124 Reviews / ERSY 29 (2009) 103–143 Jan Krans, Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament. New Testament Tools and Studies 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2006). viii, 384 pp. ISBN 978-90-04-15286-1. Jan Krans’ book is a reworking of his 2004 doctoral thesis, completed under the supervision of Professor Martin de Boer at the Faculty of Theology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. A specialist in New Testament exegesis, Krans offers a careful study of how Erasmus and Theodore Beza worked to produce their critical editions of the sacred text. Of great importance for Krans’ study is an analysis of the textual conjectures in their exegesis of the New Testament. The appeal of this approach, of interest not only to biblical scholars but also to those studying humanism, is that it illuminates Erasmus’ and Beza’s methodologies. Above all, Krans is interested in the grounds on which these scholars chose their proposed readings. Indeed, looking beyond the received text and the conjectures, too often studied in and for themselves, Krans seeks to study the hermeneutical foundations of the texts and the conditions under which they were produced. The choice of Erasmus and Beza are natural ones, as both are foundational to modern editions of the New Testament. Consequently, Krans is not only interested in their treatment of the Greek text but in the entirety of their biblical work. As the author underlines in the introduction and epilogue, “judgement of conjectures should be preceded by knowledge of their authors” (333). The first section (7–191) is dedicated to the work of Erasmus. Here Krans analyses Erasmus’ various editions of the Greek and Latin text as well as his Annotations. Erasmus’ work as an editor has been much studied, and there are many analyses of his treatment of Scripture. It seems to me, however, that Krans offers a new perspective thanks to the careful examination of Erasmus’ method. Krans makes this contribution by examining not only Erasmus’ Latin translation of sacred text, but also—and perhaps most importantly—by examining Erasmus’ Annotations, where his editorial choices are most clearly explained. The attentive study of these texts allows Krans to offer a precise description of the Erasmian method, which he does in the form of a “Decision Chart” (25) used to illustrate the choices Erasmus needed to make as he completed his Novum Instrumentum (1516)andhisNovum Testamentum (1519, 1522, 1527, 1535). Beginning with a comparison (collatio) of the Vulgate text with the Greek texts at his disposal, Erasmus evaluated any differences and assessed their origin: were differences the result of an error in translation or a problem of transmission? Where Erasmus believed the first to be the case, he consulted the © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/027628509X12548457758221 Reviews / ERSY 29 (2009) 103–143 125 Vulgate to assess whether the translation was acceptable. Where he believed the second to be likely, he considered the transmission of the text. If there was no textual corruption in the Vulgate tradition or in the Greek text (emendatio codicum ope), then, and only then, did Erasmus resort to conjecture (emendatio ingenii ope) by seeking the source of the error either in the Greek hypotext on which the Vulgate was based or in the transmission of the Latin or Greek text. We know that Erasmus’ problem was that he compared essentially Byzantine Greek manuscripts with the Vulgate derived from earlier Greek texts: “Erasmus was in fact comparing incompatible witnesses” (H.J. de Jonge, “Novum Testamentum a nobis versum: The Essence of Erasmus’ Edition of the New Testament,” JTS 35 [1984]: 397n10,quotedinKrans,15). Besides this structural weakness, however, Krans helps us to understand why Erasmus’ Greek text still remains the basis of modern critical editions despite the fact that many of these acknowledged problems have yet to be resolved. Once the question of Erasmus’ relation to the Greek text of the New Testament has been clearly posed, Krans returns to an analysis of Erasmian method and critical approach. At a time when the “canons” of textual criticism had yet to be drawn up, “practice through intuition or common sense preceded theory” (29). By examining specific cases discussed by Erasmus, including the choices he made, Krans is able to deduce the rules used by the humanist scholar. Here Krans mobilizes all of the Erasmian sources, including letters, prefaces, annotations and polemical arguments. In this way, Krans is able to locate and analyse the criteria used by Erasmus, including the distinction between involuntary mistakes and deliberate corrections and the principle of the lectio difficilior. Chapter 3 returns to the role that the Vulgate played in Erasmus’ editorial decisions and to his preference for rétroversion from Latin to Greek. Here Krans analyses two emblematic passages, Rev. 22: 16–21 and Acts 9: 5,andis able to re-evaluate the criticism that Erasmus too often resorted to conjecture. Questioning the judgments of some modern critics who charge Erasmus with anachronism, Krans distinguishes between the Renaissance scholar’s mechanical corrections and his conjectures (65). Notably, Krans stresses that the work of Erasmus’ own editors over time has hampered his readers in their efforts to evaluate his achievements in this field. Chapter 4 expands upon the question of the importance of the text of the Vulgate and of the “conjectures” that it permits. Since these conjectural readings are not found in the original Greek, they can indeed be attributed to Erasmus. At the same time, they draw attention to the special status of the text as sacred. Chapter 5 analyses specific conjectures proposed by the humanist, providing much of.