BeyondWhatIsWritten:ErasmusandBezaasConjecturalCriticsoftheNewTestament

ByJobThomas

AreviewarticleforthecourseSeminarHistoricalTheology

Professors:Prof.dr.A.J.BeckandProf.dr.J.Hofmeyr

EVANGELICALTHEOLOGICALFACULTYSt.Jansbergsesteenweg97B‐3001Heverlee/Leuven

November11th,2008

2

Tableofcontents

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................3

Summary ...............................................................................................................................................6

Largercontext.................................................................................................................................. 11

Evaluation.......................................................................................................................................... 12

Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................... 16

3

BeyondWhat IsWritten: Erasmus andBeza as Conjectural Critics of the

New Testament. By Jan Krans. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 2004. viii +

350.1

Introduction

BeyondWhat IsWritten is the doctoral thesis of JanKrans (VrijeUniversiteit,

Amsterdam2004).In2006Brillpublishedtherevisedthesis.2Kransisstillat‐

tached to department of New Testament studies of the Vrije Universiteit,

Amsterdam,whereheacquiredhisPh.D.

Intheearlynineties,Kransstartedtoshowinterestonthesubjectofcon‐

jectural emendation through a study on the conjectures onMatthew’s Gospel

(2). Based on this short study, he got a threefold impression on the subject.

First,conjectureshavenotalwaysbeenfaithfullytransmitted.Second,concen‐

tration on the commonly know conjectures limits the theologian. And third,

understandingandevaluatingconjecturesaretoooftenbasedonsecond‐hand

information.

Kransconvincinglypointsoutthatitisimportanttoletknowledgeofthe

conjectural criticsprecede judgmentof their conjectures (3).While it ismore

customary to have a diachronic approach, Krans proposes a synchronic ap‐

proachtowardsconjecturalemendation.Thediachronicapproach,whichisim‐

1ThisarticleisareviewofJanKrans’dissertation,BeyondWhatisWritten.Thepagenumbersofthequotationsofthisdissertationwillbeaddedbetweenbrackets.Everyotherquotationwillbeaddedinfootnotes.

2JanL.H.Krans,BeyondWhatIsWritten:ErasmusandBezaasConjecturalCriticsofthe

NewTestament.NewTestamentTools,StudiesandDocuments,35.Leiden:Brill,2006.

4

plicitly present inmost criticalNewTestament editions and textual commen‐

taries,merelywantstouseconjecturesasstepping‐stonestowardsthe‘original’

text.Thesynchronicapproachstudiesconjecturesasawayofinvestigatingthe

historical importance of scribes and critics. This is the main assumption for

Krans’methodology. Inorder to limithis fieldof research tomanageablepro‐

portions,hedecidestostudytheworkoftwosixteenthcenturycritics:thehu‐

manistErasmusandtheCalvinistBeza.Hisreasonsareobvious:

ThesetwocriticswerecentraltotheearlyhistoryoftheGreekNewTesta‐mentinatleasttworespects:First,bothactedaseditorsoftheGreektext,thoughthedegree towhich theyareaccountable for the textof theiredi‐tions isnotalwaysclear.Second, theeditionsofbothcriticswereaccom‐paniedbya largebodyof annotations,which turnsout tobe so rich thatnotevenallconjecturescanbediscussedinthisstudy(3).

The basic question of the dissertation is threefold: First,what kind of conjec‐

tures did bothErasmus andBezamake? Second,which role did theseplay in

theirworkontheNewTestament?Andthird,withinwhichviewonthetextare

theirconjecturestobeunderstood(4)?

EspeciallythelatteristhestartingpointofKrans’thesis.Hedoesnotrely

onsecond‐handinformationbutgoesbacktothesources,editionsorcommen‐

tariesinwhichtheconjectureswerefirstproposed.InthefirstplaceKransuses

theoriginalNewTestamenteditionsofbothErasmusandBeza.Erasmus’ first

GreekNewTestamenteditionwaspublishedin1516asNovumInstrumentum,

accompaniedwithhisownLatintranslation.This1516editionisgenerallyre‐

gardedasErasmus’opusmagnus.3Inthesubsequenteditions,underthemore

common name Novum Testamentum, improvements were made, notes were

3ErikaRummel,“ErasmusasBiblicalHumanist,”inErasmus,OutstandingChristianThinkers(London/NewYork:Continuum,2004),73.

5

added and criticswere answered. In total fivemajor editionsunderErasmus’

editorialresponsibilityappearedin1516,1519,1522,1527and1535(11‐12).

Erasmus’editionswereclearly intendedasacounterpoint to the thencurrent

text of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate (12).He believed the post‐twelfth century

Vulgatetobe inadeplorableconditioncomparedto itsearlierstate.Erasmus’

editionsthuscannotbeproperlyunderstoodwithouttheVulgateasathirdele‐

ment besides the Greek version and his own translation (13). Next to this,

Erasmusseeshisannotationsasanessentialpartofhiseditions.Inthetransla‐

tionhecanonlyexpressonemeaningofthetext,intheannotationshecanpoint

outseveral(19).InhiscomparingtheGreekandLatintext,Erasmusbecamea

pioneerinNewTestamenttextualcriticism.

Beza alsopublished five editionsofhisNewTestament, in1556 (1557),

1565,1582,1589and1598.Thefirstedition,finishedin1556,waspublishedin

1557astheNewTestamentpartofRobertStephanus’lastBibleproject(179).

ThiseditiondoesnotcontainaGreek text.Thesecondeditionwasprintedby

RobertStephanus’son:Henri.Fromthiseditionon,aGreektextwasincluded.

TheLatin translationofBezawasrevised ineveryedition(180).Kransshows

hisacquaintancewith theworksofbothErasmusandBeza throughhisabun‐

dantcriticalcitationsoftheoriginalLatintext.

Besides these basic sources, Krans numerously cites both historical and

contemporaryworks and conveniently divides his bibliography in four parts:

classical,patristicandmedievalliterature;Bibleeditionsandtranslations;Era‐

mus’ andBeza’sworks; andother literature. In his use of sources, the author

proveshavinganoverallviewonthesubjectofconjecturalemendation.

6

Summary

Thedissertationisaboutequallydividedintwoparts:thefirstpartaboutEras‐

mus and the second about Beza. Those two parts are preceded by a general

introductiononconjecturalcriticisminChapterOne.InthatintroductionKrans

contrastshissubjectwiththewordsofPaulin1Cor.4:6:·na §n ≤µ›n µãyhte tÚ

µØ Íp¢r ì g°graptai(1).Paulinstructshisreadersnottogo‘beyondwhatis

written’.Kranshelpsustokeepinmindtheironythatseveralcriticsconsider

thesewordsascribalaccretiontoPaul’sletter.InthatviewKransdefinescon‐

jectures as ‘readings not attested in the manuscript transmission, which are

proposedandargued forbyacriticwith the intentionof restoringa lost text’

(1). With this definition he points out the main motivation for conjectural

emendation: the restoration of a lost text. Elliott adds that most deliberate

changesinsertedbyscribesintothemanuscriptstheywerecopyingmaybede‐

scribedasconjecturalemendationsofthosetexts.Modernscholarshavespecu‐

latedaboutdifficultreadingsfoundintheGreekNewTestament,andsomehave

proposedalternativereadingsthatarenotinthemanuscripts.4Forinstance,the

siglumcj(referringtoaconjecture)isfound220timesintheapparatusofNes‐

tle‐Aland25thedition.5Krans investigateswhatkindofconjecturesbothEras‐

musandBezamade,theroleconjecturesplayedintheirworkontheNewTes‐

tament,andhowtheirviewofthetextaffectedthatrole.

4ElliotJ.K.Reviewof“BeyondWhatisWritten:ErasmusandBezaasConjecturalCriticsoftheNewTestament,byJanKrans.”ReviewofBiblicalLiterature(February24th,2007):558.http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5467_5761.pdf(September30th,2008).

5Ibid.

7

ThefirstpartstartsinChapterTwowithadescriptionofErasmus’viewonthe

NewTestament. Krans points out that both in studies that focus onErasmus’

NewTestament Editions and in treatises onNewTestament textual criticism,

Erasmus’textualcriticismoftheGreekNewTestamentisasomewhatneglected

area (9).According toErasmus, the textual variationhada twofoldorigin.On

theonehand,somevariationswereofunintentionalorigin; thescribemadea

logical error.On theotherhand, scribesalso intentionally altered theoriginal

text (28). In thatErasmus seems tohave anotice ofwhat today is called ‘the

principleoftheharderreading’(36).ThoughKransidentifiesseveralelements

ofErasmus’reasoning,headmitsthatthissetof‘rules’hastobereadbetween

thelines.Erasmuswasnotalwaysconsistentandmethodicalinapplyingthose

‘rules’(46).

ChapterThreegivesusinsightinErasmus’editorialdecisionsandthefol‐

lowing Chapter Four shows us the importance of the Vulgate in that decisive

process.KransindicatesthatErasmus’Latintextwasnotmerelyawaytomake

theGreektextaccessible forthenon‐Greekreader, itwasanevaluationof the

post‐twelfthcenturyVulgate.

KransrightlystatesthateveryofErasmus’conjecturalemendationshave

to be evaluated separately. In Chapter Five Krans provides an overview of

Erasmus’conjectures,andindoingso,underlineshisstatement.Kransdivides

these conjectures in a few categories.He startswith the ones inspiredby the

Vulgate,basedonstrikingdifferencesbetween theGreek textand theVulgate

(81).Erasmusalsomadesomepureconjectures.Kransprovidesnumerousex‐

amples ofErasmus’ conjectures.Theoneon Jas. 4:2, reading ‘you are jealous’

(fyone›te) insteadof ‘youmurder’ (foneÊete),beingoneof themost import‐

8

ant,sinceitdeservesaplaceinthecriticalapparatusofanymoderneditionof

theGreekNewTestament.Thelongreceptionhistoryspeaksforitself:bothLu‐

ther and Calvin accept this conjecture, though Calvin seems to imply that the

conjectureishis(113).AlsotheDutchStatenvertalingoptsforErasmus’conjec‐

ture(113).TheHerzieneStatenvertalingthatisdueinFall2009choosestoneg‐

lectit,butaddsthepreviousdecisioninafootnote.6Besidestheconjectureson

theGreektext,ErasmusalsoprovidesconjecturesontheVulgate.Nexttothese

categories of conjectures, Krans also categorizes a group of conjectures as

‘other’.Finally,hefocusesonconjectureswronglyattributedtoErasmus.

In Chapter Six, Krans shows us Erasmus as an evaluator of conjectural

criticismof other theologians. Indoing that the reader is shown the riches of

Erasmus’sources.ErasmusshowshisacquaintancewithearlyChristianwriters

suchasOrigenand Jerome, thusprovinghimselfrelyingonagreatnumberof

ancientsources(41,140vv.),butalsowiththetextualcriticismof(forthattime)

morerecentscholarssuchasValla(143vv.)andcontemporariessuchasLefèvre

d’Étaples (145vv.), Stunica and Titelmans (150vv.). Of Jerome for instance,

Erasmusderivedtheideathatscholarshipplayedaroleintheinterpretationof

theBible,andoneneedednottodependmerelyondivineinspiration.7Erasmus’

citationofmedievalauthorsisrareinhisfirstedition,butincreasesinthelater

ones.8ChapterSix isconcludedwith thereceptionhistoryofErasmus’conjec‐

tures.RummelindicatesthatErasmuswasatfirstnotwellreceivedbecauseof

6Previewavailableonhttp://herzienestatenvertaling.nl/bijbel.php?boek=JAS&hoofdstuk=4

7Rummel,“ErasmusasBiblicalHumanist,”75.8AlbertJr.Rabil,ErasmusandtheNewTestament:TheMindofaChristianHumanist

(Lanham,MD:UniversityPressofAmerica,1993),116‐117.

9

hismoderateposition.NeitherCatholicsnorreformersappreciatedtheMittel­

hauf,asMelanchtoncalledthesemoderates.9DespitetheseattacksonErasmus’

NewTestament,LutherhimselfusedErasmus’NewTestamenteditionsas the

startingpointforhisexegesis,eventhoughparticipatingintheattacksonEra‐

mus’position.10

ChapterSevengivesaconcludingoverviewofErasmus’conjecturalcriti‐

cism,whereweagainmeetErasmusasagreatthinkerwho,oftenoutofintellec‐

tualcuriosity,gainedgreat insight inScriptureandmadeapricelesscontribu‐

tion to theNewTestament research.Rabil citesErasmus’ first edition, saying:

‘Somepeople thinkthat thisTranslator[of theVulgate]nevermadeamistake

andthathewroteundertheinspirationoftheHolySpirit.Ichallengethemthen

tomakesenseoutof[histranslationof]thispassage,iftheycan.’11

InthesecondpartofthedissertationsKranstreatstheconjecturalemendations

ofBeza.First,inChapterEightKransidentifiesBeza’streatmentoftheNewTes‐

tament text. Beza edited five editions of theNewTestament, using the Greek

readings of Robert Stephanus and the Codex Bezae (173). Through his work,

BezaprovidesthedefinitivetranslationoftheNewTestamentfortheProtestant

(Calvinistic) world (173‐174). Though his Catholic critics rejected these edi‐

tions,theyplayedamajorroleinthehistoryoftheEnglishBible,amongstoth‐

ers(174‐175).Unfortunately,noneofBeza’seditionsistranslatedintomodern

9Rummel,“ErasmusasBiblicalHumanist,”89.10CornelisAugustijn,Erasmus(Baarn:Ambo,1986),167.11Rabil,ErasmusandtheNewTestament,122.CitingErasmus,referringtodifficultiesin

theVulgatetextofRomans.

10

languages; there is no critical edition and not even a facsimile edition (178‐

179).Beza’smainconcernwashisLatin translation.Hereviewedthis transla‐

tionforeveryeditionanddidthisinamoresystematicwaythanErasmusdid

his(181).

InChapterNine,KransgivesusanindepthimageofBezaaseditorofthe

NewTestament.KranspointsoutthatBeza’suseofsourcesisnotveryreassur‐

ing.Most of Beza’s text‐critical informationwas second‐hand, that is, derived

fromRobertStephanus’collationsandRobertorHenriStephanus’editions.Also

theSyriacandArabicwereusedindirectly.NowheredoBeza’sannotationscon‐

vey the impression that he did a real collation of two texts (215).Krans con‐

cludes that the general description of Beza as a conservative textual critic is

largely correct.He took Stephanus’ text andonly changed it occasionally. The

printedtextfunctionedas‘received’(216).

ChaptersTenandElevencontainanoverviewofBeza’sconjectures,Chap‐

terTenfocussingonstyle,ChapterElevenoncontent(thisdivisionisunfortu‐

nately not very well indicated by the author). Krans divides them further in

philological, grammatical, stylistic, logical and contextual, harmonising, and

theological. Finally he adds a category with conjectures that anticipate nine‐

teenth‐entwentieth‐centurysourcecriticism(274vv.).

In the concluding Chapter Twelve, Krans states that Beza was actually

evenmorecriticalthanErasmus,butthatwaslimitedbyhispiousconvictions.

Interesting is that Beza, according to Krans, in essence fits his definition of a

conjecturalcritic,butwasobstructedbythisreligiosity(285).Kransconcludes:

The phrase, ‘I do notwant to change anything out of conjecture’, can befoundnumeroustimes.Howeverthefunctionoftheserepeatedstatementsmust be determinedwithmore precision. It seems thatmore is at stake

11

thana simplepracticaldecision,or insight into theuncertainandunwar‐ranted nature of conjectural emendation. There are criticisms to be pre‐vented, and there is uncertainty tobe silenced.What is that uncertainty?Doubtsaboutthecorrectnessofthebiblicaltext.Itisafterhismanyconjec‐tural digressions thatBezauses this reassuring, almost imploring closingformula.Notonlydoesheproposeconjecturesdespitehis firmreluctancetowardsconjecturalemendation;healsohastoasserthisscruplesbecauseofthemanyconjectureshepropose.Butwhythenaretheconjecturesstillmentionedatall?Herethewords‘intellectualhonesty’firstcometomind:someproblems,asBezaperceivedthem,simplydidnotgoaway(285).

Kranspointsoutthat‘ofthetwo,Erasmuswasfarthebetterandboldertextual

critic; Beza was both conservative and timid, and (due to heavy reliance on

Stephanus’text)nevergrappledwithcriticalissuesasdidEramus.Yetwithre‐

specttoconjecturalemendation,hewentfurtherthanErasmus.Thisoddsitua‐

tion,’Kranssuggests,‘isrootedintheirdifferingviewsofthetext:forErasmus,

theNewTestamentwastobetreatedasanyotherclassictext,whereasforBeza

itwasHolyScripture(andthusnottobealtered),whichwasextant,however,

onlyinimperfectcopies(andthusinneedofemendation).’12

Largercontext

KransindicatesthatespeciallyintheDutchhistorytherehasbeenresearchfor

conjectural criticism(342).Kranshasopted foranewmethod,notmerely in‐

vestigating conjectures, but including a theological school or the specific re‐

searchofascholarasthestartingpoint.InthathefollowsHort,statingthatthe

conjecturalcriticprecedestheconjecture.Theconsequenceofthisapproachis

that theNewTestamentscholar isnotmerelyconcernedwith theNewTesta‐

12MichaelW.Holmes,ReviewofBeyondWhatisWritten:ErasmusandBezaasConjecturalCriticsoftheNewTestament,byJanKrans,”ReligiousStudiesReview34,no.2(June2008):97.

12

mentand textualcriticism,but thathe includeschurchhistory inhisresearch

(343).

Holmes evaluates the dissertation as an important participant ‘in the

paradigm shift under way in NT textual criticism, in which manuscripts are

viewedashistoricalproductsthatdeservetobestudiedaswholesandvariant

readings acquire historical significance as mirrors of scribal convictions and

conventions.’13Recentlymoreattentionhascometo thesubjectofconjectural

emendation.Krans’contributiontothatsubjectisofenormousvaluebecauseof

his provision of a historical continuum in the text critical methodology. As

Backus states: ‘Although written from the perspective of a New Testament

scholarratherthanaRenaissanceandReformationhistorian,thepresentwork

willbewelcomedbythelatterforitsdiscussionoftextualconjecturetothrow

aninterestinglightonhowNewTestamentcriticismfunctionedinthesixteenth

century.’14 It is indeed a somewhat remarkable study for a New Testament

scholar toparticipate in this sixteenth centurydebate, butnonetheless a very

importantcontribute tocurrentNewTestamentcriticismand to thehistorical

understandingofsixteenthcenturyviewsontheNewTestament.

Evaluation

Let me continue by saying, as remarked before, that Krans’ work is of great

value.Hisresearchisapplicablefornumerousscholarsindifferenttheological

13Ibid.14IrenaBackus,Reviewof“BeyondWhatIsWritten:ErasmusandBezaasConjectural

CriticsoftheNewTestament,byJanKrans,”RenaissanceQuarterly60,no.2(Summer2007):608‐609.

13

departments.IagreewithKransthatinthepast,theaccentofconjecturalstud‐

ieshasbeen toomuchon thediachronicapproach.Even thoughsomeconjec‐

turesarevaluableas such, a thorough investigationof this textual criticism is

impossible without knowledge of the context of the conjectural critic. Krans’

dissertationshouldmotivateanyNewTestamentscholartoincludethesecon‐

siderationsinhisevaluationofaspecificconjecture.Whenwefullyinvestigate

theconjecturalcritic’smotivesintheviewofhisbackground,wecangrasptheir

historicalreadingoftexts,andindoingso,understandthosemotives.Kransis

somewhatapioneerinhissynchronicapproachandIexpectthathisworkwill

encourageotherscholarstofollowinhisfootsteps.Itismyimpressionthough,

thatKranswantstoputthesynchronicbeforethediachronicapproach.WhileI

doagreethatthesynchronicapproachdeservesmoreattention,Ithinktheroles

shouldnotbereversed.Thediachronicapproachstillmaintainsitsvalue.Espe‐

ciallyinordertostudyorevaluateourcurrentGreektextversions,itisimport‐

anttoknowthewholehistoryofthattext,andconjecturescanhelpuswiththat.

Kransaccusesthisapproachtoneglectthesynchronicmethod,butindoingso

heseemstoexaggeratetotheotherside.Thisisespeciallythecaseinhiscon‐

clusions, wherein Krans only focuses on the context of the decisions of both

Erasmus andBeza. Krans is especially concernedwith this context of the six‐

teenthconjectures,intheprocesssomewhatneglectingthetheologicalmeaning

of these annotations. This seems to showa contrast betweenhis viewon the

importance of the New Testament and the view of one of his study subjects:

Beza.Bezaclearly is inthefirstplaceconcernedwithgoodtheology.Allofhis

conjecturesaremadewithinthisframe:thequestforgoodtheology.Offcourse

it isnormalthatKransfocusesonthesynchronicapproach,butinmyviewhe

14

should have described the relation between both synchronic and diachronic

approachesmorethoroughly,sinceitisthestartingpointofhisresearch.

TheimagewegetfromErasmusisagenerallyacclaimedone:Erasmusas

anintellectualcritic.RummelpointsoutthatErasmus’viewontheBiblicaltext

wasasfollows:‘Thescripturaltextwasinneedofrevisionbecauseithadbeen

corruptedbythecarelessnessor ignoranceofscribesandbya translatorwho

noddedorwasunderadelusion.15Erasmususedthisargumentagainsthisown

critics:hewasmerelyconcernedwithacorrectusageoftheNewTestament.16

Ofthesemotives,KransconvinceshisreadersthroughhiscarefullycitingEras‐

mus.

What to say about Krans’ evaluation of Beza? The image we get from

Krans, showsusBeza as aman tornbetweenhis intellectual capacity andhis

religiousconvictions.HereIbelieveKrans’evaluationtobecolouredbyhisown

pointofview:ahistoricalcriticalone.Thoughitisoffcourseneverpossibleto

have a complete objectivity, itwouldhavebeen in thebenefit tohis thesis to

explicatehisownpresumptions.Though it is, inviewofKrans’position, fairly

normalthatKransseesBeza’sreligiousconvictionsasabarrierfortrueconjec‐

turalcriticism,thisdoesnotnecessarilyneedtoindicatethisposition.Idobe‐

lievethattextualcriticismandorthodoxyneednotexcludeoneanother.Though

Bezaclearly stateshis reluctance towardsconjectures,hedoesmention them.

Backuspointsoutthat‘Beza’sactualannotations[…]wereasscantasErasmus’

15Rummel,“ErasmusasBiblicalHumanist,”76.16Ibid.,85.

15

own,onlytheprefacegaveawaytheauthor’sintentions.’17Thisisanindication

ofhis religiousmotives:his startingposition is thebelieve in theauthorityof

theNewTestament.HisreluctancetowardsconjectureshelpsBezatoapproach

thismostpreciousChristiansourcewiththenecessaryaweandrespect.Itdoes

notinevitablyimplythatBezaislimitedbyhisreligiousconvictions.It implies

thatBezaapproachestheNewTestamentinadifferentwaythanhewouldap‐

proachanothersource.AsRabilpointsout,wheninvestigatingtheauthorityof

theNewTestament,theauthenticityofthesourceofChristianityitselfisbeing

questioned.18OneswonderswhetherBezarealizesthismorethanKrans.

Asfarasthethesisanditsstructureisconcerned,insomedegreethebook

lacksunitybetweenPartOneandPartTwo.Inmyview,itwouldhavebeenbet‐

terifKransaddedanoverallconcludingchapter.Further,thoughthetwoparts

haveasomewhatsimilarstructure,Kranscouldhaveoptedforanevenbigger

similarity.ItisforinstancenotveryclearwhyhedividestheconjecturesofBeza

intotwochaptersandaddsnochapteraboutBeza’sviewonconjecturalhistory

and the receptionof his conjectures. Especially for the reader, not so familiar

withconjecturalcriticism,thiswouldhavebeenagreatadvantage.

Nevertheless, this thesis is a real piece of thorough investigation. Krans

capturesthereaderfromthebeginninguntiltheendwithafluentwriting,ex‐

plaining and justifying his method with each new step in the process. The

readercannotstayindifferenttothenicelyillustratedanddocumentedconjec‐

17IrenaBackus,“TheChurchFathersandtheCanonicityoftheApocalypseintheSixteenthCentury:Erasmus,FransTitelmans,andTheodoreBeza,”TheSixteenthCenturyJournal29,no.3(Autumn1998):661.

18Rabil,ErasmusandtheNewTestament,122.

16

tures of both Erasmus and Beza. Krans challenges his public to dive into the

mindsoftwoofthegreatestsixteenthcenturythinkers.Holmesendshisreview

bysayingthatthedissertationofKranswill‘bewarmlywelcomedbyreadersin

manyfieldsofstudy.’19Isupportthisstatement.Bothscholarsworkingontex‐

tualcriticismoftheNewTestamentandscholarsinvestigatingsixteenthcentury

viewsontheNewTestamentshouldcarefullyexamineKrans’workandlethis

exhaustive research contribute to their own line of duty. Anyone critically

studyingtheGreekTestamenttextshouldgetaholdofthisbook.Itprovidesan

encyclopaedicoverviewofthetextualcriticismoftwoofthemostimportant(if

not,thetwomostimportant)sixteenthGreektexteditors.

Bibliography

Augustijn,Cornelis.Erasmus.Baarn:Ambo,1986.

Backus,Irena.“TheChurchFathersandtheCanonicityoftheApocalypseinthe

SixteenthCentury:Erasmus,FransTitelmans,andTheodoreBeza.”The

SixteenthCenturyJournal29,no.3(Autumn1998):651‐666.

Backus,Irena.Reviewof“BeyondWhatisWritten:ErasmusandBezaas

ConjecturalCriticsoftheNewTestament,byJanKrans.”Renaissance

Quarterly60,no.2(Summer2007):608‐610.

Elliot,J.K.Reviewof“BeyondWhatisWritten:ErasmusandBezaasConjectural

CriticsoftheNewTestament,byJanKrans.”ReviewofBiblicalLiterature

(February24th,2007):558‐559.

19Holmes,Reviewof“BeyondWhatIsWritten,”97.

17

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5467_5761.pdf(September30th,

2008).

Holmes,MichaelW.Reviewof“BeyondWhatisWritten:ErasmusandBezaas

ConjecturalCriticsoftheNewTestament,byJanKrans.”ReligiousStudies

Review34,no.2(June2008):97.

Krans,JanL.H.“BeyondWhatisWritten:ErasmusandBezaasConjecturalCritics

oftheNewTestament.”(Ph.D.dissertation,VrijeUniversiteitAmsterdam,

2004).

Rabil,AlbertJr.ErasmusandtheNewTestament:TheMindofaChristian

Humanist.Lanham,MD:UniversityPressofAmerica,1993.

Rummel,Erika.“ErasmusasBiblicalHumanist.”InErasmus.Outstanding

ChristianThinkers,73‐89.London/NewYork:Continuum,2004.