, le Pere, la Parolle et le S. Esprit, et ces trois sont un. 8. Aussi y en a-il trois qui donnent tesmoignage en la terre, asçavoir l’Esprit, l’eau et le sang: et ces trois sont *un. [en marge: *ou, en un.]” I used the old English translation, Commentaries on the Catholic Epis- tles by John Calvin, translated and edited by the rev. John Owen, Edinburgh, The Calvin Translation Society, 1855, 256. See also Calvin, Epistolæ canonicæ, 229f.; and now Grantley

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/23/2021 (2017) 176–192 02:11:49PM via free access john calvin’s use of erasmus 189

Then he commented on verse 7:

1John 5, 7. There are three that bear record in heaven. The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design (malice) rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not to assert any thing on the subject.

Here we may touch Calvin’s bad faith when some words serve his cause.

Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies,

A second time, Calvin was exaggerating with “the best and most approved copies”, which is false, as we know.

I am inclined to receive it as the true reading. And the meaning would be, that God, in order to confirm most abundantly our faith in Christ, testifies in three ways that we ought to acquiesce in him. For as our faith acknowledges three persons in the one divine essence, so it is called in so many ways to Christ that it may rest on him. When he says, These three are one, he refers not to essence, but on the contrary to consent; as though he had said, that the Father and his eternal Word and Spirit harmoniously testify the same thing respecting Christ. Hence some copies have εἰς ἓν, ‘for one’. But though you read ἓν εἰσιν, as in other copies, yet there is no doubt but that the Father, the Word and the Spirit are said to be one, in the same sense in which afterwards the blood and the water and the Spirit are said to agree in one. But as the Spirit, who is one witness, is mentioned twice, it seems to be an unnecessary repetition. To this I reply, that since he testifies of Christ in various ways, a twofold testimony is fitly ascribed him. For the Father, together with his eternal Wisdom and Spirit, declares Jesus to be the Christ as it were authoritatively, then in this case, the sole majesty of the Deity is to be considered by us. But as the Spirit, dwelling in our hearts, is an earnest, a pledge, and a seal, to confirm that decree, so he thus again speaks on earth by grace.

McDonald, Biblical criticism in Early Modern Europe. Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate, Cambridge, 2016, 78–80.

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 176–192 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:11:49PM via free access 190 engammare

But inasmuch as all do not receive this reading, I will therefore so expound what follows, as though the Apostle referred to the witnesses only on earth.57

Calvin began to mention the philological question that is the absence of the Trinity, but without explaining it. If there is an omission in some manuscripts it is something different from an addition. Calvin was not clear at all. He used and abused the apparent disaccord between Greek manuscripts without making a philological statement. A Trinitarian mention is rare in the Bible, even in the New Testament, but Calvin did not say anything about it. What matters for him is the order of the sentence and the crystal clear syntax of the biblical text (pource que le fil du texte coule tresbien si ce membre y est adjousté / quia tamen optime fluit contextus si hoc membrum addatur): the biblical text sounds better with the addition. Here, it is not the analogia fidei

57 “1 Jean 5, 7, Car il y en a trois qui donnent tesmoignage au ciel, etc. Tout ceci a esté omis par aucuns, ce que saint Hierome pense avoir esté fait plus par malice que par ignorance ou mesgarde, et qu’il n’a esté fait que par les Latins. Mais d’autant que les livres Grecs mesmes ne s’accordent pas l’un avec l’autre, à gran’peine en ose je rien affermer. Toutesfois pource que le fil du texte coule tresbien si ce membre y est adjousté, et je voy qu’il se trouve ès meilleurs exemplaires et plus corrects, de ma part je le reçoy volontiers. Or le sens sera tel: Que Dieu, pour confermer plus abondamment la foy que nous avons en Christ, nous rend tesmoignage en trois sortes, qu’il nous faut acquiescer et reposer sur iceluy. Car comme nostre foy recognoist trois personnes en une seule essence de Dieu, ainsi par autant de sortes est-elle appellée à Christ, afin qu’elle se tiene à luy.Or quand il dit que ces trois sont un, cela ne se rapporte point à l’essence, mais plustost au consentement, comme s’il disoit que le Pere et sa Parole eternelle, et l’Esprit, comme par une harmonie accordante approuvent et donnent tesmoignage de Christ. Pourtant aussi aucuns livres Grecs ont ‘Et ces trois sont en un’. Mais quand bien on lira comme les autres ont—ces trois sont un—, il n’y a point de doute toutesfois que le Pere, la Parole et l’Esprit ne soyent dits estre un, en mesme signification qu’il est dit ci apres que l’Esprit, l’eau et le sang sont un. Mais d’autant que l’Esprit qui n’est qu’un tesmoin est allegué deux fois, il semble que ce soit une repetition absurde. Je respons à cela, que veu qu’il rend tesmoignage de Christ en diverses sortes, bien pertinemment luy est assigné double lieu de tesmoigner. Car le Pere avec sa Sapience eternelle et son Esprit prononce du ciel comme en authorité et puissance, que Jesus est le Christ, parquoy il ne nous faut là que la seule majesté de la Divinité. Mais pour ce aussi que l’Esprit habite en nos cœurs, est arre, gage et seau, pour confermer ce decret divin, en ceste maniere il est dit derechef parler en terre par sa grace. Au surplus, pource que paraventure tous ne recevront pas ceste lecture, j’exposeray ce qui s’ensuit, comme si l’Apostre n’eust nommé que ceux-ci tesmoins en la terre.” See Commentaires de M. Jean Calvin sur les Epistres canoniques de S. Pierre, S. Jean, S. Jaques et S. Jude, lesquelles sont aussi appelées Catholiques, Genève, Jean Bonnefoy, 1562, 51r.

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/23/2021 (2017) 176–192 02:11:49PM via free access john calvin’s use of erasmus 191 which conducts the interpretation, but simply the grammatical construction. The philological argument is denied. In the second part of his comment on verse 8 Calvin carried on about the witness of the Spirit, quoting Romans 1, 4, to point out that Christ was declared Son of God by the “sanctification of the Spirit”. The Spirit’s office is particularly “to clean up the filth of our consciousness by Christ’s blood”, and Calvin used once again the analogiafidei quoting 1Peter [1, 19].The repetition of the Spirit in both citations confirms that Christians receive their perfection from the Spirit. Calvin did not read 1John 5 with Erasmus’ help. He knew the problem and Erasmus’ solution perfectly well, but he accepted the Comma Joanneum without philological doubt or reservation. It was good for Christians.

Some years later, in the 1556 first edition of his Annotationes majores published in Robert Estienne’s Novum D.N. Iesu Christi Testamentum,58 Beza kept the Comma Johanneum. We know that Beza’s first Annotationes gave a better philological basis to Calvin’s exegesis and interpretation; they also contributed to attack Castellio’s own translation of the Bible.59 Beza annotated the Comma:

Nam tres sunt, etc. ὁτι τρεις εἰσιν, etc. Hic versiculus omnino mihi retinen- dus videtur. Explicat enim manifeste quod de sex testibus dixerat, tres seorsim cælo, tres terræ tribuens. Non legit tamen Vetus interpres, nec Cyrillus, nec Augustinus, nec Beda: sed legit Hieronymus, legit Erasmus in Britannico codice, et in Complutensi editione. Legimus et nos in nonnullis Roberti nostri veteribus libris. Non convenit tamen in omnibus inter istos codices. Nam Britannicus legit sine articulis πατήρ, λόγος, καί πνευμα. In nostris vero legebantur articuli, et præterea etiam additum erat Sancti epitheton Spiritui, ut ab eo distingueretur cuius fit mentio in sequenti versiculo, quique in terra collocatur. In cælo, ἐν τω οὐρανω. Hoc deerat in septem vetustis codicibus, sed tamen omnino videtur retinendum.

“This small verse must be retained”, affirmed Beza against Cyril, Augustine and Bede, all found in Erasmus’ long annotation undertaken in 1522 and expanded through 1535. It is true that Jerome thought that Latin manuscripts were cor- rupted, but Beza like Calvin preferred to keep the Comma. His learned note

58 Genève, 1556, f° 318r°. 59 See Irena Backus, “L’influence de l’exégèse d’Erasme sur le milieu calvinien à Genève”, in Erasme et les théologiens réformés. Actes du Colloque international, Maison d’Erasme à Bruxelles-Anderlecht, 24 avril 2004, édités par Emile M. Braekman, Bruxelles, 2005, 127– 155. I thank Kirk Essary for that reference and for his reading and comment.

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 176–192 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:11:49PM via free access 192 engammare comes from Erasmus, whom he mentioned with Robert Estienne and the Alcala polyglot. Beza also quoted the Greek manuscript Britanicus, but he fairly spec- ified that seven old manuscripts did not contain the Comma. However, it is completely necessary to keep it. In the 1550s Calvin without Erasmus and Beza with Erasmus considered that “the passage flows better when this clause is added,” and they were inclined to receive it as the true reading. In all Genevan editions of the Bible in the 1550s, the Comma is present with no mention of its absence from the main Greek manuscripts. In his first com- plete French Bible of 1553, Robert Estienne gave the Comma in 1John 5, 7: “Car il y en a trois qui donnent tesmoignage au ciel: le Pere, la Parolle, et le sainct Esprit, et ces trois font un.” The 1588 very important Genevan Professors and Pastors Bible gave the Comma with no further marginal note. Waiting for Cap- pel, Grotius or Richard Simon who raised the issue in the seventeenth century, we must note that the Dominican Sixtus of Sienna with many Roman Catholic Theologians, in his 1566 Bibliotheca sancta, considered that refusing the Trini- tarian addition is a heresy whose adherents are Anabaptists and followers of Servetus. Sixtus quoted Jerome and patristic witnesses and above all Erasmus himself who “recognizes in his Annotationes that the Trinitarian words are in the oldest manuscripts (in pervetustis Græcis exemplaribus) from Great Britain, Spain and Rhodes.”60The philological argument leads to a distortion, and deny- ing the Trinitarian addition in the oldest Greek manuscripts is simply heresy. Since Erasmus himself recognized the historical authenticity of the Trinitarian incise in the fifth chapter of 1John, the Johannic incident is over for Domini- cans, Jesuits, and Calvinists alike.

60 “Et ipsemet Erasmus in Annotationibus suis fateatur, hæc eadem verba, haberi in pervetustis Græcis exemplaribus Britanniæ, Hispaniæ ac Rhodi.” Cf. Bibliotheca sancta, Liber vii, Hæresis ix, Dissolutio objectorum 7, Paris, Rolin Thierry, 1610 (1st edition in 1566), 599.

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/23/2021 (2017) 176–192 02:11:49PM via free access