Erasmus 'craftily concealing' the Cyprian references

[Steven Avery]

For many years I have wondered how Erasmus managed to avoid the incredible Cyprian references in the heavenly witnesses debates. Especially Unity of the Church. And he also kept it out of the Annotationes.

As an example, here is a post from 2018.

Facebook
Textus Receptus Bibles
https://www.facebook.com/groups/TextusReceptusBibles/permalink/1491297284323802/?comment_id=1491645134289017&reply_comment_id=1491702937616570&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}

Some evidences, like the amazing Council of Carthage reference, were not published until later in the 1500s.
Erasmus seems to have hidden the major Unity of the Church ref from the discussions with Stunica and Lee, and from the annotations.

Erasmus definitely should have known about it from his Cyprian edition. He offers the texts and he has a very nice introductory annotation section.

This has not been noticed in most public writings simply because the scholarship has been mediocre at best, it is actually a fundamental question.

Why was the Cyprian reference not given in any discussions about the heavenly witnesses until later in the 1500s, e.g. possibly Alfonsus Salmeron, c. 1580, or maybe Jean Hessels, 1568? There are a number of writings in Latin to check.

There are some complexities, including the possible faux writing that Erasmus, if I remember, ascribed to Cyprian, also the secondary Epistle to Jubaianus reference had a textual issue.

Here you can see a 1520 edition of Fulgentius with his Cyprian Unity of the Church reference:

Opera: Item opera Maxentii Johannis
by Claudius Gordianus Fulgentius, Willibald Pirckheimer
https://books.google.com/books?id=JGBKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT40

And here is the Erasmus edition of 1521 that shows the Cyprian reference directly, the key evidence that indicates that the fix was in, or Erasmus was hit by an incredible blindness:

Opera divi Caecilii Cypriani episcopi Carthaginensis, ab innumeris mendis repurgata, adiectis nonnulis libellis ex uetustissimis exemplaribus, quæ hactenus no[n] habebantur (1521)
Erasmus
https://books.google.com/books?id=C_baHyoTn6kC&pg=PP192
https://books.google.com/books?id=lbpSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP192 (good, May, 2019)
https://books.google.com/books?id=PcZYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA164 (1520)
https://books.google.com/books?id=sQVcAAAAQAAJ

Estius moved to his own page.
De Duplicio Martyrio moved to its own page.

Bengel noticed a surprising Erasmus omission on Jubaianus, where he omitted "cum tres unum sunt" - see this referenced by George Travis, questioning the "candor of Erasmus". From my studies, the ms evidence strongly supported the words.

Letters to Edward Gibbon (1794)
https://books.google.com/books?id=nf0qAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA351
===
Later, around 1700 and before Bengel, also Majus and George Bull have a fair amount on the Cyprian questions, and how they were handled by Richard SImon.
=============
A little side-note is that Erasmus was normally quite attentive to Cyprian, and specifically referenced what he wrote on 1 John 4:3, which has an important support or maybe variant in the "every spirit that confesses" section.
================

In the correspondence, around 1519-1520, Erasmus was taking a real beating on the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome, which essentially proves the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses. Erasmus had swung wildly, virtually accusing Jerome of fabricating and inserting the verse, even though normally he was pro-Jerome.

The absurd idea that the Vulgate Prologue was not Jerome came later, and is basically a frivolous no-evidence (and against all evidence) assertion. The supposed lateness of the Prologue being disproved by Codex Fuldensis. The Prologue is a first-person Jerome composition, consistent with his knowledge and style.

Erasmus saw the Cyprian reference no later than 1521 and would most certainly have realized that this would disprove his position on Jerome. And be quite awkward in any attempt to defend the omission of the verse. So I will conjecture that the Cyprian reference made quite an impact on Erasmus, and he was not running to tell anybody about the citation. And although all the emphasis of writers focuses on the British ms, the Cyprian reference may well have contributed to Erasmus placing the verse into the third edition of 1522.

His omission in Jubaianus (which was corrected in all the later post-Erasmus editions) is also puzzling, and may well be connected.

One thing has not been checked, and there is a scholar or two who might help, and this is whether Cyprian came up in Valladolid.

Is it possible that Erasmus missed the reference? Possible, but unlikely. And if he did see it, at the very least it should have been in the Annotations.

Btw, this is the first time I have tried to go into this Erasmus-Cyprian situation in a quasi-methodical way. It really is fascinating. The scholar who best knows Valladolid should be Lu Ann Homza, although Peter Bietenholz may help as well.

One problem is that the theories of interpolation include the idea of a 4th century fabrication in the Arian controversies by the Orthodox. Clearly the Cyprian reference (and many corroborations) destroy that theory, and there is no replacement. Plus Cyprian had Latin and Greek background and was a major church leader and was careful in referencing scripture.

Then you add the grammatical evidences that prove the Greek original had the heavenly witnesses. Erasmus alluded to this with "torquebit grammaticos".

There has been a fog of disinformation on the grammar. It really is a proof of authenticity, as pointed out by Eugenius Bulgaris c. 1780. Eugenius was world-class in Greek scholarship, classical, Biblical and modern conversational, ultra-fluent with full tonal range. Today we have motley lexicon scholars, which makes New Testament language studies a joke field.

It did take a bit more study there to unravel some of the spaghetti.

 

[Steven Avery]

Thomas Smith - Erasmus was "craftily concealing" the Cyprian references

Thomas Smith (1638-1710)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Smith_(scholar)

A sermon of the credibility of the mysteries of the Christian religion preached before a learned audience (1675)
Thomas Smith
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/a...1.001?page=root;size=125;vid=101752;view=text (1675)
https://books.google.com/books?id=DO9bAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA69 (1696)

the falsity of which conjecture, however so warily laid down, has been disproved; hereby craftily concealing the citation out of St. Cyprian, he very boldly accuses St. Hierome of Forgery

Thomas Smith is double slamming Erasmus. The awkward and false attempt to accuse Jerome of forgery, which is fairly well known. And how he concealed the Cyprian reference!

The Latin text in defense of the heavenly witnesses, done later than the 1675 sermon, is at:

Altera miscellanea: responsio ad Simonii cavillationes ; Integritas loci 1 Jo. V, 7 ; Defensio contra exceptiones Simonii ; Commentarius in 2am Petri epistolam. [Apendix contra Simonem] (1690)
https://books.google.com/books?id=0g5AAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA137

Have not yet seen the sharp words to Ersamus.

Added note: This could be to Socinus.
Did he accuse Jerome of forgery?

he had corrupted the Scriptures,but he was no way moved by it;though this accufation of those of his own time perchance may not fo much be referr'd to this place,as to his tranflation in general,and may proceed not fo much from heretical malice and pravity,as envy of several of his contemporaries, who were orthodox in the faith,but were no friends to his new translation. He charges the omiffion upon these unfaithful Tranflators (questionless Sabelli ans and Arians) and upbraids them with it as a thing manifest and notorious, and easily demonftrable;and certainly he would not have made himfelf so obnoxious,unless he had grounded his confidence upon the authority of several Greek Copies: with what little pretence of reason therefore Erafmus and Socinus fancy St.Hierome to have changed the publick and common reading, let any indifferent perfon judge. But fuppofing that the Copies of those times varied, which Erasmus grants (and therefore St.Hierome is most falfely and unjustly accufed by Socinus to have been the author of this interpolation) He enquires,quonam argumento docet utrum fit rectius,utrumve fcriptum fit ab Apoftolo, præfertim cum quod reprehendit, tum haberet publicus ufus Ecclefia? To this it may be answered, 1.that some

 

[Steven Avery]

1500s authenticity with Cyprian Hessels, Sirlet, Alfonsus Salmeron

The early Cyprian references in defense of authenticity found so far are:

Hessels 1568 - (the reference is nicely given by Grantley, but Fulgentius is given sans the Cyprian component)
Sirlets - 1570 - noted in the Hildebrand Höpfl 1908 edition, Grantley does not cover Sirlets,
Salmeron - c. 1580 written, published 1602 - omitted, perhaps not as historically significant as Sirlets

(Catharinus has Vulgate Prologue, as mentioned by Grantley, also an interesting Dionysius ref, unmentioned.)
Searching out Valladolid, Cyprian has references, but it is unclear if any are really attached to the heavenly wtinesses debate.

===========================

The excellent Alfonsus Salmeron section is here:

Alfonso Salmeron (1515-1585)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Salmeron
These voluminous commentaries are the popular and university expositions which Salmeron had delivered during his preaching and teaching days. In old age, he gathered his notes together, revised them, and left his volumes ready for posthumous publication by Bartholomew Pérez de Nueros.

Disputationum in Epistolas divi Pauli et Canonicae et praeludia generalia in Apocalypsim (1602)
https://books.google.com/books?id=xIfvzOFgxLsC&pg=PA384

Not printed till 1602 by Luis Sanchez (bookseller, publisher, and royal printer active at Madrid and Valladolid 1590- 1627)

There are about five pages in the section, which starts with the divinity and humanity of Christ!
The next page 385 has the Cyprian ref.

Charles Butler references Salmeron here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=duI3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA268

 

[Steven Avery]

Hessels, Zegerus, Lucas Brugensis, Sisensis, Servetus, Socinus

This section is more on commentaries that are separate from the Bible editions, also we are not going there through the Lutherans. or the Erasmus correspondents (Lee, Stunica, Pio, Farel) or Valladolid. This planned for expansion to 1500s debate..

Salmeron

Beuter

Jean Hessels (1522-1566) -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Hessels
"Com. de Epp. Johannis" (Douai, 1601).
Cyprian and Fulgentius
https://books.google.com/books?id=RdGq8Px1QSEC&pg=RA1-PA109
http://books.google.com/books?id=kD9JAAAAcAAJ

Jan Hessels, professor of theology at Leuven, discussed the comma in his commentary on i Jn (1568). Hessels interpreted the unity of the heavenly witnesses as a unanimity of testimony to Jesus’ status as Son of God. He noted that the Greek codices only contain v. 8, and that this reading reflects that found in some Latin fathers, such as Ambrose, Bede and Augustine. Hessels also noted that Erasmus had daringly excluded the prologue to the Catholic Epistles, the most important early witness to the authenticity of the passage, from his edition of Jerome’s works. Hessels listed a number of Latin writers who cited the passage, such 0as pseudo-Hyginus, the author of Against Varimadus, Fulgentius, and pseudo-Athanasius. He also noted that the comma was transmitted in two Greek codices: Erasmus’ British codex, and that on which the reading in the Complutensian Polyglot was presumed to have been based. Hessels also reported the readings from a number of old Latin codices in the libraries of St Peters and St Gertrude s in Leuven.49
49 Hessels 1568, io6v-iiov.

Hessels, Jan. In primam B. Ioannis Apostoli et Evangelistae canonicam epistolam absolutissimus commentarius. Leuven: Bogaert, 1568. Biblical Criticism

Omitted in Ghost of Arius. Cyprian is unmentioned in the BCEME Hessels section

Bellarmine|

Biandrata

Rudolph Gwalther

======

Grantley says the "followers of Servet" "denied the originality of the passage. A strange claim, since Servetus himself affirmed authentiticy.

He errs in saying that the only positive evidence brought forth by Zegers is the church tradition and the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome.

Although Calamy did summarize similarly:
2. ’Tis obje&ed by Zegerus That he could not find that as to this Text, any of the Ancients did in all Things agree with our Reading.
======

1600s - Guistiniani

========================


Salmeron

Beuter

 

[Steven Avery]

the Erasmus editions of Cyprian

Six Essays on Erasmus (1979)
John C. Olin
https://books.google.com/books?id=LRL7031O-tIC&pg=PA41

In February 1520 Froben published Erasmus’ edition of the writings of St. Cyprian. A folio volume of over 500 pages, it was a marked improvement over the preceding Paris edition of Cyprian in 1512, for Erasmus not only used additional manuscripts to emend the text or show variant readings (in the margin), but he added several treatises not previously published, and he identified and separated works wrongly attributed to Cyprian.38 Erasmus subsequently produced for the Frobens three revised editions—in November 1521, in 1525, and in 1530—and there were also numerous reprints of the work.

38. Allen, IV, 23-24. On the Paris edition see Eugene F. Rice, ‘The Humanist Idea of Christian Antiquity: Lefevre d’EtapIes and his Circle,” Studies in the Renaissance, 9 (1962), 156-60.

Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterdami, Volume 4
P. S. Allen
https://books.google.com/books?id=3mViAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA23

Lots of detail information here, apparently for the 1520 edition, Erasmus used three previous printed editions.
1) Sweynheyin and Pannartz, Rome, 1471;
2) Pafraet’s, Deventer, (c. 1480) (Hain 5894 : Proctor 8954);
3) Paris edition printed by B. Re in bolt and J. Waterloes, 13 Nov. 1512.

Besides these printed texts Erasmus had the use of two manuscripts;
... the smaller, was from Gembloux (cf. Epp. 975, 984), and supplied him with a new treatise, the De laude martyrii
... the larger, Hartel

In Aug. 1544 Erasmus Cyprian was re-edited (Cologne, P. Quentel : see Migne i, pp. lxxiii,iv) by Henry Gravius, a Dominican of Cologne and perhaps a kinsman of his old friend (cf. Ep. 610. 47n). By this time the manuscript of the De duplici martyrio had disappeared, or at any rate Gravius had not seen it. On internal evidence he evolved the theory that this otherwise unknown treatise was a forgery by Erasmus; and this view was followed by James Pamelius of Bruges, in an edition printed at Antwerp in 1568. That Erasmus could not have lent himself to such fabrication ‘ clarius est quam vt sit admonendum ’. The idea was soon discarded ; but modern editors point out that on evident grounds the work cannot be attributed to Cyprian. Either therefore Erasmus must have read it through very hastily, or possibly he had not seen it at all. The edition in which it appears (8) belongs to the Freiburg period ; and though there is much revision of this preface, no doubt from Erasmus’ own hand, he clearly cannot have taken part in the actual production of the book. It is possible, therefore, that, as their description (f*. b8 v° of 8) suggests—‘quem in vetustissima bibliotheca repertum adiecimus*—the Basle printers may have added the new treatise on their own responsibility: as they did in 1535 with Hilary (Ep. 1334).

 

[Steven Avery]

additional problematic Erasmus writings

As a sidenote, I think I have noticed references to one or two other suspicious or questionable Erasmus writings. If I understood that right, and can coalesce them, I will put them on this thread.

 

[Steven Avery]

Erasmus translation? - '‘the Holy Spirit did not yet exist’

There are critical issues involved here, because a mistranslation in the Erasmus Greek text then leapfrogs into misrepresenting the doctrinal and Christological views of Erasmus and contributes to a problem with Servetus.

========================

John 7:39
(But this spake he of the Spirit,
which they that believe on him should receive:
for the Holy Ghost was not yet given;
because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Vulgate variant with datus (there is a note involving Jerome that some Latin mss. do not have datus, which would supply the Erasmus textual support in Latin, he would not be doing any translation, except to English.)

John 7:39 Latin text from Erasmus that was controversial
Nondum enim erat spiritus sanctus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus.

Grantley McDonald

But if Servet received many initial impulses from Erasmus, he took them in more radical directions. For example, he adopted Erasmus’ translation of Jn 7:39 (‘the Holy Spirit did not yet exist’), but interpreted it not as an indication that the Apostles had not yet been empowered by the Holy Spirit, but as evidence that the Holy Spirit did not exist before being given to humans.
Biblical Criticism p. 73-74

If Erasmus emphasised Jesus’ humanity, Servetus took this as the starting-point for a denial of Jesus’ divinity. He also took Erasmus’ translation of Jn 7:39 (“the Holy Spirit did not yet exist”) not as a suggestion that the Apostles had not yet been empowered by the Holy Spirit, but as evidence that the Holy Spirit did not exist before being given to humans. Servetus’ ideas are thus more radical than those of Erasmus.
Ghost of Arius p. 152

no footnote support.

See the long Commenary from Erasmus placed at bottom of this post.

We question at least three points, #1 is critical because it is the fulcrum for the whole section, #3 is simply surprising.

1) Erasmus ever gave such a translation - 'the Holy Spirit did not yet exist'
(this arrives to us only by translating a half-sentence of his Latin text out of the full verse context, against the explanation of Erasmus)

2) Servetus spoke of the non-existence of the Holy Spirit until post-Pentecost (this may be true..in a fairly confused Servet section)

3) Servetus denied the divinity of Jesus - (this might be claimed by a modern ebionite or low Christology unitarian, but it is not Servetus)

First, #3 is contradicted directly by Grantley! :

While Servet learned much from Erasmus’ Annotations, he did not follow Erasmus in calling the authenticity of the comma into question. Instead he sought to work out an alternative theological position on the basis of the Scriptural texts that refer to the nature of the relationship between God and Jesus, whose status as ‘great God’ he maintained.

Biblical Criticism p. 74

You can not discuss Jesus being the 'great God' (even if in some sense subordinate) and claim he also has a "no divinity" position. Especially as "divinity" is a very mild word in these contexts.

Returning to the existence of the Holy Spirit:

(e.g. Genesis 1:1, the annunciation to Mary, the dove at the baptism of Jesus)

Grantley may have accepted this half-sentence translation at face from Bietenholz (and Beitenholz may be working with an accusation from Lee or Standish, but not the actual Latin or Greek texts in context.. the accusation is against the Erasmus Latin.)

Encounters with a radical Erasmus (2008)
Peter G. Bietenholz
http://books.google.com/books?id=1cxY0mm2ZwMC&pg=PA36
http://books.google.com/books?id=1cxY0mm2ZwMC&pg=PA253 (footnote 12)

In John 7:39, Erasmus translated 'The Holy Spirit (Spiritus sanctus) did not yet exist' but in his note he suggested - in fact, correctly - that sanctus was an addition that went back to Greek copyists, while in the Vulgate this had been changed to Spiritus datus so as to avoid any suggestion that the Spirit was not eternal - needlessly so, because John spoke not of the substance of the Holy Spirit, but of the empowerment of the apostles that had not taken place by then. Erasmus' argument led Servetus to the radical conclusion that the Holy Spirit did not exist before men were empowered by it and did not exist independent of being given to men.12

12 Gilly, Spanien., 290L, and 'Erasmo, la Reforma radical' 228-230. LB VI 371f. Servetus, De Trinilatis erroribus, 65V. Two Treatises, 101f.

First notice "sanctus was an addition that went back to Greek copyists," Beitenholz has no basis for that absolute declaration comment. The evidence for sanctus is extremely strong, which you can see on LaParola, even allowing the various apparatus rigging tricks.

πνεῦμα] p[SUP]66[/SUP][SUP](c)[/SUP]p[SUP]75[/SUP]*אKN*TΘΠΨ10791546vg[SUP]st[/SUP]cop[SUP]bo[/SUP][SUP](pt)[/SUP]armethgeo[SUP]1[/SUP]Origen[SUP]gr[/SUP]Origen[SUP]lat[/SUP][SUP](1/6)[/SUP]RebaptismCyril[SUP]3/9[/SUP]Ps-Dionysius Hesychius WHCEINvNM

πνεῦμα ἅγιον] p[SUP]66[/SUP]* EGHN[SUP]c[/SUP]LWXΔ 01050141f1f1328331571802055655795977008921006100910101071119512161241124212431253129213421344136514241505164621482174ByzLecteth
Origen[SUP]lat[/SUP][SUP](4/6) [/SUP]Athanasius Marcellus Tyconius Didymus[SUP]dub[/SUP] Chrysostom Cyril[SUP]6/9 [/SUP]Theodoretς

πνεῦμα δεδομένον] it[SUP]a[/SUP]it[SUP]aur[/SUP]it[SUP]b[/SUP]it[SUP]c[/SUP]it[SUP]ff2[/SUP]it[SUP]l[/SUP]it[SUP]r1[/SUP]vg[SUP]cl[/SUP]vg[SUP]ww[/SUP]syr[SUP]c[/SUP]syr[SUP]s[/SUP]syr[SUP]p[/SUP]cop[SUP]sa[/SUP]?cop[SUP]bo[/SUP][SUP](ms)[/SUP]?cop[SUP]ach2[/SUP]?
EusebiusAmbrosiasterVictorinus-RomeVictorinus-RomeAmbroseGaudentiusJeromeAugustineNRRivTILC

πνεῦμα ἅγιον δεδομένον] B1230it[SUP]e[/SUP]it[SUP]q[/SUP]vg[SUP]mss[/SUP] (syr[SUP]h[/SUP]δεδομένον with asterisk) syr[SUP]pal[/SUP]geo[SUP]2[/SUP]slavOrigen[SUP]lat[/SUP][SUP](1/6)[/SUP]NDDio
τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπ' αὐτοῖς] D* (D[SUP]1[/SUP]τὸ ἅγιον ἐπ' αὐτούς) it[SUP]d[/SUP]it[SUP]f[/SUP]goth
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=50&rif2=7:39

And it is true that Servetus was a mess on this verse and concept.

The Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity: On the Errors of the Trinity, Seven Books, MDXXXI, Dialogues on the Trinity, Two Books, On the Righteousness of Christ's Kingdom, Four Chapters, MDXXXII Z(2013 edition)
https://books.google.com/books?id=WtFNAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA101

Then the flesh was made holy; but now the spirit is holy. And this is indicated when the words are joined together, and a kind of holiness is ascribed to the Spirit. From this it is evident that it is not a separate being; but every holiness of spirit is referred to man; and, excepting the messenger who when he descends is called the Holy Spirit, I say that nothing else outside of man is called the Holy Spirit. And John well said, The Spirit was not yet,3 though they are unwilling to have the words stand as God uttered them, as though God were in need of their lying. For in the very act of giving it says, Holy Spirit; nor is it said to be before it is given. And now I say that there is no longer a Holy Spirit, it is nowhere, because no one believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; for in the same passage this proof is conclusive.

New Testament Scholarship: Paraphrase on John
Robert Dick Sider, Jane Ellen Phillips
https://books.google.com/books?id=NiQF2JO9qUwC&pg=PA101

By this riddle Jesus meant the rich and abundant Spirit which those= who believed in him would later receive; and when it was received the apostles promptly began with great faith to preach the gospel philosophy to the world in different languages,47 and to pour out the Spirit they had drunk from heaven into the hearts of all believers. For though at that time some of them4* had perceived the elements of faith, the powerful and abundant Spirit had not been given49 to anyone yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified by death and resurrection,50 nor ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father,51 whence he would send the Spirit to the apostles.

Lectures on Theology (1857)
Abraham Anderson
https://books.google.com/books?id=UshbuLYSBRoC&pg=PA153

(2.) It is scarcely credible that the objectors could seriously believe that the passage quoted means that the Holy Spirit did not yet exist; when in Isa. Ixiii. 10, it is said that they vexed him in the wilderness;—when he created the world; Gen. i. 2; Psa. xxxiii. 6,—and when the Spirit was given to Christ at his baptism.

Erasmus and the Problem of the Johannine Comma (1997)
Joseph M. Levine
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3653961?read-now=1&seq=17#page_scan_tab_contents

When the Englishman Standish denounced him again at St. Paul’s for having omitted the word datus from John 7:39, he had to explain again that it was not in the Greek manuscripts because they were corrupt—excised, according to Standish. by the wicked Arians—but because it had never been there. If it had, Erasmus was certain that the orthodox fathers would have mentioned it. And if the Arians had excised it, the orthodox Christians would certainly not have kept silent about so impious an act. Nor was it clear to Erasmus just what the benefit would have been, since neither the addition nor the subtraction much affected the sense. Besides, Erasmus was only the translator of the Greek text; would Standish have him supply what was not in the manuscripts?74

74 The absence of the participle datus indicated to Standish that Erasmus mistook the Holy Spirit for a creature. Erasmus to Robert Aldridge. 23 Aug. 1527, Allen, no. 1858, VII, 128-41.

========================

Extra notes from Bietenholz

1: where he may be overstating Erasmus

Likewise, commenting on John 1:14: 'the Word became flesh,' De Breen gladly followed Erasmus (and Beza) who had stated that 'flesh' simply referred to Christ's humanity and not to any divine nature incarnated in the human body.... Philippians 2:6,

2. Nice irenic quote from Zwicker

Zwicker .. Posterity has remembered him primarily for a single page of his Irenicum Irenicorum. There he asserts that he is not a member of any church, but is indebted to all of them for some precious insight. The Bohemian Brethren and the Lutherans taught him, he says, the need for reform, the Calvinists rational exegesis, the Remonstrants freedom of conscience, the Greeks esteem for their church fathers, the Roman Catholics the indispensability of good works, the Socinians critical thinking in general, and the Mennonites Christian morality. Church reform, freedom of conscience, reason, esteem for the patristic tradition, a faith that shows in daily conduct and works of charity: one can argue that these together sum up the religion of Erasmus and that, in this sense, Zwicker was indeed an Erasmian.

===============

Jan Krans
http://www.archive.org/stream/Beyon...fTheNew/BeyondWhatIsWritten#page/n53/mode/2up

Controversies
By Desiderius Erasmus
https://books.google.com/books?id=Zbq4IzccPqwC&pg=PA200

Concerning Note 91
I pointed out that instead of our reading at John, chapter 7, Nondum erat Spiritus datus, quia Jesus nondum erat glorificatus [for the Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified], the Greek manuscripts consistently have 'For the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.'747 And the Bulgarian bishop Theophylact not only read but also interpreted it in this way. For he explains 'he was not yet present,' as 'he

747 1n the annotation nondum erat spiritus datus (on John 7:39) Reeve 244-5;Allen Ep 1858:1-362.

(clean up the rest)
had not yet been given/748 For the preceding words are 'He said this, how- ever, about the Spirit whom the believers were about to receive/ And as if someone had asked, why do you say 'about to receive,' he answers that they were still lacking the Spirit whom they would receive later. Therefore the Spirit was not yet, not because he 'was not' in the absolute sense of the word but because he was not yet in the faithful. Here Lee confronts me with Origen translated into Latin,749 although he cannot prove from the testimony he argues that Origen, or whoever else was the author of that work, read Spiritual datum [the Spirit was given]. For he speaks in this way: 'For the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of those people who believed in Jesus, as John attests.'750 You see that he has put sanctus [holy] instead of datus [given], and does not mention 'given.' Certainly751 Theophylact both reads and interprets as I have indicated. In this case Lee writes in his index that I admit that the passage in Chrysostom is as he cites it.752 On the contrary, I said that it is not clear from Chrysostom's interpretation what he read and that it is indeed more plausible to conclude that he read as the Greeks did. I do admit that [Chrysostom's Latin] translator consis- tently added 'given.' And I also admit that this is the reading of the old Latin manuscripts.753 And since nondum erat Spiritus [the Spirit was not yet present] means the same as nondum erat datus [had not yet been given], it is not surprising if the Latin writers wanted to express it more lucidly.

748 Ettarr in Joan pg 123 13420-0
749 Lee fols xxxix verso-XL
750 Cf Origen Horn in Mntt 3 pg 13 1073-4 under Vet us intcrpretatio.
751 Certainly ... indicated.] Added in 1540
752 Lee fol xc (cf n3 above). Cf Chrysostom Horn in Joan 51 (50).2 PC 59 284.
753 Erasmus added these admissions to the annotation in 1519; cf Reeve 244.

Some elements shared where the Erasmus view of the Holy Spirit is considered problematic.

"Pater frequentissime Deus vocatur, Filius aliquoties, Spiritus Sanctus nunquam" - Erasmus

Valladolid on Erasmus - "valde scandalose de Spiritus Sancti divinitate loquitur"

Erasmus on Hilary of Poiters - "Nusquam sanctus Hilarius scribit adorandum Spiritum Sanctum, nusquam tribuit ei Dei vocabulum exerie"