In the history of biblical exegesis, commentaries on the Psalms suffer from an embarrassment of riches. So central was this biblical book to the life of the Christian church in the last two millennia that each generation produced a large number of texts dedicated to its exposition. Hence, anyone who wishes to come to grips with the exegetical history of the Psalms must embrace a plethora of long and complex sources. It is no wonder that we have yet to see a general survey of the interpretation of the book that has often been called the vox ecclesiae. However, given its ubiquitous nature, Psalms exegesis may be an important continuum in the history of exegesis, particularly for the Medieval and Renaissance periods.
This translation of Erasmus' treatment of the first four Psalms, written between 1515 and 1525, is therefore a welcome step towards developing a good understanding of Psalms exegesis. While Erasmus did not produce a complete commentary (despite the constant pleas of his friends and patrons), he nonetheless took the time throughout his career to reflect on specific Psalms. His comments on eleven Psalms span two volumes of the modern edition of his opera omnia, and this present translation is the first book of three scheduled to be published as part of the Collected Works of Erasmus.
Dominic Baker-Smith provides a general introduction to the comments, paraphrases and sermons, which appropriately supports the fine translation work of Michael J. Heath. The introduction is a very useful guide to early modern biblical exegesis of the Old Testament, since the exposition of the Psalms represented par excellence the standard Christian approach to the Jewish Scriptures. Baker-Smith outlines the textual history of the Psalter (xix-xxiv), the theory of the four senses (xxiv-xliv), the implicit anti-judaism of Erasmus' exegesis -- which, the author argues, must be distinguished from antisemetism (xliv-lvi) -- , and the general points that Erasmus advances in his comments (lvi-lxxii). Heath further unpacks this last section in his short introductions to each of the four texts.
Medievalists may find it disturbing, but perhaps not surprising, that both Baker-Smith and Heath take Erasmus and his contemporaries at face value when it comes to their critique of the medieval past. Both assume that the project Erasmus embraced was the reinvigoration of contemporary exegesis with the vitality of patristic sources, in contradistinction to the "frigid exegesis" of the scholastics (xliii, 67). It is somewhat ironic then that the major themes that occupy Erasmus' expositions resonate with ideas and theories of scholastic commentators. This silent acquisition of scholastic concerns is one reason why modern scholars need to be careful in assessing Erasmus' view of the scholastic project: while he clearly had no truck with the peripatetic obsessions of contemporary theologians (30-32, 221, 242-243), nonetheless like so many others of his period he bears the indelible mark of the progress of medieval theology. For example, Baker-Smith argues that scholastics had transformed the flexibility and creativity of the four senses into a "rigid scheme which stifled subjective response and obscured narrative continuity." The humanist response was to collapse the three spiritual senses into one mystical sense, where one related specific tropological or allegorical readings "without compromising the integrity of the text as the Word of God" (xxix). Baker-Smith then directs the reader to Erasmus' spiritual reading of Psalm 22, where the structure is based the persons which compose the mystical body of Christ. [[1]] Thus, although the charge against scholastic exegesis may bear out in some of the sources, it is significant that the example Baker-Smith draws upon is a direct descendant of scholastic exegesis. This form of prosopological exegesis has its roots in patristic theology [[2]], but the structure which Erasmus employs is also found in the Psalms commentaries of Peter the Chanter, Robert Grosseteste, Hugh of St-Cher and even Thomas Aquinas. Baker-Smith's other example of the importance of the imagery of consuming and digesting Scripture is also heir of the exegesis of previous centuries (xxxvi-xxxvii).
The connection between Erasmus and scholasticism does not render his exegesis as derivative, for on two other points the editors are wholly correct. First, Erasmus rejects the employment of historical analysis. The work of Nicholas of Lyra, immensely popular in the sixteenth century, was the major example of using Jewish history in Old Testament interpretation. Baker-Smith argues that Erasmus' critique of Lyra's heavy reliance on rabbinic exegesis is not necessarily antisemetic, but instead anti-judaic. The latter is a theological critique of Jewish beliefs, which did not always produce the former (although many times is was not far behind). Erasmus' lack of interest in the historical context of the Psalms may seem odd to us, since so much is made about the "discovery" of historical analysis in the Renaissance. However, it is one way in which Erasmus seeks to maintain the Psalms as a Christian text, which the Gospel had transformed from a Jewish writing into a mystical text steeped in the prophetic mysteries of the Incarnation and human salvation. It is also for this reason that Erasmus seems little concerned about conducting any significant philological analysis. He certainly employs good grammatical analysis, and even engages in some poetic theory; but on the whole his analysis is neither historical nor textual. Rather, he seeks to tease out the hidden meaning that the divine author had embedded in the Psalms. For all his advocacy of linguistic studies, Erasmus was never able to learn Hebrew well enough to read the Psalms in their original; but he never considered this an impediment to good exegetical practice. Erasmus' exegetical approach appears to counter the traditional notion that there was a progression from medieval exegesis to humanist thought, which in turn produced the modern theories of biblical criticism.
Erasmus' indifference to history and philology in his Psalms exegesis leads us to the editors' second point: it is the affective nature of the Psalms that focuses the exposition. Both editors continually remind the reader that it is the subjective response to the Psalms that Erasmus wishes to highlight. In this way, his commentaries exemplify the theologia rhetoricathat was at the root of his philosophia Christi. It is a theology that is "alert to the persuasive resources of language" (lxii), and so the Psalms are meant to transform readers from all walks of life. In this light, Erasmus again inherits a medieval tradition of affective reading so well exposed in early monastic texts on the Psalms, as well as the comments of such individuals as Richard Rolle and Christina of Pisa (see p. 25).
An affective reading of the Psalms does not abrogate the theological dimension of exegesis, for Erasmus embraces all the various forms of exegesis available to him. Indeed, if historians of exegesis wish to demonstrate to their students the differences between the three spiritual readings, |his volume presents a good paradigm -- which goes well beyond the overly used examples of John Cassian and Augustine of Dacia.[[3]] The enarratio of Psalm 1 is a tropological reading, in which the concern is more than just the development of ethical theory, but rather includes serious discussions of human psychology (8-63). The exposition of Psalm 2 follows the rhetoric of academic commentary and thereby provides an example of allegorical exegesis -- peppered with some literal analysis (71-146). Psalm 3 is rendered as a paraphrasis (151-168), much in line with Erasmus' other paraphrases [[4]]. It is an excellent indicator of anagogical exegesis, a type to which expositors often allude but rarely engage. The interpretive key is hope, which aids the reader in looking beyond the content of the text and towards a contemplation of God himself, mediated in this case by a meditation on the salvific work of Christ. These three forms of exposition all come together in Erasmus' sermon on Psalm 4 (174-275). While this text does not represent a fourth type of reading, it does aid historians and students alike in understanding the intimate rhetorical relationship between commentary and sermonising.
The translation is, on the whole, of high quality and captures well the voice of Erasmus. I completed a close examination of the translation of the comments on Psalm 1 as a test case, and found little of it wanting. The only problem to emerge was related to the technical aspects of Psalms exegesis. In some places, the translation masks the importance of the prosopological approach adopted by Erasmus. Heath translates nihil prohibet quo minus omnia dicantur sub persona Patris de filio as "there is nothing to prevent the whole Psalm from being a description of the Son by his Father" (9). Technically, there is nothing incorrect in this rendering, but it does not communicate the fact that it is the Psalmist taking on the person of the Father to speak about Christ. In both patristic and medieval exegesis, identity is the essential issue, in that the Psalmist becomes different persons in the text: the Father, the Son, or the church as a whole. The concept of person is not exactly a "guise" (which is how Heath renders persona on the next page), but more of a mystical identity.
There were other queries, but they were more a question of taste in translation than of error or misrepresentation. It is open to question, for example, to render lex mentis as "conscience" (18) since the construction of the sentence implies a distinction between body and mind: perhaps "ratoonal control" is more appropriate. At other times, Heath translates terms in a limited fashion: Sed quos in hanc viam impellit naturae infirmitas, eos cito referat religio becomes "But those whom natural weakness propels toward that path [to walk in the council of the impious] may be quickly brought back if their thoughts are holy." Surely Erasmus embraces a much more wholistic definition of religio than just "holy thoughts" (18). The phrases hominum pontificum and boni pontifici are not necessarily references to the papacy, and are justeas easily applicable to the office of bishop (26-27). Within the context of Erasmus' discussion of the proper character of a bishop (20-21, 43-45), it would be possible to render these terms as "bishops." Related to this is the rendering of ifacticiis episcopiis as "pseudo-bishops" (43), which is not the same thing. Finally, perhaps the most vexing word for any translator of theological Latin is affectus. Heath renders it as "instincts" (15), "inclinations" (15), and "feelings" (44), and Baker-Smith himself suggests "inner disposition" (xxxii). All these solutions are much better than any English cognate, but given the complexity of the term an explicative footnote to these renderings would have been helpful.
None of these points, however, detract from Heath's commendable product, and they only demonstrate the various challenges inherent in any translation project. Moreover, Erasmus is not easy to read in Latin, and Heath has done both scholar and student alike a considerable service. As someone who teaches courses on medieval and reformation exegesis, I am very happy to make this volume part of the required reading.
This volume whets the appetite for the next two, when we shall finally have all of Erasmus' commentaries on the Psalms available in translation. At one point, Erasmus points out that "anyone who wants to be a theologian must be familiar with the original sources" (31). With good translations such as this volume becoming available, this sentiment can be equally applied to historians of exegesis.
NOTES
1. Erasmus, In Psalmos XXII enarratio triplex, in Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1969- ), 5.2 (1985), 330, ll.43-51.
2. See M-J. Rondeau, Les Commentaires patristiques du Psautier(IIIe-Ve sie`cles), 2 vols., Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 219-220 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1982-1985), esp. 1.17-21, 2.367-371.
3. See A.J. Minnis, The Medieval Theory of Authorship, second edition (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), p. 34.
4. Desiderius Erasmus, Paraphrases on Romans and Galatians, J.B. Payne, A. Rabil Jr., and W.S. Smith Jr., transs. Collected works of Erasmus, vol. 42 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984).