This is a revised draft of a paper delivered at the Colloque international d'histoire de l'exégèse biblique au XVIe siècle, Geneva, Switzerland, September 29-October 1, 1976. The paper was initially prepared with the help of a summer research grant from the Research Foundation of the State University of New York.

1. Allen, P. S., Allen, H. M., and Garrod, H. W., eds., Erasmi Epistolae, 12 vols. (Oxford, 1906–1958), IV, 416, 11. 1–6.Google Scholar (Hereafter cited as EE.)

2. EE, IV, 416, 11. 1–6.Google Scholar

3. See the preface to James cited in note 2 above; and the preface to Matthew, , EE, V, 5, 11. 1–10.Google Scholar

4. EE, V, 5, 11. 23–29.Google Scholar

5. EE, V, 5–6, 11. 29–79.Google Scholar

6. EE, V, 116, 11. 21–22.Google Scholar

7. See Rabil, Albert Jr., “Erasmus' Paraphrases of the New Testament,” in DeMolen, Richard L., ed., Essays on the Works of Erasmus (New Haven, 1978), pp. 145–161.Google Scholar

8. See Rabil, Albert Jr, Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mind of a Christian Humanist (San Antonio, 1972), pp. 136–139.Google Scholar

9. The texts are quoted from LeClerc which, for this purpose, was collated with the 1523, 1524 and 1534 Froben editions. Ioannes LeClerc, , ed., Erasmi Opera Omnia, 10 vols. (Leiden, 1703–1706).Google Scholar (Hereafter cited as LB.) John, 3:32 (LB, VII, 524F-525A; added, 1534).Google ScholarJohn, 7:28 (LB, VII, 558A; added, 1524).Google ScholarJohn, 11:54 (LB, VII, 594A; added, 1534).Google ScholarJohn, 13:27 (LB, VII, 605D; added, 1524).Google ScholarJohn, 18:24 (LB, VII, 633A-B; 1524Google Scholar version). John, 19:1 (LB, VII, 635F-636A; added 1534).Google ScholarJohn, 19:31 (LB, VII, 640D; added, 1534).Google ScholarJohn, 19:42 (LB, VII, 642A; added, 1534).Google Scholar

10. EE, V, 164, 11. 16–24.Google Scholar Erasmus assumes that the problems giving rise to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth century are already fully present in John. He reads later doctrinal discussions back into John. In his annotations on John, for example, he cites Cyril of Alexandria thirty-five times. By contrast, Cyril is hardly cited at all in the paraphrases of the epistles.

Evidently, Erasmus' critics perceived difficulties here. In his Supputatio errorum in censuris Beddae Erasmus finds himself having to answer charges of Arianism and Sabellianism. (LB, IX, 632A-633C; 634B-F) Erasmus' defense is limited to asserting that his statements were taken out of context. His characteristic attitude toward theological issues of this kind follows immediately in the text of this paper.

11. EE, V, 164, 11. 25–26.Google Scholar Erasmus became involved in such dispute related to this gospel when he substituted sermo for the Vulgate verbum in his translation of the text and in his annotation of 1:1. He wrote an apology defending his interpretation in 1520, Apologia de ‘in principio erat sermo” (LB, IX, 111–122).Google Scholar He probably had that dispute in mind when writing this prefatory letter three years later.

12. EE, V, 164–65, 11. 29–65.Google Scholar

13. LB, VII, 497A–498D.Google Scholar

14. Erasmus makes this same point in other discussions of exegetical method. See Rabil, , Erasmus and the New Testament, pp. 112–113.Google Scholar

15. EE, IV, 437, 11. 23–26.Google Scholar

16. EE, V, 7, 11. 101–103;Google Scholar see also the dedication of the paraphrase of Luke to Henry VIII, EE, V, 313, 11. 22–30.Google Scholar

17. See EE, V, 6, 11. 36–39;Google ScholarEE, V, 172, 11. 395–397;Google ScholarEE, V, 322, 11. 420–425.Google Scholar

18. EE, V, 6, 11. 39–42.Google Scholar

19. EE, V, 322, 11. 425–428.Google Scholar See Quintilian, , Institutio Oratoria, X.v.4–8.Google Scholar In X.v.5, Quintilian says: “But I would not have paraphrase restrict itself to the bare interpretation of the original: its duty is rather to rival and vie with the original in the expression of the same thoughts.” (Loeb Classical Library, Quintilian, Vol. 4, pp. 114, 115)Google Scholar Erasmus, of course, was thoroughly familiar with Quintilian, even though he does not cite him in this context. See also especially X.v.8.

20. EE, V, 7, 11. 106–108.Google Scholar

21. EE, IV, 284, 11. 25–28.Google Scholar

22. EE, IV, 417–418, 11. 72–78.Google Scholar

23. See, for example, LB, IX, 483B; 625B–C.Google Scholar

24. In his annotations (LB, VI, 335–422)Google Scholar which are a good clue to the authorities on whom he most relied, Erasmus cites, among the eastern fathers, Chrysostom's Homilies on John 71 times, Theophylactus 41 times, Cyril of Alexandria 35 times, and the Constantian Codex 20 times. Among western fathers, various works of Augustine are cited 59 times, of Jerome 23 times, of Hilary 11 times, and of Cyprian 9 times. Erasmus seems not to have had the fragmentary work of Origen available, since Origen is cited only 6 times throughout the annotations.In his paraphrase Erasmus followed his own interpretation of the philosophy of Christ, but he often adopts the interpretations of Chrysostom, as these notes will indicate at the appropriate points.

25. EE, V, 172, 11. 389–395.Google Scholar

26. LB, VII, 525E–526A.Google Scholar Chrysostom recounts names and events from kings in his homilies and says the Jews named the Samaritans, while Erasmus omits the history and says the Samaritans took their name from Mount Samor. But both say that the Jews hated the Samaritans, that the Samaritans considered Jacob their father because he was descended from Abraham, and that the Samaritans accepted only the books of Moses, not the prophets. St. John Chrysostom, Homily 31, Commentary on St. John the Apostle and Evangelist, The Fathers of the Church, 2 vols. (New York, 1957, 1960); 1:301–302.Google Scholar (Hereafter cited as FC.) Erasmus was doubtless following Chrysostom closely in his paraphrase.

27. LB, VII, 519C–D.Google Scholar All the points made by Erasmus here are made also by Chrysostom in his homilies: that Nicodemus came by night because of his fear of the Jews (Homily, 24, FC, Vol. I, 234),Google Scholar that Nicodemus' reply shows that he regarded Jesus only as a prophet (Homily, 24, FC, VOL. I, 235),Google Scholar and that Jesus does not rebuke Nicodemus for his carnal understanding, characteristic of the Jews, but seeks to lead him to higher things (Homily, 24, FC, Vol. I, 237, 239).Google Scholar

28. LB, VII, 517B–C.Google Scholar See also John 1:51 (514C-D);John 2:4 (515B); John 10:32 (586A); John 19:6 (636D-E). In this case, there is no parallel passage in Chrysostom. Indeed, Chrysostom argues that since in Matthew 21:13 the Temple is referred to as a “den of thieves” while in John it is referred to as a “house of business,” Jesus cleansed the Temple twice, once at the beginning and again at the end of his ministry. Erasmus makes no effort to reconcile the gospels in this respect. Homily, 23, FC, Vol. I, 225.Google Scholar

29. Bedda objected to Erasmus' interpretation here, arguing that Jesus owed obedience to his mother as well as to his father. Erasmus' defense is spirited. Divinationes ad notata per Beddam, LB, IX, 482B–D;Google ScholarSupputatio, LB, IX, 625E–629E.Google Scholar

30. LB, VII, 514E–515B.Google Scholar Erasmus' explanation is much simpler than those of Chrysostom, who tries by many different routes to explain the difficulties of this passage. Erasmus follows none of them. Homily, 22, FC, Vol. I, 212–216.Google Scholar For similar examples of elaboration see the paraphrases of John 4:48 (532E-F) and John 11:9–10 (588C-D).

31. LB, VII, 533C–D.Google Scholar This explanation is missing in Chrysostom who is notable for his anti-Jewish attitude. Homily, 36, FC, Vol. I, 351–352.Google Scholar

32. LB, VII, 563A–B.Google Scholar The last sentence recalls the criticism addressed to Francis I in the dedicatory letter to the paraphrase of Mark. EE, V, 357, 11. 187–204.Google Scholar

33. LB, VII, 591C.Google Scholar Chrysostom also gives as a reason for Jesus' weeping that we might know he shares our human nature, but the following phrase is not in Chrysostom and indeed is characteristically Erasmian. Homily, 63, FC, Vol. II, 182.Google Scholar See also John 6:15 (543F-544A) in which the people come to make Jesus king and Jesus withdraws into the hills in order to avoid this. Erasmus says kingship represents riches, pleasure, and glory and that Jesus withdrew to show that his kingship had nothing to do with these. Chrysostom's point is slightly different: Jesus fled to teach us to despise worldly honors and to show that he was in need of nothing belonging to earth. Homily, 42, FC, Vol. I, 432.Google Scholar

34. LB, VII, 513D.Google Scholar Augustine says the fig tree signifies the shadow of death, for in Matthew 20:19 it is cursed because it has leaves only and no fruit. Its leaves signify sin. This is similar to Erasmus but not the same. See Lectures on the Gospel According to St. John, 7:21, in Augustine, , Homilies on the Gospel of John, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1888, 1956), p. 55.Google Scholar (Hereafter cited as NPNF.)

35. LB, VII, 533F.Google Scholar See Chrysostom, , Homily, 36, FC, Vol. I, 353.Google Scholar

36. LB, VII, 593F–594A.Google Scholar See also John 10:22 (584D) in which the church is represented as a new temple replacing the old.

37. LB, VII, 602C–D.Google Scholar Chrysostom sees this act only as a means by which Jesus consoled his disciples. Homily, 70, FC, Vol. II, 252–253.Google Scholar Augustine regards it as a demonstration of Jesus' humility which we are all to imitate. Tractate 55:7, NPNF, Series I, Vol. 7, 301.Google Scholar

38. LB, VII, 603A–B.Google Scholar See also John 13:10 (603C). See Chrysostom, , Homily, 70, FC, Vol. II, 257;Google Scholar and Augustine, , Tractate, 56:4, NPNF, Series I, Vol. 7, 302.Google Scholar

39. EE, V, 170, 11. 278–279.Google Scholar This recalls Erasmus' notion of the “three circles” expressed in a letter to Paul Volz on the occasion of the reprinting of the Enchiridion in 1518. EE, III, 368–370, 11. 245–311;Google Scholar translated in Christian Humanism and the Reformation, ed. J. C. Olin (New York, 1965), pp. 118–121);Google Scholar and in the Ratio verae theologiae, also written in 1518 (Holborn, Ann Marie and Holborn, Hajo, eds., Erasmus Ausgewählte Werke (Munich, 1933) pp. 202–204).Google Scholar

40. LB, VII, 541F–542B.Google Scholar

41. John 7:50. LB, VII, 562C.Google Scholar

42. John 10:9. LB, VII, 582A.Google Scholar

43. LB, VII, 576B.Google Scholar See Chrysostom, , Homily, 57, FC, Vol. II, 98.Google Scholar

44. LB, VII, 529C–D.Google Scholar See also John 2:11 (516D) and John 7:21–24 (556E-F). See Chrysostom, , Homily, 33, FC, Vol. I, 326.Google Scholar

45. John 6:29. LB, VII, 546C.Google Scholar

46. John 14:21. LB, VII, 611B;Google Scholar see also John 15:2 (614B-C)

47. John 17:23. LB, VII, 629A.Google Scholar

48. John 8:3. LB, VII, 563C.Google Scholar

49. John 17:14. LB, VII, 617E.Google Scholar

50. LB, VII, 519E–F.Google Scholar Erasmus seems to go out of his way here to comment on the Jews. See also the paraphrase of John 4:54, quoted above, note 26.

51. LB, VII, 535F–536A.Google Scholar