This article discusses how Erasmus deals with the personae in the Paraphrase on Luke, distinguishing between the author Erasmus (the paraphrast), the narrator (the paraphraser) and the evangelist. These ‘Luke-voices’ are connected to exegesis (explanation of the narrative) and hermeneutics (the application of the narrative to the lives of the audience). It is argued that Erasmus deliberately played with the voices; this enabled him to criticize wrongs of his own times as worded by ‘Luke’, and to contribute to the advancement of Christian piety.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
See also John J. Bateman, ‘From Soul to Soul: Persuasion in Erasmus’ Paraphrases on the New Testament’, Erasmus in English 15 (1987–1988) 7–16. The Paraclesis is edited in ASDV-7:279–298. Erasmus used the terms ‘philosophia Christi’, ‘philosophia christiana’ and ‘philosophia evangelica’.
Jacques Chomarat, Grammaire et rhétorique chez Erasme (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981). The same view of Erasmus as a ‘rhetorical theologian’ is expressed by Manfred Hoffmann, Rhetoric and Theology: The Hermeneutics of Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994). However, Chomarat highlights rhetorical issues, Hoffmann theological ones.
Barnett, ‘Erasmus and Hermeneutics’. She quotes (n. 5) an illuminating passage from Erasmus’ Ecclesiastes (1535), ASDV-5:248–250, ll. 128–132: ‘Nec absurdum est hoc quoque voluisse Spiritum Sanctum, ut Scriptura nonnunquam varios gignat sensus, pro cuiusque affectu. Sicuti manna cuique sapiebat quod volebat. Nec haec est Scripturarum incertitudo, sed foecunditas.’ (CWE 68:962: ‘… nor is it absurd that the Holy Spirit also intended for Scripture to give rise to a variety of meanings according to each person’s feeling, in the same way that manna had for each person the flavour that he desired; and this is not the uncertainty of Scripture but its fertility.’).
Ep. 1381, CWE ll. 4–5; Allen ll. 1–3: ‘Mitto tibi Lucam medicum, generosisime Rex, non alium quam antehac habebas, sed Latinis auribus explanatius fusiusque loquentem.’
The quotations from Barnett, ‘Erasmus and Hermeneutics’ 355. All belong to the rhetorical process of amplification (ibidem).
Silvana Seidel Menchi, Erasmus als Ketzer: Reformation und Inquisition im Italien des 16. Jahrhunderts (Leiden: Brill, 1992) 169–203, ch. 6: ‘Der offene Himmel oder die unendliche Barmherzigkeit Gottes’.
Ep. 1274, CWE ll. 41–43; Allen ll. 37–39. See Jean-François Cottier, ‘Erasmus’s Paraphrases: A “New Kind of Commentary”?’, The Unfolding of Words: Commentary in the Age of Erasmus, ed. Judith Rice Henderson (Toronto-Buffalo-London: University of Toronto Press, 2012) 27–54 (31), and Judith Rice Henderson, ‘Editor’s Addendum: Translating an Erasmian Definition of Paraphrase’, The Unfolding of Words, ed. Rice Henderson 46–54.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 338 | 47 | 8 |
Full Text Views | 215 | 6 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 42 | 11 | 0 |
This article discusses how Erasmus deals with the personae in the Paraphrase on Luke, distinguishing between the author Erasmus (the paraphrast), the narrator (the paraphraser) and the evangelist. These ‘Luke-voices’ are connected to exegesis (explanation of the narrative) and hermeneutics (the application of the narrative to the lives of the audience). It is argued that Erasmus deliberately played with the voices; this enabled him to criticize wrongs of his own times as worded by ‘Luke’, and to contribute to the advancement of Christian piety.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 338 | 47 | 8 |
Full Text Views | 215 | 6 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 42 | 11 | 0 |