The Argumentum As Paratext Editorial Strategies in the Novum Testamentum

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 161–175

brill.com/eras

The Argumentum as Paratext Editorial Strategies in the Novum Testamentum

Riemer A. Faber University of Waterloo [email protected]

Abstract

In the 1519 edition of the Novum Testamentum Erasmus replaced the traditional Mar- cionite Argumenta which prefaced each of the Pauline Epistles in the Novum Instru- mentum of 1516 with newly composed Argumenta of his own. This article explores the function of these prefaces within the broader context of Erasmus’ program of biblical scholarship. Broaching the topics of authorship, literary style, theological con- tent, and devotional application which are more fully worked out in the Annotations, Paraphrases, and Ratio verae theologiae, the Argumenta express in miniature Erasmus’ objectives as an editor of the Bible.

Keywords paratexts – Novum Testamentum – history of the Bible – Erasmian prefaces

Introduction

As a leading figure in the growing Republic of Letters, Erasmus of Rotterdam understood the power of the printed word.1 In 1516, when the fifty-year-old Dutchman already had established his reputation as prince of the humanists with the wildly popular Enchiridion, the Adages and other works, Erasmus produced an even greater monument to the culture of the book when the

1 An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual conference of the Sixteenth Cen- tury Society, in Bruges (2016). Special thanks to Ms C. Griep, co-ordinator of the Erasmuszaal in the Rotterdam Public Library, for providing the accompanying illustrations.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/18749275-03702003Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:56:40AM via free access 162 faber printing press of Johann Froben in Basel issued the Novum Instrumentum in March of that year. An elegant diglot consisting of a clear Greek font and a new Latin translation on each facing page, the New Testament represented a tour de force of humanist and biblical scholarship. As the first printed edition of the New Testament in its original Greek language, this folio volume was destined to enjoy numerous reprintings. The 1516 edition contains several paratexts which surround and so protect the central biblion. These supporting materials include a dedication to Pope Leo x; a Praefatio; an exhortation to the reader called Paraclesis; an Apol- ogy, which explains Erasmus’ objectives in producing the Greek and Latin translation; the Methodus, an introduction to his hermeneutics that was later expanded into the Ratio verae theologiae; and the Annotations, or brief endnotes. There are also several lesser, generally neglected paratexts, such as the Greek-language introductory summaries called hypotheseis;2 the traditional Latin summaries called argumenta;3 and the very brief subscriptions at the end of each Pauline epistle indicating the place of composition.4 Erasmus was keenly aware that the paratexts would serve to protect both the Greek text of the New Testament and his Latin translation of it. For example, in the preface to the Annotations which in the 1516 edition came after the text of the New Testament, he writes: “I added these pointers … in hopes of preserving my work intact, that it might not be so easy in future for anyone to spoil a second time what had once been restored”.5 On the other hand, when the printing press of Dirk Martens published a separate issue of the Novum

2 Erasmus adopted the unattributed, Greek-language hypotheseis that were part of the manuscript tradition of the Greek New Testament. The hypotheseis prefixed to each of Paul’s epistles (and the very short subscriptions which follow nine of them) were taken from Codex 2817 (Basel). Another set of hypotheseis which accompanied the epistles of James and Jude, and the letter to the Romans, derived from Codex 2815 (thus Brown asd vi-3:6). In editions after 1516 each of Paul’s letters to the Colossians, 1 and 2Timothy, and Hebrews were followed by subscriptions taken from other sources. For further information, especially on Erasmus’ extensive use of Codex 2817, see Brown asd vi-3:4–6. 3 The edition of 1527 added to the Pauline Epistles a Greek prologue written by John Chrysos- tom. 4 For a survey of the paratexts of the 1516 edition, and their histories, see Martin Wallraff, “Para- texte der Bibel. Was Erasmus edierte ausser dem Neuen Testament,” in Basel 1516: Erasmus’ Edition of the New Testament, ed. Martin Wallraff, Silvana Seidel Menchi, Kaspar von Greyerz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 145–173. 5 Ep. 373 cwe lines 49–54. Thus also Erika Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testa- ment (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 25: “The Annotations had the function of safeguarding his emendations.”

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 161–175 05:56:40AM via free access the argumentum as paratext 163

Testamentum without the accompanying Annotations, Erasmus conveyed his disapproval. His work, he said, had been “cast naked and defenceless to the tender mercies of its detractors”.6 For Erasmus, the paratexts served to ensure the stability of the Greek and Latin texts: from the official papal imprimatur on the first page to the explanatory endnotes and even the final printer’s ensign to remind the reader of the highly reputed press, all the complementary materials safeguarded the main document.7

The Argumenta in the Novum Instrumentum

In the 1516 Novum Instrumentum Erasmus had printed before each Letter of Paul the brief anonymous prefaces called Argumenta which had been trans- mitted with the Vulgate for centuries. Effecting a sense of familiarity to the contemporary reader, these summaries served to situate the new edition within the tradition of the Bible-book.8 As a literary genre, the argumenta originated in ancient Greek textual practices, most notably in three types of classical prefaces: 1) the hypotheseis of Attic tragedies, which treated matters of authenticity, provenance, textual accuracy, and subject-matter; 2) the didaskaliai, official lists of dramatic and choral performances, including the titles, dates, prizes won, and the names of the authors, actors, sponsors and occasion; and 3) the bioi, or brief biographies of the authors of the texts.9 More immediate precursors to the Argumenta presented in the 1516 Novum Instrumentum are the brief introductions found in several Latin manuscripts which predate what is probably the earliest manuscript of the Vulgate, the

6 Ep. 1010 cwe line 5; Allen line 3. 7 Hilmar Pabel has demonstrated that also for his editions of Jerome—the first of which was published in the same year as the Novum Instrumentum—Erasmus carefully manipulated the paratexts in order to enhance his theological credentials. See Hilmar Pabel, “Credit, Paratexts, and Editorial Strategies in Erasmus of Rotterdam’s Editions of Jerome,” in Cognition and the Book: Typologies of Formal Organization of Knowledge in the Printed Book of the Early Modern Period, eds. Karl A.E. Enenkel and Wolfgang Neuber (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 217–256. 8 Predecessors like Nicolas de Lyra in his Postilla also had printed such summaries. 9 The hypotheseis were associated especially with the Hellenistic textual critic and grammarian, Aristophanes of Byzantium; as prefatory additions they articulated the editor’s interpretive concerns and guided the reader into the subsequent text. For a depiction of the early biblical hypotheseis, argumenta and bioi see Eric W. Scher- benske, Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 15–65.

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 161–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:56:40AM via free access 164 faber

Codex Fuldensis.10 These short summaries to Paul’s letters date to the second century ad, and commonly are associated with Marcion of Sinope, who was instrumental in the formation of the New Testament canon. These early, Marcionite introductions reveal contents which would remain unchanged for centuries, until the Novum Testamentum of 1519. The prefaces state the geographical location of the recipients of the Pauline epistle, the church’s reception of the gospel, and the place where Paul wrote the letter. To give the reader an impression of their contents the Marcionite introduction to the Epistle to the Galatians will suffice: “Galatians are Greeks. They accepted the word of truth first from the apostle, but after his departure were tempted by false apostles that they might turn back to the law and circumcision. The apostle calls them back to the true faith writing to them from Ephesus.”11 Deceptively simple in appearance, these prologues contain fundamental rubrics through which Marcion interpreted Paul, and touch on such themes as separation of Law and Gospel and the censure of pseudo-apostles as perverters of the truth; on occasion they also provide the grounds for Marcion’s emendations to the text.12 After the Novum Instrumentum appeared in print in 1516 Erasmus, too, would employ the Argumenta to codify his own approach to the Greek text and the Latin translation.

The Evolution of Erasmus’ Argumenta between 1516 and 1519

Immediately following the publication of the Novum Instrumentum conservative critics responded to Erasmus and his program of reforming the Bible.13 In late 1517, the English cleric Edward Lee (c 1482–1544) raised questions about

10 See Sherbenske, CanonizingPaul, 85–86.The Marcionite argumenta to the Pauline epistles appear on 87–89 (English translation) and 282–283 (Latin original). For critical editions of the argumenta and other material prefatory to Paul’s letters in Latin see John Wordsworth, Henry J. White, eds., Novum Testamentum Latine, Editio Maior: Pars Secunda-Epistulae Paulinae (Oxford: Clarendon, 1941), 1–42, and Hermann Josef Frede, ed., Epistulae ad Thessalonicenses, Timotheum, Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos; Pars i et ii.(vl 25; Freiburg: Herder, 1975–1991), 99–131. For the prefaces and argumenta in the manuscripts of the Vulgate see M. Samuel Berger, Les Prefaces jointes aux livres de la bible dans les manuscrits de la Vulgate (Paris: Klincksieck, 1902). 11 Text and translation taken from Sherbenske, Canonizing Paul, 87. 12 Thus Sherbenske, Canonizing Paul, 10. 13 On the early reception of the Novum Instrumentum and the resultant polemics see, most recently, Henk Nellen and Jan Bloemendal, “Erasmus’s Biblical Project,” Church History and Religious Culture 96 (2016) 595–635, there 602–609.

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 161–175 05:56:40AM via free access the argumentum as paratext 165

Erasmus’ modifications to the Greek text of the New Testament, and he sent his own, unpublished notes to Erasmus. When it became clear to Lee that Erasmus had no intention of incorporating the suggested alterations in the second edition, he went public.14 Erasmus responded immediately and sharply, and from the ensuing controversy neither man would emerge entirely above reproach.15 Meanwhile Jacobus Latomus (1475–1544), an orthodox theologian at the University of Louvain, focused his attack upon the Methodus, the prefatory exposition of Erasmus’ hermeneutical approach to the Scriptures. Latomus defended the Scholastic method over against Erasmus’ grammatical-historical one.16 And another controversy, this time concerning the exegesis of Hebrews 2:7 in particular, arose between Erasmus and his one-time friend, the French biblical humanist, Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples (c 1455–1536). What these three conflicts share in common is their focus upon the meaning and interpretation of the Bible text. When seen in the context of the scholarly tensions which attended the publication of the Novum Instrumentum, the Argumenta which Erasmus himself composed for the edition of 1519 assume greater signficance. In fact, the immediate and repeated publication of the Argumenta in various forms, and accompanying different texts, attests to the integral role they play in Erasmus’ strategy of self-defence and rebuttal. As early as 1517 Erasmus published a lengthy Argu- mentum to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans as introduction to the Paraphrase of Romans (cwe 42:6–14).17 In the fall of 1518 he authored a complete set of such introductions for the other Pauline epistles, and in October of that year he sent it to Johann Froben with the other materials for the Novum Testamentum.18 A

14 It was published as Annotationum libri duo (February 1520). 15 Erasmus replied initially with ApologiaquarespondetduabusinvectivisEduardiLei (March 1520), and later with Responsio ad annotationes Lei (April 1520), asd ix-4:21–70 and 73– 335 respectively. For an account of the controversy and an introduction to the printed exchanges between Lee and Erasmus see Erika Rummel, Erasmus and his Catholic Critics (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1989), 95–120; see also her introduction to these texts in asd ix-4:1–19, and Cecilia Asso, “Martin Dorp and Edward Lee,” in Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, ed. Erika Rummel (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 167–195. 16 Latomus’ De trium linguarum et studii theologici ratione appeared in 1518. On Erasmus’ conflict with Latomus see Jerry H. Bentley, “New Testament Scholarship in Louvain in the Early Sixteenth Century,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 2 (1979): 53–79, esp. 60–63. 17 On the history of publishing the Argumenta see the Translators’ Note in cwe 43:xvi. 18 It is possible that Erasmus was prompted to write new introductions for all the Pauline epistles by his friend Cuthbert Tunstall, who assisted him in preparing the second edition (Ep. 886 cwe lines 18–20; cf. Ep. 894). Erasmus’ view of the traditional Latin argumenta

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 161–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:56:40AM via free access 166 faber month later he sent a copy of the set to Dirk Martens in Louvain for separate publication: they appeared as Argumentainomneisepistolasapostolicasnova.19 Yet another set of Argumenta was published together with the Ratio verae The- ologiae (Martens, 1518) and with the Paraclesis in 1519 at the press of Loetter in Leipzig.20 And in 1521 a volume of the collected Paraphrases appeared which included Argumenta for all the Pauline epistles. Whereas the introductions initially were intended to be read together with the other materials supporting the new edition of the New Testament, since 1521 it has been customary to publish the Argumenta together with the Paraphrases. It should be noted that Erasmus’ edition of the New Testament was sup- ported also by other, seemingly minor, paratexts. One is the so-called Capita, with the tellingly polemical title, “summary arguments against certain con- tentious and boorish people”;21 the other is the list entitled Solecisms, which deconstructs the Vulgate according to the following critical categories: solecisms, obscure passages, obviously corrupt texts, statements of defence and explanation, interpolated materials, errors in translation, and alterations of the

is revealed in the dedicatory preface for Argumenta in omneis epistolas apostolicas nova (Louvain 1518), addressed to Nicolas de Malaise: “… [the Argumenta] of uncertain authorship which circulate in some manuscripts in Latin are thin and barren” (Ep. 894 cwe lines 45–46). 19 The latter set was also the archetype for the text in the Paraphrases, although not all Paraphrases were preceded by argumenta. On the publication history of the Paraphrases see Roger Mynors, “The Publication of the Latin Paraphrases,” cwe 42:xxxx–ix and John J. Bateman, “The Textual Travail of the Tomus secundus of the Paraphrases,” in Holy Scrip- ture Speaks. The Production and Reception of Erasmus’ Paraphrases on the New Testament, eds. Hilmar M. Pabel and Mark Vessey (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 213– 263. 20 Percey Stafford Allen (Allen Ep. 384, Introduction), followed by John Bateman (asd vii- 6:173), has suggested that Erasmus originally wrote these prologues between 1506 and 1519 when he was also composing a version of the New Testament alongside the Vulgate in parallel columns. At any rate it is clear that Erasmus’ interest in composing his own introductions waned as the New Testament project reached its conclusion. Several of the latter books are prefaced by very brief Argumenta, and not all of them give an accurate impression of their contents. On this see John Bateman’s comments on the Argumenta to Hebrews (asd vii-6:27), the First Epistle of Peter (asd vii-6:167–169), and the First Epistle of John (asd vii-6:245). 21 The main headings of the Capita are: proper Latin; weaknesses in the argument of Vul- gate’s inspiration including papal authority; the role of the patres; text-critical problems, etc. See further Jan Krans, “Deconstructing the Vulgate: Erasmus’ Philological Work in the Capita and Soloecismi,” in Basel 1516, 187–206 and Erika Rummel, “God and Solecism: Eras- mus as a Literary Critic of the Bible,”ersy 7 (1987) 54–72.

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 161–175 05:56:40AM via free access the argumentum as paratext 167 rendering.22 Together with the Capita, these elenchi, or refutations, formed a polemical response to Erasmus’ critics. The point here is that while the tone of these two paratexts is antithetical, the Argumenta present Erasmus’ designs in his Novum Testamentum thetically. And how important the Argumenta are to Erasmus is made clear on the title page of the 1519 edition, where the papal priv- ilegium of 1516 is replaced by the statement, in Latin: “To each of the Letters of the Apostles have been added Argumenta written by Erasmus of Rotterdam”— his name appearing in capital letters (see Figure 1). Moreover, before the Greek text and Latin translation of each Pauline epistle in the edition of 1519 the appropriate Argumentum—again explicitly “per Erasmum”—receives a promi- nent position, as seen, for example, at the start of the Epistle to the Thessalo- nians (see Figure 2).

Editorial Strategies in the Argumenta

Erasmus employs the tradition of biblical argumenta in order to execute for each Pauline Epistle his own editorial strategy of biblical scholarship. Provid- ing more than introductory factual information, the Erasmian argumenta are intended to be read as interpretive keys to the subsequent text. To be sure, in them Erasmus does engage topics conventional to the genre, such as provenance, authorship and intended first readers, but he also raises matters which promote the distinctly Erasmian hermeneutic. Their aim is to anticipate the changes made to the Greek text or Latin translation; to clarify long-standing obscurities and difficulties in the language; to identify matters of theological import; and to illustrate Erasmus’ humanist, grammatical-historical approach, including features of style and rhetoric. In short, the Argumenta are integral to the entire program of ecclessiastical and biblical reform. Erasmus places the newly-composed Argumenta within the tradition of biblical prefaces by beginning each one with a statement of the provenance of Paul’s letter. In so doing, however, he does not hesitate to expose the incon- sistencies which arise from a comparison of the conventional paratexts. In his

22 In Latin: 1. Soloecismi per interpetem admissi manifestarii et inexcusabiles, e plurimis pauci decerpti; 2. Loca obscura et in quibus lapsi sint magni nominis interpretes, ex innumeris paucadecerpta; 3. Locamanifestadepravata,sedexinfinitis,etoccurrebant,paucadecerpta; 4. Ad placandos eos, qui putant in sacris libris nihil neque superesse, neque deesse, quaedam excerpsimus; 5. Quae sint addita in nostris exemplaribus; 6. Quae per interpretem commissa; 7. Ubi interpres ausus sit aliquid immutare.

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 161–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:56:40AM via free access 168 faber

figure 1 Title page of the 1519 Novum Instrumentum, bearing the announcement of Argumenta newly composed by Erasmus courtesy rotterdam public library

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 161–175 05:56:40AM via free access the argumentum as paratext 169

figure 2 The Argumentum for Paul’s First Epistle to the Thessalonians courtesy rotterdam public library

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 161–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:56:40AM via free access 170 faber prologue to 2Corinthians, for example, Erasmus makes the observation that the “Greek subscriptions [Latin: inscriptiones] testify that this Epistle was sent from Philippi … But the Arguments … that are contained in the Latin codices affirm that it was sent from Troas …”23 Erasmus makes a similar point in the Argumen- tum for the Epistle to the Colossians when he states that the letter was sent from Ephesus and not Rome, as the Greek subscriptions have it.24 At the beginning of this Argumentum Erasmus moreover notes that Colossae is near Laodicea in Asia Minor, not on the island of Rhodes as was held by some.25 These points are linked to and explained in the first annotation on this letter, where Eras- mus discusses the evidence for the geographical location of Colossae.26 Fre- quently broaching topics that are more fully discussed in the Annotations, the Argumenta thus collaborate with the Annotations in promoting Erasmus’ program of biblical reform. This function of the Annotations in expanding upon the Argumenta is evidenced also in Erasmus’ commentary on the Epistle to Philemon, where the reader is informed in greater detail about the ethnic back- ground of the addressee of the letter, in an annotation on Philemon 19 that was added in the edition of 1519.27 Erasmus’ treatment of provenance even takes on markedly reformational force when he states in the Argumenta accompanying the 1521 edition of the Paraphrases that the First letter of Peter was sent from Babylon and not Rome. He writes: “The present letter appears to have been written from Babylon, for Peter sends them greetings in the name of the church there—assuming that someone does not wish to accept this name as a fiction for Rome.”28 By means of this observation Erasmus undermines one of the proof-texts for associating Peter with Rome and, by extension, with the primacy of the pope. Destabilizing the authority of tradition by identifying the contradictions in it justified Erasmus’ agenda of clarifying biblical texts that had been obscured by centuries of uncritical acceptance.

23 cwe 43:203. On the nature of the Greek subscriptions see Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 3rd edition (London: United Bible Societies 1971), 658–659. 24 cwe 43:395–396. 25 cwe 43:394. 26 As Mechtilde O’Mara observes (cwe 43:394 n. 1), Erasmus employs the annotation also to correct a mistake in the popular Latin dictionary of the Spanish scholar Ambrogio Calopino, which erroneously identified the Colossians with the Rhodians. 27 asd vi-10:224 line 100–226 line 106. 28 cwe 44:80. The final phrase, “assuming that someone does not wish to accept this name as a fiction for Rome”, was an addition made in the 1521 edition of the Argumenta. On this and other changes between 1519 and 1521 see John Bateman, asd vii-6:167.

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 161–175 05:56:40AM via free access the argumentum as paratext 171

Another development upon the traditional argumenta is Erasmus’ application of the humanist’s tools of grammar and style in determining the identity of the author of a Bible book. In the case of the First Epistle of John, Eras- mus identifies the writer with the author of the synoptic gospel on the basis of shared imagery of light and darkness, of the key topics of life and death, hate and love, and of rhetorical repetition.29 Erasmus identifies the author with the apostle also on the grounds that his command of the Greek language “lacks concision and is more diffuse” in comparison with that of the other apostles— a comment which undoubtedly rankled conservative readers of Scripture who were uncomfortable with criticism of the inspired authors.30 As will be shown below, drawing conclusions from observations of grammar and style was certain to evoke strong reaction. This is true especially for Erasmus’ discussion of the shortcomings and lack of clarity in Paul’s style of writing in the epistle to the Romans. Towards the end of the lengthy Argumentum to that book Erasmus— again adumbrating a detailed discussion in his Annotations—observes that Paul’s inexperience in the Greek language resulted in obscure expressions and strained grammatical usage: “… nowhere else [than in the Epistle to the Romans] is the order of speech more confused; nowhere is the speech more split by the transposition of words; nowhere is the speech more incomplete through absence of an apodosis …”.31 It is the primary task of the exegete, on the other hand, to identify and then “to remove the difficulties” that arise from the obscure expressions. With this feature the Argumenta form appropriate introductions also to the Paraphrases, in which Erasmus offers moral and devotional reflections based on the Pauline epistles. Whereas the traditional argumenta restrict their observations to the first intended readers, Erasmus’ prologues explicitly announce their immediate rel- evance to contemporary readers, thus universalizing their scope. Especially the moral and devotional value of the Pauline epistles is noted in the Argumenta. Paul’s final instructions to the Hebrews, Erasmus notes in the prologue to that letter, “offer precepts which are conducive to the development of a Christian character”.32 In the Argument to the Second Epistle of Peter Erasmus states that the addressees are not, as some would have it, Jewish Christians of the dispersion in Galatia, but rather “all christians without distinction”; and Peter’s

29 cwe 44:173: “The very character of the language is proof that this Epistle is by John the Apostle, the author of the Gospel.” Cf. the Annotation on 3John 9 (asd vi-10:564 line 22– 32). 30 cwe 44:173. 31 cwe 42:12. 32 cwe 44:241.

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 161–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:56:40AM via free access 172 faber warnings against false teachers apply to all “those who would corrupt the minds of simple people with their perverse teachings”.33The topic of pseudo-apostles that is frequently noted in Erasmus’ prefaces often has contemporary rele- vance: Erasmus compares the false teachers who pride themselves in foisting new customs upon the unsuspecting Galatians with church-leaders “today who devise rites which are new and strangely bizarre.”34 And as for the proper con- duct of his fellow Christians towards rulers who are unsympathetic to the faith, Erasmus borrows a point from the Epistle to Titus to note that the Christian faith does not permit resistance; rather, “Christians must patiently tolerate them in the hope that some day, perhaps, they too, if God wills it, might come to their senses and repent.”35

Some Reactions to Erasmus’ Argumenta

The function of Erasmus’ paratextual prologues in prejudicing the reader’s approach to Scripture was not lost on his contemporaries, several of whom criticised his Argumenta explicitly. For example, Noël Béda (c 1470–1547) took offence with a passage in the Argumentum of the Paraphrase on Romans (1517) in which Erasmus intimates that James approved of Christian Jews who continued to observe the Law.36 Béda objected also to Erasmus’ apparently vacillating statement, at the end of the Argumentum to the First Epistle of John, that the second and third letters “are attributed not to John the apostle but to a certain John the Elder.”37 In subsequent editions of the Annotations (especially the commentary on 3John 9), Erasmus would cite Jerome and Eusebius as authorities for this attribution.38 On the side of the Reformation it was especially Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon who took umbrage at Erasmus’ prologues, and that for their perceived humanist and skeptical flavour. In 1533, upon reading the Argumentum to Romans (probably from the 1527 edition) Luther exclaimed: “Erasmus’ Pref- ace on the Epistle to the Romans pierces the believer’s body and soul!”39 During

33 cwe 44:110. 34 cwe 42:96. 35 cwe 44:56. 36 cwe 42:8. See further the note by Pieter Hovingh in asd vi-6:311 (on Acts 21:24). 37 cwe 44:173; asd vii-6:256. 38 On this see also the note by John Bateman in asd vii-6:256. 39 Martin Luthers Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe (wa) Tischreden, vol. 1, 500: “Praefatio Erasmi in Epistolam ad Romanos geht eim christen durch leyb und leben.”

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 161–175 05:56:40AM via free access the argumentum as paratext 173 a brief illness in 1534 Luther again read through Erasmus’ introduction to the NewTestament, as well as all the Argumenta.40 Luther then concluded from his reading of the Argumentum to Romans that the image of Paul which Erasmus paints is “so confused, intricate, self-contradictory, changeable, and uncouth” that it deters the simple and unsuspecting reader from reading and becom- ing acquainted with the apostle.41 Erasmus responded to Luther in his Purga- tio (1534), which would form the parting shot in their controversies.42 There Erasmus recalls that “… in that Introduction, having discoursed at length on the usefulness of the Epistle … I also pointed out this difficulty [of rhetorical devices used by Paul], partly to stimulate the reader’s attentiveness, and partly to demonstrate that this Introduction … cost me no little labour.”43 Eras- mus chides Luther for thinking that “there are no difficulties in Scripture, but that everything is lucid and obvious.”44This debate over Erasmus’ statements in the Argumentum illustrates an important difference in hermeneutics between Luther and Erasmus regarding the clarity and singular meaning of Scripture.45

40 For an evaluation of Luther’s marginal comments in his copy of the Novum Instrumentum (1527) see ArnoudVisser, “Erasmus, Luther, and the Margins of Biblical Misunderstanding,” in For the Sake of Learning. Essays in Honor of Anthony Grafton, Vol. 1, eds. Anne Blair and Anja-Silvia Goeing (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 232–250. 41 Martin Luthers Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe (wa) Briefwechsel vol. 7, letter 2093, lines 117– 122: “… in praefatione ad Romanos, ubi Paulum sic laudat et extollit, ut nulla rethorica simplex et imprudens lector queat potentius avocari et retundi a legendo et discendo Paulo, adeo confusum, impeditum, pugnantem sibi, varium, horridum pingit, ut eam Epistolam credere cogat esse alicuius hominis furiosi, tantum abest, ut utilis esse videatur.” Luther also objected to Erasmus’ statement in his Argumentum to Romans that Peter calls Christ a man, but avoids the word God, thus implicitly denying the divinity of Christ: “quod Petrus Christum appellet virum, Deum taceat” (wa Br 7 2093:123–124). Erasmus defends himself at length in the Purgatio cwe 78:427–431 (asd ix-1:454–457). 42 The Latin text of the Purgatio is presented in asd ix-1:441–483, the English in cwe 78:412– 464. For a survey of the relations between Erasmus and Luther see the introductory notes to the Purgatio by James Tracy in cwe 78:396–411 and by Cornelis Augustijn in asd ix- 1:429–440. 43 cwe 78:426; asd ix-1:454. 44 cwe 78:427. 45 In Purgatio Erasmus responds also to Luther’s criticism of his apparently derogatory evaluation of John’s style of writing: “In the Argumentum asserting that the First Epistle of John was the genuine product of John, from its characteristic style of speech (because he repeatedly uses certain particular words like ‘world,’ ‘light,’ ‘love,’ etc; and also because he arranges the elements of his discourse so that he takes the beginning of the next phrase from that immediately preceding it), I cite the example: ‘Do not love the world, or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world’ etc. and I add, ‘How many worlds there

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 161–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:56:40AM via free access 174 faber

The Argumenta factored into the exegetical differences also between Eras- mus and Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560), who in 1520 took issue with Erasmus’ handling of a traditional feature of the argumentum, namely the determination of the main subject-matter of a Bible-book.46 In his Argumentum to the Epis- tle to the Colossians, Erasmus stated that Paul sought in this letter to reprove the Colossians for their adherence to certain ordinances of the Old Testament law.47 In his Scholia on this letter of Paul, Melanchthon argues that the epistle concerns “not just the abolition of the Mosaic Law and ceremonies” but also and especially the doctrine of justification by faith rather than by works. Pro- moting his own methodology of rhetoric, Melanchthon states that Erasmus misunderstood the very purpose of the Argumentum: “As it is customary in other writings to set up at the beginning what the argumentum of a work is, so in the Pauline epistles the reader must first be told what is being talked about, what is the status of their letter, in which, as the Greeks say, is the hupokeimenon (underlying subject), so that the reader may know what might be asked and what might be expected.”48 Erasmus, in his view, has missed the main evan- gelical point of the letter, which should have been noted in the prologue. This case illustrates that the difference between Erasmus and Melanchthon in reading Scripture goes beyond one of literary criticism versus rhetorical analysis to include theological import, for which Melanchthon advances the Wittenberg interpretation of Gospel message in the Letter to the Colossians.

Conclusion

Between the appearance of the Novum Instrumentum in 1516 and the publication of the New Testament in 1519 Erasmus sought to exploit to the full the

are here!’.” (asd ix-1:474; cwe 78:452). He continues by noting that “on a friend’s advice I changed the wording … to ‘how often the word “world” is repeated’.” 46 Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl [Studienausgabe], ed. Robert Stupperich, vol. 4, Frühe exegetische Schriften, ed. Peter Barton (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1963) 211. For the material presented in this paragraph I am indebted to Timothy J. Wengert, Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness. Philip Melanchthon’s Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotter- dam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 52–56. 47 cwe 43:394–395: the false apostles were “mixing Judaism and the superstition of philos- ophy in with the teaching of Christ, adhering to certain ordinances of the Law …” 48 “Sicut in aliis scriptis principio constitui solet, quod sit argumentum operis, ita in Paulinis epistulis primum monendus est lector, qua de re dicatur, qui sit cuiusque epistulae status, quod, ut Graeci dicunt ὑποκείμενον, ut, quid petere et exspectare ex toto scripto debeat, sciat” (msw 4:211, lines 9–13).

ErasmusDownloaded Studies from 37 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2017) 161–175 05:56:40AM via free access the argumentum as paratext 175 architecture of the Bible book. For him, the paratexts formed not merely the threshhold which structures and prepares the reader’s approach to the subsequent text, but they directly participate in and advance the strategies that are executed in the main documents. Perceived by his opponents as part of Eras- mus’ larger program, the Argumenta were, on occasion, subject to attacks from various quarters. To Erasmus the editor, these texts were not liminal but fundamental to the edifice he was constructing, namely, an entire project of Biblical scholarship. At different times published in conjunction with the Ratio Verae Theologiae, the Paraphrases, the Annotations and the edition of the Bible itself, the introductory materials served as building blocks of Erasmus’ reconstruc- tion of the New Testament. Developing the generic features of provenance, authorship and subject-matter, Erasmus infused his Argumenta with literary- critical, grammatical, moral and devotional elements as a means of justifying the Latin translation, of corroborating the Annotations, and of setting the tone for the Paraphrases. It may be concluded, then, that these apparently innocu- ous prologues performed an important role in Erasmus’ program of scholarship.

Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 161–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:56:40AM via free access