Europe of 1516 presented
quite a world of contrasts. Superstition still ruled many
people’s minds, yet men of great scholarship and insight were
to be found in every nation. Great political struggles were
taking place, struggles which would soon give form and outline
to the Europe of today. Nationalism was on the rise, and the
papacy on the decline. Heretics were still being burnt at the
stake, and the ages-old cry of reform was not thought to mean
reform outside of the Roman Catholic Church but rather within
it. Luther had yet to post his 95 Theses. In that year of 1516
a momentous event occurred
- at Basle, Switzerland. From the
press of John Froben came Novum Instrumentum omne,
diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum,
Desiderius Erasmus’s edition of the Greek New Testament, along
with his own new Latin translation, with annotations. This
work, put through five different editions in Erasmus’s
lifetime, would have lasting effects on Biblical scholarship.
Who was Erasmus? Why was he the first to publish a critical
edition of the Greek New Testament? How did this edition
To answer these
questions, we must look at Erasmus the man, and determine how
he viewed his work. We must examine his times, his
acquaintances, friends and foes. We must take up his New
Testament and weigh its worth, and then see in what ways it
effected scholarship in the following generations. It will be
seen that Erasmus of Rotterdam had a far-reaching and often
unnoticed effect on the world.
Erasmus the Man
was a man who shrouded his past in secrecy. Well he might,
considering the social implications of it. So well did he
perform his task that we are not even sure of the year of his
birth. Zweig declares it to be 1466,1
others also give 1469.2 The
main sources of information available concerning his childhood
come from Erasmus’s requests for dispensations from the Pope.
The reason is clear
- Erasmus was illegitimate, and hence could not hold a
benefice without a special dispensation from the Pope. In
requesting this we are given his only personal history, and
much to be expected, we find some inconsistency with the known
facts. One can hardly blame him - it seems his father, aside
from not being married to his mother Margaret, was also under
orders. Being illegitimate was bad enough - being the son of a
priest was worse. Though Erasmus tried to excuse his father
with a tale of romance before his father’s taking of vows, the
fact that Erasmus had a brother (Peter) three years older than
himself seems to indicate otherwise. This situation was to
plague Erasmus his entire life, though it was eased somewhat
by a special dispensation bestowed upon him at Westminster
Abbey in 1517.
died early, and left him to be raised by others. The young
Dutch boy did not seem inclined to study at first, and never
did like his native tongue that well. In 1497 he entered the
Augustinian monastery at Steyn, and while Columbus was sailing
to the New World, Erasmus was ordained a Catholic priest by
the Bishop of Utrecht. Though released from his vows as an
Augustinian Canon by Ammonius in 1517, Erasmus never broke his
vows as a priest, and died under orders.3
was a traveler. He visited most of the European countries,
spending time in England at Cambridge, as well as in Paris and
Basle. He was friendly with a vast number of men, great and
small. His correspondence fills a number of large volumes, and
to call his writings “voluminous” is not an overstatement.
Erasmus was not
inclined to accepting criticism, especially not from a younger
person. Scholarly debate was one thing, but unfortunately, in
that day and that climate, many were disposed to add in
charges of impiety or heresy to make things a little spicier.
Erasmus spent much of his time (too much, it seems) in writing
apologies and defenses of his works, and he too was able to
dip his pen rather deeply in the acid in his attacks on
others. His early work
In Praise of Folly set the
tone for the rest of his life (much to his chagrin), and the
notes and comments in his Greek New Testament continued the
tradition of the vituperative language he utilized in debate.
Referring to Erasmus’s penchant for writing apologies, Faludy
“It would be surprising
that he bothered at all if it were not for the fact that the
charges usually mentioned heresy; when this happened the
violence of his rebuttal more than once surprised even
Erasmus was gifted
with almost phenomenal powers of the mind. He was able to
concentrate for long periods of time, and to work quickly for
fourteen or sixteen hours a day. This allowed him to complete
monumental tasks (such as his edition of the New Testament) in
a relatively short period of time. When one realizes the
handicaps involved at that time in comparison with modern
writers, his achievements are even more remarkable.
The writings of
Erasmus demonstrate the view that he was a forerunner of the
Reformers. Though he never left the Roman Catholic system, he
attacked abuse wherever he found it. He was truly a humanist,
but in the 16th century definition. He felt that people had
the ability to understand the things of God, if only they were
given the chance. He was known for his vitriolic denunciation
of superstition, relics and the like. That is not to say that
he did not accept the supernatural
- far from it. One must remember
that in the Europe of 1500 there were enough splinters of the
Cross to fill an entire ship! It was the abuse of relics that
he despised. His acceptance of diabolism is seen in this
letter to Richardoto in 1533:
“I used to say
jokingly to my friends that they were not fleas that bit me,
but demons; and it turned out that this was no pleasantry,
but a reality; for it is not long since a woman was burnt
who, though married, had carried on a secret commerce with
the Devil for eighteen years past. Among other trimes, she
admitted that by the hand of her lover she had sent into
this very town several large bags of fleas. The place where
she was burnt is called Klychove, and is about two leagues
from here. I am writing this to you while standing; and even
while finishing this letter these cursed animals bite me
cruelly in my trousers and around my neck.”5
It may be that
Erasmus is here laughing up his sleeve
- most likely he is not.
In reference to
Erasmus’s production of the Greek New Testament, and his Latin
translation of the same, it must be pointed out that his
humanistic tendencies played an important part in driving him
to the work. A valuable source for our knowledge of this is
the Preface to the work, as well as some of the notes written
by him. For example, in the first edition of 1516 he writes,
dissent from those who would not have private persons read
the Holy Scriptures nor have them translated into the vulgar
tongues, as though either Christ taught such difficult
doctrines that they can only be understood by a few
theologians, or the safety of the Christian religion lay in
ignorance of it. I should like all women to read the Gospel
and the Epistles of Paul. Would that they were translated
into all languages so that not only Scotch and Irish, but
Turks and Saracens might be able to read and know them.6
In the preface to
the third edition of 1522, he expands on this thought by
Some think it
offensive to have the sacred books turned into English or
French, but the evangelists turned into Greek what Christ
spoke in Syriac, nor did the Latins fear to turn the words
of Christ into the Roman tongue -
that is, to offer them to the promiscuous multitude...Like
St. Jerome I think it a great triumph and glory to the cross
if it is celebrated by the tongues of all men; if the farmer
at the plow sings some of the mystic Psalms, and the weaver
sitting at the shuttle often refreshes himself with
something from the Gospel. Let the pilot at the rudder hum
over a sacred tune, and the matron sitting with gossip or
friend at the colander recite something from it.7
The sufficiency of
the human soul in matters of religion was a dangerous idea in
a world where the papacy ruled all. His idea is definitely in
line with the Reformers who were about to break upon the
world, and it certainly is not surprising that many
conservatives associated Erasmus with them, bringing down on
him numerous charges of heresy. Nor should we be too harsh on
Erasmus for his less-than-generous responses to such attacks.
rightly points out that when scholars accused Erasmus of
faulty erudition as well as deficient orthodoxy, “the first
charge touched his pride, the second his very existence as a
member of the Christian community."8
We shall look more closely at some of these attacks later.
on the New “Instrument”
in the ancient texts of the New Testament began quite early.
The monastery at Steyn had quite a library of which to boast,
and it is sure that Erasmus made good use of it. Then in 1504,
he ran across Lorenzo Valla’s
Notes on the New Testament
in the Praemonstratensian Abbey of Parc near Louvain. So taken
was he with Valla’s work that he published it at Paris the
same year. This was a risky undertaking, for Valla certainly
is not remembered as a saint, and his emendations of the
Vulgate text could bring nothing but attack from conservative
Catholics. Valla’s scientific comparison of texts, however,
pierced to Erasmus’s heart, and would eventually be seen
twelve years later in his New Testament.
upon Erasmus was John Colet. A friend of Erasmus, he
encouraged him, partly through his lectures on St. Paul, to
undertake the task that had already captured his imagination.
Just when he began is hard to say. We know from a letter
written to Peter Gilles in the autumn of 1512 that he was
already underway, working both on the New Testament as well as
the epistles of St. Jerome.9 We
also know that it was during this time in England that he
availed himself of some of the manuscripts in the area.
The enormity of
the task must be realized. The modern textual critic has at
his disposal the work of hundreds of great scholars
- lists of manuscript
collations, critical editions of the text that in one volume
give him a vast mountain of information - texts that open up
literally thousands of manuscripts from all over the world.
This was hardly the situation in which Erasmus found himself.
The actual texts
utilized by Erasmus for his Greek testament are a bit of a
mystery. Different writers say different things. It is agreed
that Erasmus had ten man scripts: four from England, five from
Basle, and one borrowed from his friend John Reuchlin.10
Reuchlin’s codex seemed to Erasmus the oldest, though it is
actually from the 10th or 12th century. It represented the
best of the available codices, yet Erasmus distrusted it, and
utilized it only for the book of Revelation. Erasmus wrote to
Reuchlin in August of 1514 and said,
"It is also my
intention to see to the printing of the New Testament in
Greek, with my own annotations added. They say that you have
an eminently correct copy of this [New Testament in Greek],
and if you would lend it to John Froben you will do a favor
not only to him and to me, but also to all the studious.
Your copy, intact and unstained, will be returned to you."11
Faludy states that
this codex is still extant.12
As to the
identification of the other manuscripts used, opinions differ.
Phillips says “which they were is now unknown."13
However, Allen identifies one of the four from England as “the
Leicester Codex written by Emmanuel of Constantinople" and
that it was with the Franciscans at Cambridge by the early
sixteenth century.14 It was
undoubtedly this and three others that Erasmus worked on while
at Cambridge. Becoming unsettled in England in 1514, he packed
up his belongings, (one square wooden box and three
including the work he had done on the New Testament, and
headed for Basle, arriving in mid-August 1514. He hoped to
find manuscripts at Basle that were nearly ready for
Instead, he found
five manuscripts. He was disappointed with their quality,
especially since this would require him to do more work than
he planned. The second best codex available to him he found at
Basle - but again,
Erasmus used it little, for he felt it had been tampered with
and brought into conformity with the Vulgate text (which was
not true). Hence the two best sources in his hands went
predominately unused. He knew of the great Vaticanus
manuscript, but it was at Rome and out of reach. As for the
other manuscripts at Basle, he used two inferior manuscripts
from the monastic library at Basle. One was of the Gospels,
and still today has Erasmus’s corrections visible and the
other of Acts and the Epistles. Metzger dates them as from the
twelfth century.16 He compared
these with a few others. Only Reuchlin’s text contained the
book of Revelation, and he was forced to utilize it at that
first edition was based on ten manuscripts, none of which
could be called exceedingly “ancient,” and even at that he
basically ignored the two best exemplars before him. That
despite this his text was relatively good is more a witness to
the preservation of the Scriptures over time than the
(admittedly) great scholarship of Erasmus.
There was also a
time factor involved. Froben wished to get the edition out as
soon as possible. Possibly he had heard of the project of
Cardinal Ximenes, which eventually upon publication was called
the "Complutensian Polyglot,” (Complutum being the Latin name
of Alcala, the place of publication) the New Testament Greek
portion of which had already been printed in 1514, the leaves
being stored away until papal approval could be obtained.
Therefore, the distinction must be made between the first
New Testament (Ximenes’ Complutensian) and the first
published Greek New Testament, that of Erasmus.
Erasmus was aided
by two scholars - Nikolaus Gerber (to whom numerous misprints
can be attributed) and Ioannes Oecolampadius, later an aid to
Zwingli and a leader in the Reformation
movement. Oecolampadius looked up
all references to the Hebrew of the Old Testament, as Erasmus
did not know Hebrew. Refusing payment for his services,
Oecolampadius accepted only one of Erasmus’s manuscripts, the
introduction to the Gospel of John, and is said to have
treated it as a relic, kissing it and hanging it on a crucifix
while he prayed, that is until is was stolen.17
inferiority of the manuscripts available, the stress for time
under which the printer’s copy was made, and the numerous
mistakes made by Gerber, it is amazing that the first edition
made it into print at all. Erasmus himself called it
“precipitated rather than edited”(praecipitatum
verius quam editum)18
and that it was
“hurried out headlong.”19
Scrivener said of it, “[It] is in that respect the most faulty
book I know.”20 Erasmus
immediately began the tedious task of revision, as well as
undertaking to defend his work.
The book contained
679 pages, about half of which were given over to his own
annotations to the text and descriptions of errors in the
Vulgate version. The rest was Erasmus’s Latin translation and
the Greek text. As an added precaution against attack, Erasmus
(ironically) dedicated the volume to Pope Leo X, even though
he had not yet received an answer to his request to do so. It
was a lucky gamble for him, as when the Pope’s answer did
arrive, it was positive in tone.
above, Erasmus did not use the term “Testamentum” but rather
“Instrumentum” in the first edition. The second edition 1518
changed to the more familiar “Testament,” and this was
followed in all subsequent editions.21
Concerning Erasmus’s Text
The specific Greek
text of Erasmus is important on a number of accounts. This
text represented the first attempt at a critical text. Though
over 400 changes were made in the second edition, few were
vitally important, and the text as created by Erasmus went
predominately unchanged for centuries, eventually being dubbed
the “textus receptus” in 1624 by the Elzevir brothers. For
some, even today, the TR is the “sacred text,” somehow
inspired by God Himself in its every particular. Yet it’s
basis is found in ten not-very-ancient minuscule texts, the
two best of which went mainly unused. As the TR became the
basis of the King James Version, the particulars of Erasmus’s
text are indeed important.
Some of the
problems with Erasmus’s text are, to modern readers, almost
humorous. For example. The text he utilized for the book of
Revelation was Reuchlin’s. Unfortunately, this manuscript was
missing the last leaf, containing verses 16 through 21. He
found the text for verse 20 in Valla’s notes, but was left
with nothing for the other five verses.22
Time factors being what they were, Erasmus decided to
translate from the Vulgate into Greek to fill the gap. He
warned his readers in a footnote that he had done so, but he
still came in for some (well-deserved) criticism. Metzger
gives a footnote in which he lists some of the words that
Erasmus came up with that have absolutely no manuscript
support whatsoever, and yet appear in the “Textus Receptus.”23
Some examples include orthrinos at Revelation 22:16, elthe
twice in verse 17 (its actually erchou), eltheto for erckestho
in the same verse, suntusrturoumai gar for martnro and
epitithe pros tauta for epithe ep auta in verse 18 and so on.
That these mistakes have been maintained, sometimes with
fanatical zeal, for over
450 years is just this side
of amazing! Other erroneous readings arose because of the
mistakes of Gerber in writing. One famous example is
Revelation 17:8. His reading of ouk esti kaiper esti should
have been ouk estin kai parestai. Not only was this error not
corrected, but it slipped into Luther’s German and was not
corrected until 1892! The Textus Receptus maintains it today
against a mountain of evidence.
The most famous
textual “problem” involved in Erasmus’s work was 1 John 5:7,
the famous Comma Johanneum. Absent from every Greek
text he had (indeed, some think from every Greek text in
existence!), he rightly omitted it. A hue and cry was raised
upon publication, and charges of heresy and Arianism were cast
about. Erasmus asked his friend in Rome, Bombasius, to consult
the famous Codex Vaticanus concerning the passage. When
Bombasius replied that the verse was not contained in that
ancient codex, Erasmus rashly proclaimed that if he were to
find so much as one Greek text containing the “Three
Witnesses” he would include it in his next edition. Of course,
such a manuscript was quickly produced. Many suspect it as
having been produced specifically for the occasion. It
is today known as minuscule 61 and is housed at Trinity
College, Dublin. It is dated to the 16th century, and Metzger
reports it opens of its own accord to the passage in 1 John,
its having been consulted at that point so often.24
True to his word Erasmus included the spurious passage in the
third edition (1522) “that there be no calumny.”25
He expressed in a lengthy footnote his doubts concerning the
authenticity of the manuscript. However, verse remains today a
touchstone of orthodoxy for some, most notably the Roman
Some other notes
of interest include Erasmus’s questioning of the authenticity
of such passages as Mark 16:9-20 and the pericope of the
adulteress in John 8. Despite all of the above criticisms,
Erasmus’s work was truly amazing, especially in light of the
translation that came along with the Greek text precipitated
no small amount of protest as well. The very idea of reading
anything but the Vulgate text caused some people indigestion.
Erasmus was severely criticized for translating logos at John
1:1 into the Latin
sermo rather than the Vulgate verbum. Erasmus
felt sermo more accurately expressed the richness of
the phrase logos in the Greek. Such liberties were not easily
accepted by the establishment.
For the second
edition of his work Erasmus consulted a Latin manuscript lent
to him by the King of Hungary known as Codex Aureus, two
manuscripts from the Austin Priory of Corsendonk, and a Greek
MS from the monastery of St. Agnes.27
Other comparisons were made in later years, though the changes
were not major, as has been seen.
in all there were five editions before
- 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527,
and 1535. Erasmus did not see the Complutensian Diaglott
until 1522, and he was unashamed to utilize its better text in
Revelation in his edition of 1527. The total copies of the
first two editions was 3,300, showing it had quite a
readership despite its controversial nature.28
It was reprinted at least 69 times between 1516 and 1536, and
that does not include separate editions of the Latin or Greek
versions. Hence, as Faludy points out, the New Testament was
“printed the equivalent of once every 90 days for a period of
twenty years.” That adds up to a conservative figure of
300,000 copies before Erasmus passed away.29
The Effects of the
Publication of the New
Testament text had two distinct effects
- the first was the stirring up of
controversy. The second, and hopefully more important, was the
spawning of numerous translations into the common languages.
As the latter is much more positive than the former, we will
look at it in conclusion.
Even before his
work came off of the press, Erasmus encountered opposition.
Martin Dorp, a young scholar of the University of Louvain,
contacted Erasmus. He asked that the older scholar undue some
of the damage done by In Praise of Folly, and he included in
his letter a concern about Erasmus’s work on the Biblical
texts. He objected to any change in the Vulgate text, and
argued that since the Greek texts came from the Greek church
(which had not remained truthful) while the Latin was guarded
by the true Church, the Greek text is secondary and corrupted.
Dorp’s letter was not vitriolic. Mangan gives a lively
description of Erasmus’s reply:
To this most
modest and most friendly request Erasmus answered in a
voluminous epistle, sweeping away Dorp’s timid rill of
appeal in a veritable torrent of eloquent and victorious
reply, where metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, irony, and
hyperbole vied with each other in hurrying the daring
objector to the ocean of utter annihilation.30
description of the letter is probably more colorful than the
original. Erasmus said, “You must distinguish between
Scripture, the translation of Scripture, and the transmission
of both. What will you do with the errors of the copyists?”31
At any rate, Dorp was eventually won over. But his attitude
was a common one, and one that Erasmus did battle with for
years. The reason is that Erasmus believed “in the existence
of a Greek text a faultless original which, once found, could
be deciphered properly with the aid of reason.”32
This was not the official church position, however. Ten years
after Erasmus’s death, the Council of Trent officially
established the Vulgate text, and condemned Erasmus’s work.
Another scholar of
renown who entered into combat with Erasmus was Luther’s foe,
John Eck. Eck wrote to Erasmus, “Do you mean to say that the
best Greek was not written by the apostles on whom the Holy
Spirit conferred the gift of tongues?” Erasmus responded, “My
dear fellow, if you will look at the list of languages of
which the Holy Spirit gave command to the apostles on the day
of Pentecost you will discover that Greek was not one of them.
Besides the gift lasted for only one day.”33
Other even more disturbing attacks came from the likes of
Edward Lee, later Archbishop of York, and Jacob Stuniga of
Spain, who was on the committee that worked on the
Complutensian Diaglott. Erasmus took them all on, and
devoted much time to the defense of his work. Smith writes,
ridiculed these fossils in a lively letter, comparing them
to the old priest who, owning a breviary with the
typographical error “mumpsimus” instead of “sumpsimus” at
a certain point in the mass, became so accustomed to the
nonsensical form that he refused to change it when the
error was pointed out to him, and kept on mumbling
“mumpsimus” to the end of his days.34
It cannot even be said that
the controversy has yet come to an end today. At least now
most people realize the importance of having a solid
foundation for the Biblical texts.
The second, and more happy
result of Erasmus’s work was the new ability to translate the
Word of God directly into the vernacular of the people. Luther
used Erasmus’s text as the basis of his translation into
German, as was noted above. In fact, Luther utilized Erasmus’
work a great deal in his lectures, beginning with Romans
chapter 9, the point he had reached at the time of his
obtaining Erasmus’s New Testament.35
The first English translation, that of William Tyndale, was
also based on Erasmus.36
Others included Benedek Komjati’s Hungarian version (1533),
and Francisco de Enzinas’ Spanish translation of 1543.
Preserved Smith expressed it well when he said,
Greek New Testament] was the fountain and source from which
flowed the new translations into the vernaculars which like
rivers irrigated the dry lands of the mediaeval Church and
made them blossom into a more enlightened and lovely form of
may argue technical points of his work, and well they should.
But the importance of Erasmus’s work must not be allowed to be
swallowed up in technical disputation. God’s Word, in its
original tongue, was again available to all, and the effect
Finally, it would be best
to go to Erasmus himself for a summary of his philosophy. We
have seen the humanistic Erasmus, the scholarly Erasmus, the
debating Erasmus. This homily, written by that great Dutch
scholar, gives us another view of him:
Do we desire to learn, is
there then any authority better than Christ? We read and
reread the works of a friend, but there are thousands of
Christians who have never read the gospels and the epistles
in all their lives. The Mohammadans study the Koran, and
Jews peruse Moses. Why do we not the same for Christ? He is
our only doctor. On him the Spirit descended and a voice
said, “Hear ye him!” What will you find in Thomas, what in
Scotus to compare with his teaching? But as there are school
masters who by their severity make boys hate learning, so
there are Christians so morose as to instill distaste for
the philosophy of Christ, which could not be more agreeable.
Happy is he whom death overtakes meditating thereon. Let us
then thirst for it, embrace it, steep ourselves in it, die
in it, be transformed thereby. If any one shows us the
footprints of Christ we Christians fall down and adore. If
his robe is placed on exhibition do we not traverse the
earth to kiss it? A wooden or a stone image of Christ is
bedecked with jewels and should we not place gold gems and
whatever may be more precious on the gospels which bring
Christ closer to us than any paltry image? In them we have
Christ speaking, healing, dying, and rising and more
genuinely present than were we to view him with the eyes of
Zweig, Erasmus of Rotterdam, (New York: The Viking Press,
1956), p. 32.
2. Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970), p. 293, and Margaret
Mann Phillips, Erasmus and the Northern Renaissance, (New
York: The MacMillan Company, 1950), p. 6.
3. W. E. Campbell, Erasmus, Tyndale
(London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1949), p. 272.
4. George Faludy, Erasmus, (New York Stein & Day, 1970), p.
5. John Joseph Mangan, Life,
Character, and Influence of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, 2
vols, (New York The MacMillan Company, 1927), volume 1, p.
6. Preserved Smith, Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and
Place in History, (NewYork Frederick Ungar Publishing Company,
1962), p. 184.
7. Smith, Erasmus, pp. 184-185.
8. Roland Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, (New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1969), p. 134
9. Mangan, Life, 1:347.
10. Johann Reuchlin was a scholar of the highest rank,
remembered not only for his great ability in Greek, but most
notably for his De Rudimentis Hebraicis,
a Hebrew grammar and lexicon. For his troubles he was drawn
into unwanted controversy. Interestingly enough, Reuchlin had
a grandnephew that was to figure prominently amongst the
Reformers - Philip Melanchthon.
11. Mangan, Life vol. 1. pp. 374-375
12. Faludy, Erasmus, p. 159.
13. Phillips, Erasmus, p. 75.
14. P.S. Allen, The Age of Erasmus, (New York Russell and
Russell, 1963), p. 144.
15. R. Devonshire Jones, Erasmus and Luther, (New York Stein
and Day, 1910), p. 52.
16. Bruce Manning Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 99.
17. Faludy, Erasmus, p. 159.
18. Phillips, Erasmus, p. 76, and Bainton, Erasmus, p. 133.
19. Phillips, Erasmus, p. 73.
20. F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain lntroduction to the Criticism
of the New Testament, 4th ed ,(London, 1894), p. 185 as quoted
by Metzger, Text it the New Testament, p. 99.
21. Smith, Erasmus, p. 163.
22. Faludy, Erasmus, p. 159.
23. Metzger, Text in the New Testament, p 100
24. Metzger, Text it
the New Testament, p. 101.
25. Smith, Erasmus, p. 166.
26. Decree of January 13, 1897. Smith, Erasmus, p. 166
27. Smith, Erasmus, p. 165.
28. Metzger, Text it the New Testament, p. 100.
29. Faludy, Erasmus, pp. 165-166.
30. Mangan, Life,
vol. 1 p. 382.
31. Bainton, Erasmus, p. 135.
32. Faludy, Erasmus, p. 162.
33. Bainton, Erasmus, p. 139.
34. Smith, Erasmus, p. 176.
35. Smith, Erasmus, p. 182.
36. Faludy, Erasmus, p. 166.
37. Smith, Erasmus, p. 183.
38. Bainton, Erasmus,
Allen, P.S. The Age of Erasmus. New York: Russell and Russell,
Bainton, Roland H. Erasmus of Christendom. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1969.
Campbell, W. E. Erasmus, Tyndale and More. London: Eyre &
Emerton, Ephraim. Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. New York:
G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1899.
Faludy, George. Erasmus.
New York: Stein and Day, 1970.
Hyma, Albert. The Life of Desiderius Erasmus. N. V. Assen: Van
Gorcum and Company, 1972.
Jones, R. Devonshire. Erasmus and Luther. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1968.
Mangan. John Joseph. Life, Character & Influence of Desiderius
Erasmus of Rotterdam . 2
volumes. New York: The Macmillan
Metzger, Bruce Manning. The Text of the New Testament. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1968.
Phillips, Margaret Mann. Erasmus and the
Northern Renaissance. New York:
The MacMillan Company, 1950.
Smith, Preserved. Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and
Place in History. New York:
Frederick Ungar Publishing Company, 1962.
Walker, Williston, A History of the Christian Church. New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970.
Zweig, Stefan. Erasmus of Rotterdam.
New York: The Viking Press, 1956.