Why You Should Read Erasmu's Paraphrases
On August 27th, we released our in house edition of Erasmus’s Paraphrasis in Evangelium Marci, that is, the Paraphrase of the Gospel of Mark. The work, written by one of the most prolific Latin authors of his day, is exceptional. My goal is to share it with as many people as possible, because its content is so unique, unlike any Scriptural commentary that I am aware of today. But it is not only a great scriptural-commentary apparatus. The language with which the author conveys the message of holy writ is clear and simple, a feature that makes this book a boon for students of Classical Latin, especially students who are already familiar with the stories contained in the documents of the Nazarene faith that we call Christianity.
But what exactly is a Paraphrase, Rogeri? I hear you ask. I find every attempt to explain the genre of a Latin Paraphrasis to be somewhat inadaquate. One really must read a Paraphrasis themself in order to come to terms with exactly what the author is attempting to produce, especially in this case where Erasmus is not Paraphrasing Scripture, but Paraphrasing upon Scripture, a distinction I will explain below. Since we offer a free PDF of the Paraphrasis in Evangelium Marci to everyone signed up for our mailing list, I highly encourage everyone to read the book and experience this somewhat foreign genre of literature for themselves.
Nevertheless, I will attempt below to give an overview of a Paraphrasis, specifically the Paraphrases upon the documents of the New Testament, and provide the reasons why I think you should give them a read.
In essence, a Paraphrase is exactly what it sounds like: a retelling of a text or speech in one’s own words. In English, however, a paraphrase connotates a loss of accuracy, a kind of loose quote in the absence of the text itself. By a Paraphrasis we mean something a little different. A Paraphrase, in the more literary sense that I am attempting to define here, does not denote less accuracy. In fact, the Paraphrases as Erasmus saw them, were an attempt to Latinize the text for a Latin-reading audience and to elaborate and clarify important passages where they may have been unclear in the original.
The peculiar lack of clarity that we find in Scripture is often the result of non-native Greek speakers writing with a kind of Hebrew bent on a subject matter that is already sometimes less than clear, the combination of which ingredients produce obscurity then confounded by additional translation. The Vulgate, the early attempt to render the New Testament documents into Latin, can be considered twice removed from the minds of the orignal writers insofar as it is a translation of a text that was already a kind of Greek translation of the minds of the Apostles. (In the case of Matthew’s Gospel, the Greek that we have may have litteraly been a translation of a text that was originally written in some other language, Aramaic, perhaps.)
Although it may sound as though I am disparaging the good name of the Gospel writers, that is in no way my intention. The particular character of these early Christian documents is part of what makes them so admirable, and their almost Laconic style serves to both grace the mysteries they contain and to endear us to the manifest sincerity of their authors. Nevertheless, many passages remain either dissonant to Latin ears or obscure in their own right and benefit from the clarity of an interpretive pen. Happily, though each individual Gospel may not provide the means by which we can interpret some of their more puzzling passages, numerous other passages in Scripture have been provided by Jesus’s close followers in the form of Epistles and other Gospel narrations that also comprise what we call the “New Testament”. Erasmus’s Paraphrases perform the two-fold task of synthesizing the disparate elements of the faith found throughout the entirety of the New Testament and clarifying the Hebraisms with the clear Latin idiom of the Classical age.
It is important to note that Erasmus specifically calls his works Paraphrases upon (in) and not a Paraphrase of (genitive) the New Testament. This is significant, because it informs the Reader that the labor he is undertaking is not exactly a Paraphrase of the text in a strict sense. The goal, as I believe Erasmus sees it, is to rephrase each and every verse of the documents, but in a way that grant the Paraphrastes, the writer of the Paraphrase, a conservative interprative liberty to add somewhat to the original content. The content that he adds, however, is not arbitrary. The creators of the Series “the Chosen” – if I might use a modern analogy – interpret and “add” to scripture what might not have been explicitly mentioned in the documents of the New Testament, but which can reasonably be inferred based on our knowedge of the entirety of Revalation as we have received it and our historical understanding of the time and place in which Jesus lived. The characters in the series deliver dialogue that is not found in Scripture but, one could argue, that are consistent with the way the individuals are depicted throughout Scripture as a whole.
I personally have not watched much of this show, but from what I have seen, the writers have taken the liberty to even add scenes, conversations, etc. that are not even implied to have taken place in Scripture, on top of the great liberty they have taken in depicting the environments in which the story unfolds. By comparison, the Paraphrases are much more conservative documents, despite the fact that words are indeed added that are not in the respective texts upon which Erasmus paraphrases.
Erasmus adds to the content of each narrative, it is true, but the additions add to synthesize the entirety of the New Testament without compromising the individuality of each document.
Take as a good example of this kind of synthesis Matthew chapter 25. Matthew makes no mention of the purchasing of the swords that the disciples would take with them to the Mount of Olives, only that they had them when Peter lops off the ear of one of the priest’s servants. Luke, however, informs his readers that Jesus actually gave the injunction to buy swords for this journey to the Garden. As part of his Paraphrase of Matthew, Erasmus mentions this injunction to acquire swords as a command of Jesus without deviating from the tenor of Matthew’s work. He fills in this gap to paint for the reader a more complete picture of the events as they are told across all of Scripture:
Matthew 26.51-52
51 Et ecce unus ex his, qui erant cum Iesu, extendens manum exemit gladium suum et percutiens servum principis sacerdotum amputavit auriculam eius.
52 Tunc ait illi Iesus: “ Converte gladium tuum in locum suum. Omnes enim, qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt.
Paraphrase of Matthew 26.51-52
51 Ad hunc tumultum vehementer commoti sunt discipulorum animi, quod ideo Iesus passus est in hunc affectum prolabi, ut omnem ulciscendi defendendique sui cupiditatem penitus ex animis eorum revelleret. Ac Petrus quidem, vel quia caeteris ubique ferventior, vel quia magnifica quaedam de se pollicitus fuerat, ne Domino suo deesse videretur, educto gladio percussit Malchum servum Caiaphae, et amputavit auriculam eius dexteram, sic ictum moderante Iesu, ut et leve vulnus esset, et id quicquid erat mox sarserit, restituta auricula. Caeterum Petrus pio quodam erga Dominum amore erraverat, et hunc errorem propemodum ex verbis Iesu non intellectis hauserat. Iusserat enim eos divendita tunica emere gladios: quumque respondissent adesse gladios duos, aiebat, sufficit. At illi putantes de ferreo gladio loqui, quum Iesus de gladio spirituali sentiret, a coena gladios secum extulerant, defensuri Dominum suum, si res ita tulisset, aut si ille iussisset.
52 Ut igitur hunc affectum penitus revelleret ex animis omnium discipulorum, acriter obiurgavit Petrum: Repone, inquit, gladium in locum suum. Qui gladio rem gerunt, gladio pereunt, ultionis talione reciprocante in caput ipsorum.
Notice too that in the original Gospel according to Matthew, Peter’s name is left unmentioned as “unus ex his”. In the Paraphrase, Erasmus colors in information that he considers important to the whole narrative based on circumstances provided in Luke and John, where the unnamed sword-wielder is revealed to be none other than Peter. Likewise, the name of the priest’s servant is not mentioned in Matthew but is expressed in John, and so in Erasmus’s Paraphrase, we find the name of the priest’s servant, Malchus, provided for the reader.
It might also be worth noting that Erasmus adds some circumstantial information that he found probable considering the events but that are not mentioned explicitly in the original documents. Verse 51 says nothing about the mental state of the disciples in Matthew, but in the Paraphrase, Erasmus adds that their minds were greatly troubled. Again, there is an interpretive liberty here, but one that makes sense considering that Judas’s cohort has just siezed Jesus and that Peter has responded with violence. Instances like these are common in the Paraphrases, and they reflect the commentary-like nature of the Paraphrases upon the text as opposed to a simple rephrasing of the text. If any reader would be concerned about acquiring information that is not expressed in Scripture, they should remember that these texts are a kind of commentary, a supplement to the originals, not pure substitutions.
One might think that Paraphrasing in this way would eliminate the need to Paraphrase each individual Gospel, and to some extent, there is a kind of superfluity in rephrasing each of the four, if Erasmus has this synthesis in mind, but the synthesis is not an absolute one. He does not, for example, provide the nativity in the Gospel according to Mark, a Gospel which notably omits the story of Jesus’s birth. Instead he makes a kind of passing remark as an interpretive voice of Mark that he will not undertake the task of reiterating the nativity, as it has been told by others:
2 Porro Evangelicam historiam quidam altius repetere maluerunt, videlicet a nativitate Iesu Christi: mihi compendii studio satis visum est exordiri a praedicatione Ioannis Baptistae. . .
– Erasmus Paraphrase on Mark 1.2
Again, Erasmus has in mind a goal to combine but to also maintain the individual character of each.
It is easy to see too why Erasmus, in one of his epistles, considered the Paraphrase really to be a genus of commentary.
As I conclude, consider below two texts side by side, which I think succinctly illustrate many of the points I was trying to make above: the first the Vulgate Latin translation, and the second Erasmus’s Paraphrase upon the same text:
Matthew 26.24-25
Vulgate
24 Filius quidem hominis vadit, sicut scriptum est de illo; vae autem homini illi, per quem Filius hominis tradetur! Bonum erat ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille ”.
25 Respondens autem Iudas, qui tradidit eum, dixit: “ Numquid ego sum, Rabbi? ”. Ait illi: “ Tu dixisti ”.
The Vulgate text here is the original Vulgate text and not the “Nova Vulgata”.
Paraphrase
24 Atque haec quidem ut acciderent Filio hominis, sic olim erat praefinitum a Patre, sic praedictum a Prophetis. Sed tamen vae homini illi, cuius scelere Filius hominis proditur. Abutitur quidem illius impietate sapientia divina ad salutem humani generis: sed non ideo minus nocens ille, qui sua malitia ad hoc facinus perductus est, quum a me nihil sit omissum, quod illius animo mederi potuisset. Itaque manet illum pro facto tam impio, poena crudelissima, nisi resipiscat, ut praestiterit illi non omnino fuisse natum.
25 Hac oratione, quae vel pudore sanare poterat improbum, vel poena deterrere impium, adeo non est correctus Iudas, ut impudentiam etiam addens sceleri, quasi nullius mali sibi conscius, rogaverit Dominum: Num ego sum is, Rabbi? Nec hic suae lenitatis oblitus Iesus, respondit: Tu dixisti: indicans eum esse magis quam explicans: ac suspicionem simulat, dissimulans scientiam.
As you can immediately perceive, the Paraphrase is about 3 or 4 times longer than the original text to which has been added elaboration on the free will of Judas and Christ’s genuine attempt to change his mind despite the event being destined for all time by the Father. The second thing I would note is just how smoothly and “Latinly” the Paraphrase reads. There is deliberate change in the language at the end of verse 24 where the original reads: “Bonum erat ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille”, far from an unintelligible sentence, but one which betrays a non-Roman author. I know no Hebrew or Aramaic, but I have heard that Hebrew lacks a superlative or even a comparative suffix, features that I imagine are also absent in whatever language the Evangelist here spoke, as the phrase “bonum erat ei” comes across as quite foreign to Latin ears, if indeed the author had in mind “it would have been better”. Some might attribute this strange turn of phrase to a Latin idiom being foreign to English speaking ears if translated word for word “it was good that”, but in my many years of experience with the language, I have never read “bonum erat” as a stand in for “melius erat” – or as Erasmus more clearly renders it, “praestitit” – and its presence could be explained if my conjecture about its Hebrew origin is correct. Erasmus ameliorates this difficulty by clarifying with “ut praestiterit illi non omnino fuisse natum”, such that it would have been better for him had he not been born.
So why should you read these Paraphrases of Erasmus? Briefly, because the text is clear, simple, and accurate in its expression of the Latin idiom, and because its subject matter is one with which most of us are already familiar enough, furnishing a frame as we read along. It also provides engaging and something like a “natural” scriptural commentary without being a “commentary” in the traditional sense of the word. For this reason, I think it is useful for students of Scripture as well.
I would like to conclude by stating that, though the text is a great model of Latin for those who are looking to improve, Erasmus is not a Ciceronian purist. He still employs, from time to time, words foreign to the “classical” lexicon, and even developed linguistic idiosyncrasies that are not normally native to Latin’s classical idiom. These moments are rare, and as many instances as I could find, I have noted in my annotations and preface to the text.
Certain parts of the text were also formally censured by the University of Paris. Erasmus took the time to respond to his critics, and all of these censures and responses are contained in the appendix of the work, lest someone fear they are being led into heresy. I leave it to the reader to determine whether Erasmus pushed any boundaries of Orthodoxy. In some cases, he may have, but I think he does an adequate job defending himself.
So, now that you understand, I hope, a little more clearly what a Paraphrase is and why you should read Erasmus’s on the New Testament, get yourself a Free PDF of the Paraphrasis in Evangelium Marci by signing up for our mailing list. If you enjoy physical copies, and you would like to support our efforts here at the Mellarium, consider also getting yourself a physical copy for your library.
Valete.
– Rogerius