erasmus comma johanneum

8/10/2019 Erasmus Comma Johanneum

1/11

E R A S M U S A N D T H E

COMMA JOHANNEUM

PAR

J DE JONGE

Extrait desEphemerides

Theologicae

Lovanienses,

1980,

t. 56,

fasc.

4, pp. 381-389


2/11


3/11

E R A S M U S

A N D T H E

C O M M A J O H A N N E U M

The

h i s t o ry of thc

s l u d y

o f

the New Tes tament is

far f i om be ing a

sub jec t

o f w ide p o p u l a i

in te ies t ,

even a m o n g N ew Tes tament scho l a i s themse lves

1

Y et there

is onc ep i sodc in this

h i s t o i y whi ch

is s u i p r i s i n g l y wel l k n o w n

a m o n g

bo th theo log ians and non - theo log ians I refei to the h is to ry o f the Comma

JohaniKum

( l J oh n 5 , 7b-8a)

in

the edit ions of the New Testament

edited

b y

E i a s m u s I I is gene ra l ly known tha t E ra smus omi t ted this passage f i o m his

f i rs t

ed i t ion

o f 1516 and

h is second

o f 1519 , and

o n l y re s to ied

it in In s

thi rd edit ion of 1522 Thc c u n e n t

ve i s ion

of the story

is s

f o l l o w s E i a s m u s

is

supposed to havereplied to the

cnticism

which was

directed

against him

because

o f

his omiss ion ,

b y p r o p o s m g to m c l u d e i t

if

a single

G i e e k m a n u s c n p t

c o u l d

b e

b i o u g h t f o r w a r d s evidence When such

a

m a n u s c n p t

w as

p roduced ,

he is said to

havc kep t In s word , even though f rom

the

ou tse t

he was

su sp i c iou s

t h a t the m a n u s c n p t had been

w n t t e n in

ordei to ob l i ge

him

to m c l u d e the

Comma

Jolumneum

W e

cite

th e ve i s i on of the s to ry given b y B i u c e M

Mctzge i ,

smce

h isw o r k , t h a n k s

to i tsobv io us quaht ie s , hasbecomea n

i nduen t i a l

h a n d b o o k

and

is

in

m a n y

respects lep iesentat ivc o f the knowledge o f New Testament

tex tua l h i s t o ry a m o n g theo log ians " In an

u n gu a r d e d

m o m e n t E i a s m u s

promised

tha t

he w o u l d insert the Comma

Johanneum, s

i t

is

ca l l ed ,

in fut ure

ed i t i ons if

a

singleGrcek m a n u s c n p t c o u l d

b e

f o u n d t h a t

c on t am ed the

passage

A t

leng th such

a

copy

w as

l o u n d

o r w as

m a d e

to

o i d c r

1

A s

it

no w

appcars,

the

Greek

m a n u s c n p t had p robab ly been wnt t en in Oxfo id about 1520 by a

F ianc i scan

friar n a m e d

F r o y

(o r

R o y ) ,

w ho

t ook

the

d i spu ted w o r d s f rom

the

Lat in Vu lga te E iasmus s t ood b y In s p r o m i se and inserted the passage

in

his

third edit ion (1522) , but he ind icates

in

a

leng thy

f o o t n o t e Ins suspic ions

that thc

m a n u sc r i p t

had been

p i epa i ed

expressly

in

o r d e r to con fu te

him

2

This vcrs ion

o f

events

has

been handed down

and

d i s semmated foi m or e

than a

Cen tu ry

and a

ha l f

by the mos t

eminen t cn t ics

and

s t uden t s

of the

text

of the New

Tes tament ,

for

examplc

S P

Tregelles

(1854)

F J A

H o r t

( 1 8 8 l )

4

, F H A Scrivener (1883)

5

, B F W es tco t t

(1892 )

6

,

A B ludau

(1903)

7

,

Revised

t

version of a i h o i t papc r givcn befoie the Dutch Studiosorum Novi

Testamenti Coventus,

on

1 9 May 1980, at Zeist (Nether lands)

2

B

M

M E T Z G E R , The Ti\l of the Neu

Testament,

Oxford,

1968

2

, p 101

3 S P

T R E G E L L E S , An Auount of

llic Punted Te\t

of the

Gietk

Neu Testament,

London ,

1854

pp 22 and 27

4 F J A

H O R T , Notes

on Sclcit Reculmgs

in

B F

W E S T C O T T

and F J A

H O R T ,

T h c

Neu

Testament

in

the

Onginal Gieek,

Cambndgc

and Londo n

1881

Appendix

to

vo l II, p 104

5 F H A S C R I V E N E R ,A

Plam

Intioductton to the

Cnticiim

of the Neu

Testament,

Cambridge, 1883

3

p 187

6 B F W E S T C O T T , Th e Lpi^tlef of St John, third edition 1892,reprmtcd wi th a new

int roduc t ion by F F Bruce,

A b i ngd o n ,

Berkshire, 1966,p 207

7 A B L U D A U , D as Comma loanneum (l 5,7) im 1 6 Jahihwuleit, i n Bibluthe

Zeitiihnft

l

( 1 9 0 3 ) ,

p p 280 3 0 2 a n d

3 7 8 4 0 7 ,

see p 2 80


4/11

3 8 2

D I I O N G F

E b

N e s t l e

( 1 9 0 3 )

8

,C

H T u r n e r ( 1 9 2 4 ) a n d F G

K e n y o n ( 1 9 0 1 ,

1 9 1 2 / 1 9 2 6 )

1 0

T h e s a m e

t r a d i t i o n

h a s

a l s o

b e e n d i s s e m m a t c d i n a n u m b e r o f w o r k s

i n t e n d c d

fo r

a w i d e r p u b h c i n t e r e s t e d

i n

t h e l e x t u a l

t r a n s m i s s i o n

o f t h c

B i b l c

o r

o t h e i

a n c i e n t

h t e r a t u r e ,

fo r

e x a m p l c

in th e w o r k s o f W A C o p i n g e r

(1897) ,

T H

D a r l o w

a n d H F

M o u l e ( 1 9 0 3 )

1 2

,

L D

R e y n o l d s

a n d N G

W i l s o n

( 1 9 7 4 )

1 3

a n d J

F i n e g a n ( 1 9 7 4 / 5 )

1 4

T h e s t o r y l the way E r a s m u s is said

to have honoured

his

p romise is a lso handed down in the

l i t e ra tu ie

w h ich

refers specifically

to the H u ma n i s t

himself ,

fo r e x a m p l e by P S A l l e n

( 1 9 1 0 )

l s

and by the a u l ho r s o f such exce l lent b iographies s those by Prese ived Smith

(1923 )

1 ( )

and R H Bam ton

( 1 9 6 9 )

l v

H ow of len

m u s t

Ihose w ho lec ture m the

N ew Tes tamen t

o r

lex lual cnt ic i sm

at

umversi t ies

the wor ld ove i

have passcd

on the story of the good fa i th

w i th

which a dece ived Erasmus kcp t his w o r d ,

to the

s tuden t s in

thei r

l e c tu re

ha l l s

1

The w n t e r o f

thesc l ines c a n n o t p lead

innocence

in

th is

respect

Y et there are a number o f difficulties in the story of E r a sm u s ' promise and

its

consequences , which arouse a cer ta in

suspic ion

o f

i ts

t r u th fu l n es s

In the first p lace

it

is r emarkab le tha t thc rc is no trace o f

this

t radi t ion

m

the works of the great experts

in

th e hi s tory of thc text of the New

Tes tamen t in the sevcnteenth an d e ightecn th

cen tunes

Wo f ind no t a word

of

it

in

R ichard S imon ' s Histone ctttique du teile du Nouveau Testament

(1689)

even though a

special

chapter of this wo rk ( ch

x vm) is

devoted to thc

Comma

Johanneum

J ohn M i l l s to o is comple te ly si lent a b o u t E r a sm u s ' p romise ,

a l t h o u g h

in

paragraph

1138

of the

P ro l egomena

to

his

Novum

Testamentum

Graecum

he

refers specif ically

to the

mc lus i on

of the

Comma Johanneum in

th e

th i rd edi t ion of

Era smus '

New

Testament

H e

even

adds th e interesling detail

that Erasmus inc luded th e Comma Johanneum scar lys June 1521 ,in a separate

edi t ion o f

h is Lat in t rans la t ion pubhshed

b y

P r ob en

a t

Basle This de tai l is

i m p o r t a n t because

it

helps to determinc the

penod

of t ime

w i th in

wh ich

Erasmus must have become aware of the Comma Johanneum in Greek He was

8 Eb N E S T L E ,

V om Tc\lus Reteplus des Giieihischen

Neuen

Testament*, (Sab

un d

Licht 8) , Barmen, 1903, p 15

9 C H T U R N E R , Th e Eaily Pnnted Editions of the deck Testament, Oxford,1924

p 23

1 0 F G K E N Y O N ,

Handbook

to the Tcxtual Ciilic/sm o/ the Testament L o n d o n

1 9 0 1 , p 2 2 9 , 1 9 1 2

2

r e p r m t c d 1926),

p 270

1 1

W A

C O P I N G F R

T h e B i b / e a n d its Tiansmission, L o n d o n

1 8 9 7

p 1 4 0

1 2

T H

D A R L O W a n d

H F

M O U L C , Histoncal

Catalogue

o / t h e

Puntcd Edition

1

,

o f

Holy Siitptuie, v o l I I

Polyglott,

an d

Languages othei lhan Enghsh, L o n d o n ,

1 9 0 3

r e p r m t c d N e w Y o r k , 1 9 6 3 , p 579

1 3 L D R E Y N O L D S a n d N G W I L S O N , Suihi > a n d S t / w / s O x f o r d , 1974

2

p 1 4 4

1 4 J F I N E G A N Emountenng V e i t Testament Manusaipts, G r a n d R a p i d s , 1 9 7 4 ,

L o n d o n ,

1 9 7 5 , p 57

1 5 P S A L L E N ( c d ) , Opus Epistolaium

D es

Eiasmi Rtetodami,

II

Oxford

1 9 1 0 ,

p 165 The

story

is

also

told by J -Cl M A R G O L I N , Laskt , lec/cui et annotateui du

'Nouveau

Testament dEtasme, i n J C O P P L N S (ed ),

Sennmm

Eiasmianum 2

v o l s ,

Leiden,

1969,

I, pp

93-128,

see p

104,

n 46

1 6 Preserved S M I T H , Erasmus, A Sludy

o/

his Life, Ideals, and Plaie m Histoiy,

New York 1923,

pp

165-166

1 7

R H B A I N T O N ,

Eiasmus of Christendom,

New

York ,

1969, pp 169-1 70, the

same author, Tue Bible m the Reformation, m S L

G R E E N S L A D E

(ed ), Th e

Cambndge

Histoiy of the Bible,I I I ,Cambridge, 1963,pp 1-37, see p 10


5/11

T R A S M U S A N D T H E C O M M A J O H A N N E U M 3 8 3

still

unaware l

il in May 1520

when

he w i o l e In s apologia Libei

agams t Edward L ee T h u s , he mus t have received evidence of the passagc

between M ay

1520

and

June 1521

I t

is

no t

k n o w n

w ho

b r o u g h t

i t

to Ins

at tent ion

N o t on ly do Simon and Mi l l s m a k c no

relerence

to E r a s m u s ' p romise ,

J Cler icus

does

not ment ion it,

either

in

his AI,Cniita (1696 , l ten

r cpnn ted )

or Ins c o m m e n t a ry on l J o h n 5,7

( 17 14

2

)

Nor do we find it in J J Weitstem

( 1 7 5 1 / 2 )

1 8

, J le L o n g

-

C F

Boemer

A G

Masch

(1788 /90 )

1 9

,

J D Michaelis ( 1 7 8 8 )

2 0

, G W Meyer

( 1 8 0 2 / 9 )

2 1

,

J Townley ( the au tho r o f

Biblical

Aneidotc ,, 1 8 2 l )

2 2

or m T F D i b d m ( 1 8 2 7 )

2 1

The earhest referencc

to

E ra smus ' p romise

o f

w h ich

I

am aware is that l

T H

Hrne in 1 8 1 8

2 4

It

r emams unc lcar

f rom

w h i c h sourcc Hrne

denved

In s I n f o r m a t i o n He was

to o

s c r u p u l o u s

a

ciitic

to

raise

any

suspic ion tha t

he was the

mven to r

of the

w h o l e

s to ry Mo reovei , Hrne

himself

pubhshed

a hst of

m o i e than

f i f t y

volumcs, pamphlets

01

cutical notices

on the

Comma Johannuum which had

appeaicd

up to his Urne He may thus

very well have

derived the

details

f rom

apredecessor b u t

it

is scarcely feasible to go through al l his matenal agam

A second di f f icul ty is

tha t

in th e letel l ing of the

s t o iy

o f E r a s m u s '

supposed

promise, there

are

s t nk ing v a n a t i o n s Soine a u t h o r s , such s Ho inc , Dar low

and Mou lc , Kenyon and

Turner , le la te that Erasmus m a d e th i s p romise in

the

cont roversy

w i th hi s

Spamsh Opp on ent Jacobus Lopis Stunica Others, a m o n g

them

B luda u

and

B a m t o n ,

say

tha t

the

p romise

w as

given

to

his Enghsh

assa i lan t

Edward

Lee Yet

others

w n t e , w i t h o u t m a k i n g a c leai dis t inct ion,

tha t

Erasmus gave

Ins

p iomise

m rcact ion

lo

the cnticisms of

bo th

Lee and

S tun ica , wlnlc others agam leave il indetermmate ,

to

w h o m

the

promise

w as

directed

No w

it

is comple te ly imposs ib le that Erasmus cou ld have g iven his pledge to

S tun ica ,

for he

d id

no t

address himsel l

to the

Spamard

un t i l

h is Apologm

tespondeni, ad ea quac m Nouo

Te^tamento

ta\aueial leiLobu\

Lopn Sluniea,

o f

September 1 5 2 l

2 6

In

this apologia

he explams, m

deal ing

wi th l

J ohn

5,

that he had received a t r an scnp t of the Comma Johanneum, from a Codex

Bntannicus, and had inserted it into th e text o f l John, which w as shor t ly to

18

J J

W L T S T E N I U S ,

No\um

reManientuni

Giaeeum, 2 vo l s , Am ste r d am 175 1 /2

19 Jac LE

LONG,

C F B O E R N E R , A G

M A S C H ,

Bibhotheia

Sana

Hal le , 1778/90

20

J o h a n n David M I C H A L L I S , Einleitung in

die

gottliehen Sehuften de\ Neuen B undes,

Got t ingen ,

1788"

21

G W

M F Y E R ,

GeuImhie du

Seliit/teiUaiung, G o l t m g e n , 1802/9

22

J a m e s

T O W N L E Y , Illusliation\ of Biblieeil

Litcialnic, e x h i b i t m g

th e

H i s t o r y

a n d

Fate

o f the

Sacred

W n t i n g s I r o m the Ea ihes t

Penod

to the Present C e n t u r y

L o n d o n , vo l I - I I , 1821

23 T F

D I B D I N An Intiocluction to

tlie

Kno\\/edgc of R an and Veiluahle Edition*,

L o n d o n , vol I ,

1827

24

T H

H O R N L , An

Intioduitum

to the

Cutieal

Stnd\ and Knowledge of the

Hh

Senptuie , vo l I I ,

P a r t

I I Ap p end ix , L o n d o n , 1818, p 133

25 S P T R r o E L L t s , An Intioduetion to the

Te\tual

Cntieism of the Ne\\ Testament, =

Vol IV of T H H R N E , An Intioduetion to the Cntnal

Stitd\

and Knowledge of the

Holy

Senptuie^

L o n d o n , 1 8 5 6 ' ,

pp 384 388

26 Des E R A S M U S ,

Opeia Omina

(ed J C L E R I C U S ,

to m

IX ), Leiden, 1706,

co l

283-

35 6

Th i s apo logy

f igu res ,

a lso

a m o n g the ' t r a c t a t u s " inc l u d ed in the f inal v o l u m e s o f

the Cntiei Seien (ed J

P L A R S O N et

al ),

L o n d o n ,

1660 Fr ank fu r t , 1695 ,

A m s t e r d a m ,

1 6 9 8


6/11

384 H J

DC

J O N G E

appear

in a new

Impression

o f b is Novum

Testamentum

(1522

3

) Therefore,

Erasmus can hardly have given Stumca any promise contammg the condi t ion

'i f

a

smgle

Greek

m a n u s c n p t

w i th

th e

Comma

Johanneum

is

f o u n d "

No r

did

Erasmus givc such a p romise to Lee at least not

in

any of the

s u r v i v m g c o r r e s p o n d e n c e

2 7

o r a p o l o g i a s

2 8

in which the Ro t te rdamm er addressed

Lee

A thi rd p rob lem is tha t

th e

famous p romise

o f

E r a s m u s

is not to be

f o u n d

anywhere

eise in

his oeuvre I t

is

t h u s

no t

su r p n sm g that , wi th

one exception,

none

of the

a u t h o r s k n o w n

to me who

relate

th e

story, refer

to a

specific passage

in Erasmus o r in

o thei

s ix teen th-ccn tury l i terature, whcre such a pledge is to be

f o u n d The o n l y exception is Bainton, who h imse l f seems to have become

susp ic ious

and

even tua l ly inc ludes

a

reference

to a

passage which is

by no

means a

promise ,

s

w i l l

be

clear

f rom

w h a t f o l l o w s

2 9

It is n a t u r a l l yexcept iona l ly difficult , if no t imposs ib le

in

pnnc ip l e to furn ish

conc lus ive p roof that someone d id not say som ething Yet in my op inion

there

is

suff ic ient reason to assume that Erasmus, when he chose to insert th e

Comma Johanneum, d id

no t

feel

h imse l f

const ramed

by any promise He

explamed on several

occas ions

w h a t

had

led him to

inc lude th is

passage

in

his

third edi t ion

He

d id

so

'so tha t

no one

w o u l d have

occas ion to cntic ise me

out of mal ice" , nt tut ut eauna

calummandt^

0

o r s he expressed

it

in his

Annotationen

on l

J o h n

5,7

ne cui nt anna ca/umniand/

31

It

shou ld

be

bo rne in

mind tha t

Lee had wnt ten

tha t

the omission of the Comma Johanneum

brought

wi th

it

the

dange r

of a new

revival

o f A n a n i sm Thiswas o f

course

a

very

senous

Ins inua t ion

Era sm us had reason to

fear

that if he were suspected of heretical

sympathies, his Novum Tentamentum

wou ld

miss it s

exalted

goal This Novum

Testamentum was not

in

the first

place mtended s

an

ed i t ion

of the

Greek

New Testament,

s is mcorrec t ly assumed

It was , in E r a sm u s ' I n ten t i on , m the

f irst

place

a

new, modern

and

readable t rans la t ion

of the New

Testament

into

Lat in

The

func t ion

of the Greek text was secondary

it

was to show that

E r a sm u s '

new

Version

rested on a f irm f ounda t i on and that

it

was no t jus t a

reckless search fo r nove l ty By

his

new t rans la t ion Erasmus hoped to

m ake

th e wo rd s

o f

Christ

and the

apost lcs

accessible to a

w ide circ le

in

clear

and

easily unde r s t ood prose

H c

wished

to f i l l the wor ld

wi th

th e

philosophia

Chns/i,

the s imple p iou s , and prac t ical Chnst iani ty

whi cn

would best serve the

wor ld Toachieve

this,

sman y peoples

possible

had toread the New Testament

But

not the

Vu lga te

w h i c h w as f l l of al l sorts o f

obscun t ies

A new, more

readable

a nd

c learer t rans la t ion

w as

necessary,

and

that

w as Erasmus ' Novum

2 7

A L L t N Opun fpnlolarum no s

765 and 998

28 Apologia nihilhabein

nau c u a

lespondel

duabun inueetiun

Eduaidi Lei A n t w e r p

1 5 2 0 no t inc l u d ed in any ed i t i on o f Erasm us co l lec ted w o r k s but re edi ted m

W K

F E R G U S O N ( c d ) Lianmi Opu^eula The

H a g u e 1933 R i \ponMO

ad

Annotat ionen

Ed Lei

I A n l w c r p Ap r i l 15 20 (m Cl c r i cu s ed i t i o n to m IX col 123-200) I I Anlwcrp

M a y 1520 ( C l e n c u s ihid

1 9 9 2 8 4 )

29

B a i n l o n s re ference is to the Rc.


7/11

E R A S M U S A N D T H E C O M M A

J O H A N N E U M

3 8 5

Instrumentum f rom

151 9 entit led Novum

Tts tamcntum The goa l o f

E ra smus

unde r t ak ing

to i m b u e al l Europe w i th a clear and simple gospel threatene d to

fall

if

Erasmus

himself

were

tmged wi th any

suspicion

o f

u n o r t ho d o x y

For the

sake of his ideal Erasm us chose to

avoid

any occas ion fo r slander rather than

persist ing

m

philological accuracy

and

thus c on dem m n g himsel f

to

impotence

Thal was the

reason

w hy

Erasmus mcluded

th e

Comma

Johanneum

even

though he remamed

convmced tha t it

d id not belong to the original text

of l J o h n

1 2

The

real reason

whi ch

mduced Erasmus

to

inc lude

th e Comma Johanneum w as

t hus

c learly his care for his

good

n am e and for the success of his Novum

Tc'ilamcntum H o w

then

did the

f a m o u s s tory anse

o f his

promise

and the way

in

w h i c h

he

honoured i t '

I t

is hkely tha t

it

grew

out of a

mismterpreta t ion

o f a

passage in

In s Rispoinio

ad Annota twncs Eduanh Lei

of May 1520

13

Lee was a t ru ly qua r re l some ind iv idua l a myopical ly conservative theologian

la ter archbishop of Y o r k w ho

t roub led

and pestered Erasmus fo r several years

with his

cnt ic isms

which were unusua l l y mediocre of the Novum Imtiumcn

turn

3

* Lee was one of several

cn t ics

who had remarked on the absence of the

Comma Johanncum

in the first two

ed i t ions

In 1520 Erasmu s feit himsel f

obhged

to m a k e a

detailed

reply to

Lee

In

Ins lengthy discussion

o f l

J o hn

5 7

Erasmus wro te

s

fo l lows

Si mih i cont igisse t unum exemplar m quo fuisset

q u o d no s Icg imus n i m i r u m i l l inc adiec issem quod m

caetens

aberat Id qu ia

non cont ig i t

q u o d

s o l u m

hcui t feci

md icau i

qu id

in Graecis

codic ibus m i n u s

esset If a smgle m a n u s c n p t had

come

m to m y hands in which s tood what

w e

read (sc

in

the Latin Vulgatc) then I

w ou l d

certamly have used

it

to

f i l l

m what was missmg m the o ther

m an us c n p t s

I had Because that did not hap pen

I have

taken the only

cou i se which

w as pe imiss ib le

t ha t is

I

have mdicated

(sc

in th e

Annotationen) w h a t

w as miss ing f iom the

Gieek manuscnp t s

This is the passage which Ba in ton legarded s contaming the promise which

E i a s m u s is supposed to have ledeemed later I t is to Ba inton s credit tha t

he a t least tncd to f ind the promise somewhere m Erasmus wo rks

no

o the r

a u t ho r

so far s I am

a w a i e took

this t roub le

Still

no

such

p i o m i se can be

read mto the passage cited It is a rc trospective rcport of what Erasmus had

d o n c

in 1516 and 1519 If he had had a

Greek manusc npt

wi th the Comma

Johanncum then he would have mcluded the Comma But he had not fo und a

smgle such manuscnpt

and

consequent ly

he

omit ted

th e

Comm a Johanneum

This is not a promise

b u t

a

jus t i f i ca l ion

a f ter the event of what had happened

cast in

th e

uniu l f i l l cd cond i t iona l

It

is no t imposs ib le

tha t ano the i passage

m

Erasmus

apologia

agams t

L ee

playcd

a

pa r i

and gave reason

fo i

a

mi sunde i s t and ing

I t wa s

wi th

par t icu lar

rcfcrence to

Erasmus omission

of the Comma Johanne

u m tha t

Lee had

charged

F o i

a c o n e c t i s s e s s m e n t o f

L r

i s m u s

m s e r t i o n

o f I h e

Comma Johannium in

t h e

t h i i d

e d i t i o n o f h i s N O M I H I T c M a m t n t u m s e e c g B R E I C K E asmus

und du.

mutcsta

miiitlit /ic

TiMgcichiditc

in

Tluologi\ch


8/11


9/11

E R A S M U S A N D T H E

C O M M A

J O H A N N E U M

3 8 7

This

is agam a vers ion o f events wh ich does not seem to be based on any

passage

m Erasmus ' p rmted w o r k s o r letters

I t

is

t rue tha t Erasmus

assumed

tha t

the

Codex

Bn tan m c us w as

recens

35

B ut so far

s

I am aware, b is w n l in g s do not contain any expression

from

which it

w o u l d

appear that he

suspecled

tha t the Codex Bntanmcus had been

w n t t e n cspecially to mduce

him

to inc lude th e Comma

Jolumneum

The

confus ion

p resumably

arose

f rom a misunders tanding of a remark which

E r a sm u s

m a d e

m

his

first apologia agamst Stumca, and repeated in

hts

Anno-

tationen

on l

J o h n 5 Af te r dec lanng tha t

now

t ha t

th e

Comma Johanneum

had been brought to h is a t tent ion, m Greek, in a Codex Bn tanm cus , he w ou ld

inc lude it on the basis o f tha t

m a n u s c n p t ,

hc wro tc " Q u a m q u a m et h u n c

(sc codicem)

suspicor

ad

L a t m o r u m

Codices fuisse

c a s t i g a tum "

'

6

"A l th oug h

I buspect this manuscnpt , too , to have been

revised

after the

m a n u s c n p t s

o f

the La t in

w o r l d "

Erasmus doc s no t incan b y this tha t the

Codex

B n t a n m c u s w a s in te rpo lated

to

invalidate his

o w n r eadm g H e means that the Codex,

hke many o the r

manuscnp t s ,

con tamed a text which had been revised after, and

adapted

to ,

the V u l g a t e This was one of Erasmus ' s tock

theones,

to whi ch he

repeatedly

referred m

eva lua t i ng

Greck

manusc r ip t s

of the New Testament He regarded

m a n u sc n p t s

which

dcviated

f rom the

Byzan tme

text

k n o w n

to him, and showed

paral lele with

the Vulga te ,

s

havmg been mfluenced by the Vu lga te

17

E ra smus

beheved tha t the Ecumemca l

Counc i l

o f

Ferrara

and Florence (1438-45), whose

chief

object had been

the

r e u m o n of the Lat in an d

Greek

churches, had decided

in

favour

o f

a d a p t m g

the Greek manuscnpts to

the

Vu lga te In 1527 he

commented on the adaptat ion of Greek manuscnpts to the Lat in

s fo l lows

"Hieob i ter

i l l ud

incidi ta d m o n e n d u m ,

esseG r aec o r um quos dam

N o u i

Tes tament

Codices

a d La t m o r u mexemplana emenda tos

Id fac tum

est , m foedere Graecorum

cum Ro mana Ecclesia qu od foedus tes ta tu r Bul l a q u a e d ic i tur

aurea

V i sum

cst

em m

et hoc ad f i rmandam

concord iam

per tmere Et nos o hm in h u i u s m o d i

codicem mc id imus et

tahs

a d h u c d ic i tur adservan in Bibhotheca Pont i f ic ia ( )

maiu scuhs

descnptus l i te r i s "

1 8

" I t shou ld be po in ted out here in

passing,

tha t

certain

Greck

m anu sc r ip ts of the New Tes tament have been correc ted in

agreement wi th thosc of the Lat in Chris t ians This w as

d o n e

a t Ihe Urne o f

the

r e u m o n

of the

Greeks

and the

Roman church

This

un ion

w as

conf i rmed

in

w n t i n g m the so-cal led Golden B u l l I t wa s t ho u gh t tha t this (sc the adap ta t ion

of the Greek

b ibhca l

manuscnp t s t o the La t in ) wou ld con tnbu te to the

s t r eng thenmg

o f u m t y W e too once came

across

a m an us c n p l o f this

35 Ep 1877,

A L L L N ,

Opu\ Epntolaium, V I I , p 177, l 294, and Ailueiwi monaiho\

quo\dam ,

c d

C l e n c u s ,

l o m I X ,

c o l 1 0 3 1

F

3 6

E d

C l e n c u s ,

l o m I X , c o l 3 5 3 E C f

Annotationen in N T

e d

C l e n c u s ,

t o m V I , c o l

1 0 8 0

D

T a m e t s i s u s p i c o r c o d i c e m

i l l u m

a d n o s t r o s e s s e

c o r r e c t u m

3 7 E p 1 8 7 7 ,

A l l e n ,

V I I , p 1 7 7 , 1 1 2 9 6 2 9 8 , a n d o f t e n m I h e a p o l o g i e s , s e e

C l c n c u s ' c d i l i o n , t o m I X , c o l 3 3 3 B , 3 4 9 F , 3 5 1 C , 3 5 3 E , 1 0 3 1 F 1 0 3 2 A S e e a l s o

E p p

2 9 0 5

a n d

2 9 3 8 ,

A l l e n ,

X , p p

3 5 5 / 6

a n d 3 9 5 O n t h e w h o l e m a t t e r A

B L U D A U ,

D ei

B e g in n de i Contiiivene be/ die Aeduheit dc\ C o m m a J o h a n n e u m (l Jo h 5,7-8) im

16

J h d t ,

m D ei Katholik, 3 rd senes, 26

( 1902) ,

pp

25 -51

and

1 51 - 1 75 ,

and Fr Dl

L I T Z S C H ,

Studien

zu r

Entstehungsgeschichte de

Polvglottenbibel des Caidmals Xunenes

L e i p z i g , 1 8 7 1 , p p 1 2 1 4

3 8

Contia moiosos

q u o s d a m ac mdoitos in e d C l e n c u s , t o m V I , ( l

* * * l r


10/11

388 H I DE J O N G E

n a t u r e

3 9

,

and it is said tha t such a manusc r ip t is still preserved

in

the papal

hbra ry ( )w n t t en in ma ju scu l e characters"

The

m a n u s c n p t

to

whi ch

E r a s m u s

refers

at the end of

this

passage

is

th e

Codex

V a t i c anus

pai excellence, n ow G r 1209,

designated s B

40

E ra smus

regarded th e texto f thiscodex s influenced by the Vu lga teand thereforein fer ior

For the same reasons he had earher , m 1515/6 , also excluded Gregory I

s

an

inferior m a n u sc n p t , from

the

const i tu t ion

of the

Greek text

o f h is own

Novum Inst tumentum*

1

a l t ho u gh

this

manuscnp t

is

now general ly regarded s

m o r e rehable

than

th e

Codices w hich Erasmu s preferred

and

made

use o f

Erasmus passed the same verdict on the Codex Rhodiensis (mmuscu le Wettstein

Pau l

50 = Apo sto los 52)f rom whichS tunica cited readings in his polemic agamst

E r a s m u s

4 2

Erasmus '

view,

according to which Greek manuscripts had been adapted to

Lat in , was

indeed

apphcable to the Codex

Br i tannicus

th e

Comma

Johanneum

w as no more than a retroversion of the Vu lgate Bu t for m os t o ther manuscr ip ts ,

it was no more than an

idee

fixe The Bul l a aurea of the Council of

Ferrara

and Flo rence says no thin g at all of any decision to

revise

Greek

b ibhca l

manusc r ip t s

in accordance

wi th the

V u l g a t e

4 3

In

1534 Erasm us admit ted

that

he had not read the bu l l himself , b u t on ly knew

its

content f rom hearsay

4 4

He main tamed , however, that even

if

th e

bu l l

d id no t s ay any thmg a bo u t th e

in tended la t imsat ion

o f Greek manuscr ip ts , this

la t imsat ion

had in fact been

carned o u t

in

some

c a se s

4 5

However erroneous Erasmus ' theory of the la t imsa t ion of Greek m anuscr ip ts

may be

in

general ,

f rom

an

his tonca l v iewpomt

it

has

played

an

impor tan t

ro le

W hen J J W et ts te in was

w o r k i n g

on

his

great

edit ion

of the NewTes tament

which eventual ly appeared in 1751/2 he

became

increasingly

convinced

that the

text

of most of the

o ld

G reek Codices w as influenced by the o ld Latin

t rans la t ion

H e

subscnbed

to Erasmus '

eva lua t ion

of codex B and mm us cu le l , but he also

extended

the theory to the

major i ty

of the old Codices, am ong others, A, B, C,

D

c

,D

p

, FP ,K

c

, L

c

, m in

I ,

3 etc He regarded al l these manus cripts

s

u n u sa b l e

for th e

cons t i tu t ion

of the

text

of the New

Testament Wetts tem's t i t le

to

fame

w as

fo rmed

b y

his excel lent presentation

of the

cop ious text-critical matena l

which he had

collected,

s

well s

by his

commen ta ry ,

but not by his

ins ight

into the history of the text

39 Mmuscu le

Gregory

l on whi ch see below

40 See A lle n, X, p 355, 11 37 ss

41 Fo r E r a s m u s o w n a c c o u n t o f how he

dea l t

w i t h mm l see C l e nc u s , to m IX ,

co l 1049 D J o a n n e s

R e u c h h n u s

s u p p e d i t a r a t Cod icem N o u i Tes t amen t i , b e l l u m

v c n u s q u a m

e m e n d a t u m ( ) luss i n e q u i d ad

i l l u m c o r ng e r e n t q u i

v i d e r e t u r ad

v u l g a t a m L a t m o r u m ac recentem l ec t ionem e m e n d a t u s Cf Ep 295 1 A l l en , X I ,

p 14 11 55 57

V i d i

et ipse

cod i cem

e u a n g e h o r u m ex b i bho theca

C d p m o m s

q u i

pe r

o m n i a c o n s e n t i e b a t

n o s t r a e

ed i t i om Latmae

42 See on th is codex , w h i c h

seems

to be l o s t , T R F G E L L E S , An Account, pp 5 6,

1 1 - 1 8 , DELITZSCH, Entstehungsgeschichte, pp 3032 39 -41 , J H B E N T L E Y Nen Light

on the Editing of

the

Complutensian New Testament m Bibliotheque dhumaniMne 1 1

Renaissance

42 (1980) , pp 145 156, esp 146

43

A l l en ,

X , p 355, 114 0 /1 no te

44 A l l e n ,XI, p 14, 11 52/5

45 Und, 1155/7 For the h i s t o r y of the theory according to w h i c h Greek manu sc r ip t s

o f

Ih e

N ew T e s t a m e n t have been a l te red f rom th e La t in , see S P Tregelles in v o l u m e IV

of T H HORNF, An Int ioclucon to the Cntical Study and Knowledge of the Holy

Scnptures

tenth ed i t ion

L o n d o n ,

1856, p p 107-116


11/11

R A S M U S A N D T H1 C O M M A J O H A N N h U M 8 9

It is t i u c t h a t E r a sm u s i cpca t cd ly

d isqua l i f icd

thc Codex V a t i c anu s s a

l a l m i s m g tex tua l w i t n c s s

4 6

Y c t it shou ld b c po in t cd o u t

nonc thc l c s s ,

tha t

Erasmus was

also

thc f irst scholai

w ho appcalcd

to thc

Codex

V a t i c a n u s

for

cnt ica l purposcs On 18 J u n e

1 5 2 1

P a u l B o m b a s i u s , th c sccrc tary

o f t

he

i n f l u e n U a l c a r d m a l Lorenzo Pucci a t R o m e , sent a

le tter

lo E r a sm u s c o n t a i m n g

a c o p yo f lJ o h n 4 ,l-3and 5 ,7-11 f rom thcCodex V a t i c a n u s

4 7

In his

Annotationen

on l J o h n 5,7 E r a sm u s la te r s ta ted tha t the

Comma

Johanneuni was missmg

f rom thcCodexV a t i c anus , a c co rd ing to a t r an s c n p t which Bombas ius had m adc

a l Ins, E ra smus ' , r eques t (meo mgalit)

4

* I I appears f rom th is lha t E r a sm u s

himse l f had a sked Bombas ius to ven fy the passage

in

qucs t i on

in

the Codex

V at i canus I t is

wi th

E ra smus tha t the Codex Vat icanus began to p l ay a ro lc

i n

thc

tex tua l cn t ic ism

of thc New

T e s t a m e n t

4 9

. Agam, Erasmus a l so suspcc tcd

thc Codex Br i t a nn iens o f ha v ing unde rgone the mf luence of the V u l g a t e

It

cannot , howcver , be

s h o w n

f rom Erasmus ' wn t ings , tha t

he

evcr considercd

thc

Codex

Bn tann icus s a p roduc t spccially prcparcd to ind t icc h im to inc lude

thc Comma

Johanneum

Conclusion*;

1 ) Thc cur rcn t v icw

tha t Erasmus

promised to

insert

th c Comma Johanneum

i f i t

cou ld

be

shown

to him

in

a single

Grcck m a n u s c n p t ,

has no f o u n d a t i o n

in E ia smu s ' wo rks Conscquen ll y it is highly improbab le tha t

he

mc luded

th e

disputed passage because

hc

considered

h imse l f bo und by

a ny

such

promise

(2)

I t c anno t bc shown f rom E ia smus ' works tha t he suspectcd the Codex

Br i t a nn iens (min 61) of being w n t t e n w i t h a view to

force

him to mclude the

Comma Johanneum

Zceman laan 47 Henk Jan DEJ O N G T

2313

SW Leiden

T he

Nc the r lands

46 See the

passage

rcfcrred

to m f o o t n o t c 38

a b o v c ,

and

A l l e n ,

X , p

355,

I I

37-46

47

A l l e n ,

IV, p

530.

48 Ed Clencus,

to m

VI , co l 1080 E

49 Car lo M M A R T I N I , / / pioblema

della

lecenuonalita de l

lodue

B

(Ana l ec t a

Bibhca 26) , R o m a 1966, p p 8-9, w h c r c E r a s m u s '

ro le

in the h i s t o r y o f the Co d e x

Vat i c anu s i s sh gh t l y u n d c r e s t i m a t e d

erasmus comma johanneum

Documents