You are on page 1of 17

!"#$%& ()*+ ,- (.

Eiasmus anu Beza as Conjectuial Ciitics of the New Testament

By }ob Thomas

A ieview aiticle foi the couise Seminai Bistoiical Theology

Piof. ui. A.}. Beck anu
Piof. ui. }. Bofmeyi

St. }ansbeigsesteenweg 97
B-Suu1 BeveileeLeuven

Novembei 11
, 2uu8

!"#$% '( )'*+%*+,
Laigei context.................................................................................................................................. 11
Evaluation.......................................................................................................................................... 12
Bibliogiaphy ..................................................................................................................................... 16

!"#$%& ()*+ ,- (./++"%0 1.*-23- *%& !"4* *- 5$%6"7+3.*8 5./+/7- $9 +)"
:"; <"-+*2"%+= By >*% ?.*%-= Amsteiuam: viije 0niveisiteit, 2uu4. viii +

!"#$%& ()*+ ,- (./++"% is the uoctoial thesis of }an Kians (viije 0niveisiteit,
Amsteiuam 2uu4). In 2uu6 Biill publisheu the ieviseu thesis.
Kians is still at-
tacheu to uepaitment of New Testament stuuies of the viije 0niveisiteit,
Amsteiuam, wheie he acquiieu his Ph.B.
In the eaily nineties, Kians staiteu to show inteiest on the subject of con-
jectuial emenuation thiough a stuuy on the conjectuies on Natthew's uospel
(2). Baseu on this shoit stuuy, he got a thieefolu impiession on the subject.
Fiist, conjectuies have not always been faithfully tiansmitteu. Seconu, concen-
tiation on the commonly know conjectuies limits the theologian. Anu thiiu,
unueistanuing anu evaluating conjectuies aie too often baseu on seconu-hanu
Kians convincingly points out that it is impoitant to let knowleuge of the
conjectuial ciitics pieceue juugment of theii conjectuies (S). While it is moie
customaiy to have a uiachionic appioach, Kians pioposes a synchionic ap-
pioach towaius conjectuial emenuation. The uiachionic appioach, which is im-

This aiticle is a ieview of }an Kians' uisseitation, !"#$%& ()*+ /- (./++"%. The page
numbeis of the quotations of this uisseitation will be auueu between biackets. Eveiy othei
quotation will be auueu in footnotes.

}an L.B. Kians, !"#$%& ()*+ ,- (./++"%0 1.*-23- *%& !"4* *- 5$%6"7+3.*8 5./+/7- $9 +)"
:"; <"-+*2"%+= New Testament Tools, Stuuies anu Bocuments, SS. Leiuen: Biill, 2uu6.

plicitly piesent in most ciitical New Testament euitions anu textual commen-
taiies, meiely wants to use conjectuies as stepping-stones towaius the 'oiiginal'
text. The synchionic appioach stuuies conjectuies as a way of investigating the
histoiical impoitance of sciibes anu ciitics. This is the main assumption foi
Kians' methouology. In oiuei to limit his fielu of ieseaich to manageable pio-
poitions, he ueciues to stuuy the woik of two sixteenth centuiy ciitics: the hu-
manist Eiasmus anu the Calvinist Beza. Bis ieasons aie obvious:
These two ciitics weie cential to the eaily histoiy of the uieek New Testa-
ment in at least two iespects: Fiist, both acteu as euitois of the uieek text,
though the uegiee to which they aie accountable foi the text of theii eui-
tions is not always cleai. Seconu, the euitions of both ciitics weie accom-
panieu by a laige bouy of annotations, which tuins out to be so iich that
not even all conjectuies can be uiscusseu in this stuuy (S).
The basic question of the uisseitation is thieefolu: Fiist, what kinu of conjec-
tuies uiu both Eiasmus anu Beza make. Seconu, which iole uiu these play in
theii woik on the New Testament. Anu thiiu, within which view on the text aie
theii conjectuies to be unueistoou (4).
Especially the lattei is the staiting point of Kians' thesis. Be uoes not iely
on seconu-hanu infoimation but goes back to the souices, euitions oi commen-
taiies in which the conjectuies weie fiist pioposeu. In the fiist place Kians uses
the oiiginal New Testament euitions of both Eiasmus anu Beza. Eiasmus' fiist
uieek New Testament euition was publisheu in 1S16 as :$>32 ,%-+.32"%+32,
accompanieu with his own Latin tianslation. This 1S16 euition is geneially ie-
gaiueu as Eiasmus' $?3- 2*@%3-.
In the subsequent euitions, unuei the moie
common name :$>32 <"-+*2"%+32, impiovements weie maue, notes weie

Eiika Rummel, "Eiasmus as Biblical Bumanist," in 1.*-23-A 0utstanuing Chiistian
Thinkeis (LonuonNew Yoik: Continuum, 2uu4), 7S.
auueu anu ciitics weie answeieu. In total five majoi euitions unuei Eiasmus'
euitoiial iesponsibility appeaieu in 1S16, 1S19, 1S22, 1S27 anu 1SSS (11-12).
Eiasmus' euitions weie cleaily intenueu as a counteipoint to the then cuiient
text of the Bible, the Latin vulgate (12). Be believeu the post-twelfth centuiy
vulgate to be in a ueploiable conuition compaieu to its eailiei state. Eiasmus'
euitions thus cannot be piopeily unueistoou without the vulgate as a thiiu ele-
ment besiues the uieek veision anu his own tianslation (1S). Next to this,
Eiasmus sees his annotations as an essential pait of his euitions. In the tiansla-
tion he can only expiess one meaning of the text, in the annotations he can point
out seveial (19). In his compaiing the uieek anu Latin text, Eiasmus became a
pioneei in New Testament textual ciiticism.
Beza also publisheu five euitions of his New Testament, in 1SS6 (1SS7),
1S6S, 1S82, 1S89 anu 1S98. The fiist euition, finisheu in 1SS6, was publisheu in
1SS7 as the New Testament pait of Robeit Stephanus' last Bible pioject (179).
This euition uoes not contain a uieek text. The seconu euition was piinteu by
Robeit Stephanus' son: Benii. Fiom this euition on, a uieek text was incluueu.
The Latin tianslation of Beza was ieviseu in eveiy euition (18u). Kians shows
his acquaintance with the woiks of both Eiasmus anu Beza thiough his abun-
uant ciitical citations of the oiiginal Latin text.
Besiues these basic souices, Kians numeiously cites both histoiical anu
contempoiaiy woiks anu conveniently uiviues his bibliogiaphy in foui paits:
classical, patiistic anu meuieval liteiatuie; Bible euitions anu tianslations; Eia-
mus' anu Beza's woiks; anu othei liteiatuie. In his use of souices, the authoi
pioves having an oveiall view on the subject of conjectuial emenuation.

The uisseitation is about equally uiviueu in two paits: the fiist pait about Eias-
mus anu the seconu about Beza. Those two paits aie pieceueu by a geneial
intiouuction on conjectuial ciiticism in Chaptei 0ne. In that intiouuction Kians
contiasts his subject with the woius of Paul in 1 Coi. 4:6: !"# " $" %&'() (
*+ , --+#*(#. (1). Paul instiucts his ieaueis not to go 'beyonu what is
wiitten'. Kians helps us to keep in minu the iiony that seveial ciitics consiuei
these woius a sciibal accietion to Paul's lettei. In that view Kians uefines con-
jectuies as 'ieauings not attesteu in the manusciipt tiansmission, which aie
pioposeu anu aigueu foi by a ciitic with the intention of iestoiing a lost text'
(1). With this uefinition he points out the main motivation foi conjectuial
emenuation: the iestoiation of a lost text. Elliott auus that most uelibeiate
changes inseiteu by sciibes into the manusciipts they weie copying may be ue-
sciibeu as conjectuial emenuations of those texts. Nouein scholais have specu-
lateu about uifficult ieauings founu in the uieek New Testament, anu some have
pioposeu alteinative ieauings that aie not in the manusciipts.
Foi instance, the
siglum 76 (iefeiiing to a conjectuie) is founu 22u times in the appaiatus of Nes-
tle-Alanu 2S
Kians investigates what kinu of conjectuies both Eias-
mus anu Beza maue, the iole conjectuies playeu in theii woik on the New Tes-
tament, anu how theii view of the text affecteu that iole.

Elliot }.K. Review of "!"#$%& ()*+ /- (./++"%0 1.*-23- *%& !"4* *- 5$%6"7+3.*8 5./+/7- $9
+)" :"; <"-+*2"%+A by }an Kians." B">/"; $9 !/C8/7*8 D/+".*+3." (Febiuaiy 24
, 2uu7): SS8.
http:www.bookieviews.oigpufS467_S761.puf (Septembei Su
, 2uu8).


The fiist pait staits in Chaptei Two with a uesciiption of Eiasmus' view on the
New Testament. Kians points out that both in stuuies that focus on Eiasmus'
New Testament Euitions anu in tieatises on New Testament textual ciiticism,
Eiasmus' textual ciiticism of the uieek New Testament is a somewhat neglecteu
aiea (9). Accoiuing to Eiasmus, the textual vaiiation hau a twofolu oiigin. 0n
the one hanu, some vaiiations weie of unintentional oiigin; the sciibe maue a
logical eiioi. 0n the othei hanu, sciibes also intentionally alteieu the oiiginal
text (28). In that Eiasmus seems to have a notice of what touay is calleu 'the
piinciple of the haiuei ieauing' (S6). Though Kians iuentifies seveial elements
of Eiasmus' ieasoning, he aumits that this set of 'iules' has to be ieau between
the lines. Eiasmus was not always consistent anu methouical in applying those
'iules' (46).
Chaptei Thiee gives us insight in Eiasmus' euitoiial uecisions anu the fol-
lowing Chaptei Foui shows us the impoitance of the vulgate in that uecisive
piocess. Kians inuicates that Eiasmus' Latin text was not meiely a way to make
the uieek text accessible foi the non-uieek ieauei, it was an evaluation of the
post-twelfth centuiy vulgate.
Kians iightly states that eveiy of Eiasmus' conjectuial emenuations have
to be evaluateu sepaiately. In Chaptei Five Kians pioviues an oveiview of
Eiasmus' conjectuies, anu in uoing so, unueilines his statement. Kians uiviues
these conjectuies in a few categoiies. Be staits with the ones inspiieu by the
vulgate, baseu on stiiking uiffeiences between the uieek text anu the vulgate
(81). Eiasmus also maue some puie conjectuies. Kians pioviues numeious ex-
amples of Eiasmus' conjectuies. The one on }as. 4:2, ieauing 'you aie jealous'
(/&0")()) in steau of 'you muiuei' (/0"))()), being one of the most impoit-
ant, since it ueseives a place in the ciitical appaiatus of any mouein euition of
the uieek New Testament. The long ieception histoiy speaks foi itself: both Lu-
thei anu Calvin accept this conjectuie, though Calvin seems to imply that the
conjectuie is his (11S). Also the Butch E+*+"%>".+*8/%@ opts foi Eiasmus' conjec-
tuie (11S). The F".4/"%" E+*+"%>".+*8/%@ that is uue in Fall 2uu9 chooses to neg-
lect it, but auus the pievious uecision in a footnote.
Besiues the conjectuies on
the uieek text, Eiasmus also pioviues conjectuies on the vulgate. Next to these
categoiies of conjectuies, Kians also categoiizes a gioup of conjectuies as
'othei'. Finally, he focuses on conjectuies wiongly attiibuteu to Eiasmus.
In Chaptei Six, Kians shows us Eiasmus as an evaluatoi of conjectuial
ciiticism of othei theologians. In uoing that the ieauei is shown the iiches of
Eiasmus' souices. Eiasmus shows his acquaintance with eaily Chiistian wiiteis
such as 0iigen anu }eiome, thus pioving himself ielying on a gieat numbei of
ancient souices (41, 14uvv.), but also with the textual ciiticism of (foi that time)
moie iecent scholais such as valla (14Svv.) anu contempoiaiies such as Lefevie
u'Etaples (14Svv.), Stunica anu Titelmans (1Suvv.). 0f }eiome foi instance,
Eiasmus ueiiveu the iuea that scholaiship playeu a iole in the inteipietation of
the Bible, anu one neeueu not to uepenu meiely on uivine inspiiation.
citation of meuieval authois is iaie in his fiist euition, but incieases in the latei
Chaptei Six is concluueu with the ieception histoiy of Eiasmus' conjec-
tuies. Rummel inuicates that Eiasmus was at fiist not well ieceiveu because of

Pieview available on

Rummel, "Eiasmus as Biblical Bumanist," 7S.

Albeit }i. Rabil, 1.*-23- *%& +)" :"; <"-+*2"%+0 <)" G/%& $9 * 5)./-+/*% F32*%/-+
(Lanham, NB: 0niveisity Piess of Ameiica, 199S), 116-117.

his moueiate position. Neithei Catholics noi iefoimeis appieciateu the G/++"8H
)*39, as Nelanchton calleu these moueiates.
Bespite these attacks on Eiasmus'
New Testament, Luthei himself useu Eiasmus' New Testament euitions as the
staiting point foi his exegesis, even though paiticipating in the attacks on Eia-
mus' position.

Chaptei Seven gives a concluuing oveiview of Eiasmus' conjectuial ciiti-
cism, wheie we again meet Eiasmus as a gieat thinkei who, often out of intellec-
tual cuiiosity, gaineu gieat insight in Sciiptuie anu maue a piiceless contiibu-
tion to the New Testament ieseaich. Rabil cites Eiasmus' fiist euition, saying:
'Some people think that this Tianslatoi |of the vulgatej nevei maue a mistake
anu that he wiote unuei the inspiiation of the Boly Spiiit. I challenge them then
to make sense out of |his tianslation ofj this passage, if they can.'

In the seconu pait of the uisseitations Kians tieats the conjectuial emenuations
of Beza. Fiist, in Chaptei Eight Kians iuentifies Beza's tieatment of the New Tes-
tament text. Beza euiteu five euitions of the New Testament, using the uieek
ieauings of Robeit Stephanus anu the 5$&"I !"4*" (17S). Thiough his woik,
Beza pioviues the uefinitive tianslation of the New Testament foi the Piotestant
(Calvinistic) woilu (17S-174). Though his Catholic ciitics iejecteu these eui-
tions, they playeu a majoi iole in the histoiy of the English Bible, amongst oth-
eis (174-17S). 0nfoitunately, none of Beza's euitions is tianslateu into mouein

Rummel, "Eiasmus as Biblical Bumanist," 89.

Coinelis Augustijn, 1.*-23- (Baain: Ambo, 1986), 167.

Rabil, 1.*-23- *%& +)" :"; <"-+*2"%+A 122. Citing Eiasmus, iefeiiing to uifficulties in
the vulgate text of Romans.

languages; theie is no ciitical euition anu not even a facsimile euition (178-
179). Beza's main concein was his Latin tianslation. Be ievieweu this tiansla-
tion foi eveiy euition anu uiu this in a moie systematic way than Eiasmus uiu
his (181).
In Chaptei Nine, Kians gives us an in uepth image of Beza as euitoi of the
New Testament. Kians points out that Beza's use of souices is not veiy ieassui-
ing. Nost of Beza's text-ciitical infoimation was seconu-hanu, that is, ueiiveu
fiom Robeit Stephanus' collations anu Robeit oi Benii Stephanus' euitions. Also
the Syiiac anu Aiabic weie useu inuiiectly. Nowheie uo Beza's annotations con-
vey the impiession that he uiu a ieal collation of two texts (21S). Kians con-
cluues that the geneial uesciiption of Beza as a conseivative textual ciitic is
laigely coiiect. Be took Stephanus' text anu only changeu it occasionally. The
piinteu text functioneu as 'ieceiveu' (216).
Chapteis Ten anu Eleven contain an oveiview of Beza's conjectuies, Chap-
tei Ten focussing on style, Chaptei Eleven on content (this uivision is unfoitu-
nately not veiy well inuicateu by the authoi). Kians uiviues them fuithei in
philological, giammatical, stylistic, logical anu contextual, haimonising, anu
theological. Finally he auus a categoiy with conjectuies that anticipate nine-
teenth- en twentieth-centuiy souice ciiticism (274vv.).
In the concluuing Chaptei Twelve, Kians states that Beza was actually
even moie ciitical than Eiasmus, but that was limiteu by his pious convictions.
Inteiesting is that Beza, accoiuing to Kians, in essence fits his uefinition of a
conjectuial ciitic, but was obstiucteu by this ieligiosity (28S). Kians concluues:
The phiase, 'I uo not want to change anything out of conjectuie', can be
founu numeious times. Bowevei the function of these iepeateu statements
must be ueteimineu with moie piecision. It seems that moie is at stake
than a simple piactical uecision, oi insight into the unceitain anu unwai-
ianteu natuie of conjectuial emenuation. Theie aie ciiticisms to be pie-
venteu, anu theie is unceitainty to be silenceu. What is that unceitainty.
Boubts about the coiiectness of the biblical text. It is aftei his many conjec-
tuial uigiessions that Beza uses this ieassuiing, almost imploiing closing
foimula. Not only uoes he piopose conjectuies &"-?/+" his fiim ieluctance
towaius conjectuial emenuation; he also has to *--".+ his sciuples C"7*3-"
of the many conjectuies he piopose. But why then aie the conjectuies still
mentioneu at all. Beie the woius 'intellectual honesty' fiist come to minu:
some pioblems, as Beza peiceiveu them, simply uiu not go away (28S).
Kians points out that 'of the two, Eiasmus was fai the bettei anu boluei textual
ciitic; Beza was both conseivative anu timiu, anu (uue to heavy ieliance on
Stephanus' text) nevei giappleu with ciitical issues as uiu Eiamus. Yet with ie-
spect to conjectuial emenuation, he went fuithei than Eiasmus. This ouu situa-
tion,' Kians suggests, 'is iooteu in theii uiffeiing views of the text: foi Eiasmus,
the New Testament was to be tieateu as any othei classic text, wheieas foi Beza
it was Boly Sciiptuie (anu thus not to be alteieu), which was extant, howevei,
only in impeifect copies (anu thus in neeu of emenuation).'

5".6%. )'*+%7+
Kians inuicates that especially in the Butch histoiy theie has been ieseaich foi
conjectuial ciiticism (S42). Kians has opteu foi a new methou, not meiely in-
vestigating conjectuies, but incluuing a theological school oi the specific ie-
seaich of a scholai as the staiting point. In that he follows Boit, stating that the
conjectuial ciitic pieceues the conjectuie. The consequence of this appioach is
that the New Testament scholai is not meiely conceineu with the New Testa-

Nichael W. Bolmes, Review of !"#$%& ()*+ /- (./++"%0 1.*-23- *%& !"4* *- 5$%6"7+3.*8
5./+/7- $9 +)" :"; <"-+*2"%+A by }an Kians," B"8/@/$3- E+3&/"- B">/"; S4, no. 2 (}une 2uu8): 97.

ment anu textual ciiticism, but that he incluues chuich histoiy in his ieseaich
Bolmes evaluates the uisseitation as an impoitant paiticipant 'in the
paiauigm shift unuei way in NT textual ciiticism, in which manusciipts aie
vieweu as histoiical piouucts that ueseive to be stuuieu as wholes anu vaiiant
ieauings acquiie histoiical significance as miiiois of sciibal convictions anu
Recently moie attention has come to the subject of conjectuial
emenuation. Kians' contiibution to that subject is of enoimous value because of
his piovision of a histoiical continuum in the text ciitical methouology. As
Backus states: 'Although wiitten fiom the peispective of a New Testament
scholai iathei than a Renaissance anu Refoimation histoiian, the piesent woik
will be welcomeu by the lattei foi its uiscussion of textual conjectuie to thiow
an inteiesting light on how New Testament ciiticism functioneu in the sixteenth
It is inueeu a somewhat iemaikable stuuy foi a New Testament
scholai to paiticipate in this sixteenth centuiy uebate, but nonetheless a veiy
impoitant contiibute to cuiient New Testament ciiticism *%& to the histoiical
unueistanuing of sixteenth centuiy views on the New Testament.

Let me continue by saying, as iemaikeu befoie, that Kians' woik is of gieat
value. Bis ieseaich is applicable foi numeious scholais in uiffeient theological


Iiena Backus, Review of "!"#$%& ()*+ ,- (./++"%0 1.*-23- *%& !"4* *- 5$%6"7+3.*8
5./+/7- $9 +)" :"; <"-+*2"%+A by }an Kians," B"%*/--*%7" J3*.+".8# 6u, no. 2 (Summei 2uu7):

uepaitments. I agiee with Kians that in the past, the accent of conjectuial stuu-
ies has been too much on the uiachionic appioach. Even though some conjec-
tuies aie valuable as such, a thoiough investigation of this textual ciiticism is
impossible without knowleuge of the context of the conjectuial ciitic. Kians'
uisseitation shoulu motivate any New Testament scholai to incluue these con-
siueiations in his evaluation of a specific conjectuie. When we fully investigate
the conjectuial ciitic's motives in the view of his backgiounu, we can giasp theii
histoiical ieauing of texts, anu in uoing so, unueistanu those motives. Kians is
somewhat a pioneei in his synchionic appioach anu I expect that his woik will
encouiage othei scholais to follow in his footsteps. It is my impiession though,
that Kians wants to put the synchionic befoie the uiachionic appioach. While I
uo agiee that the synchionic appioach ueseives moie attention, I think the ioles
shoulu not be ieveiseu. The uiachionic appioach still maintains its value. Espe-
cially in oiuei to stuuy oi evaluate oui cuiient uieek text veisions, it is impoit-
ant to know the whole histoiy of that text, anu conjectuies can help us with that.
Kians accuses this appioach to neglect the synchionic methou, but in uoing so
he seems to exaggeiate to the othei siue. This is especially the case in his con-
clusions, wheiein Kians only focuses on the context of the uecisions of both
Eiasmus anu Beza. Kians is especially conceineu with this context of the six-
teenth conjectuies, in the piocess somewhat neglecting the theological meaning
of these annotations. This seems to show a contiast between his view on the
impoitance of the New Testament anu the view of one of his stuuy subjects:
Beza. Beza cleaily is in the fiist place conceineu with goou theology. All of his
conjectuies aie maue within this fiame: the quest foi goou theology. 0ff couise
it is noimal that Kians focuses on the synchionic appioach, but in my view he
shoulu have uesciibeu the ielation between both synchionic anu uiachionic
appioaches moie thoioughly, since it is the staiting point of his ieseaich.
The image we get fiom Eiasmus is a geneially acclaimeu one: Eiasmus as
an intellectual ciitic. Rummel points out that Eiasmus' view on the Biblical text
was as follows: 'The sciiptuial text was in neeu of ievision because it hau been
coiiupteu by the caielessness oi ignoiance of sciibes anu by a tianslatoi who
nouueu oi was unuei a uelusion.
Eiasmus useu this aigument against his own
ciitics: he was meiely conceineu with a coiiect usage of the New Testament.

0f these motives, Kians convinces his ieaueis thiough his caiefully citing Eias-
What to say about Kians' evaluation of Beza. The image we get fiom
Kians, shows us Beza as a man toin between his intellectual capacity anu his
ieligious convictions. Beie I believe Kians' evaluation to be colouieu by his own
point of view: a histoiical ciitical one. Though it is off couise nevei possible to
have a complete objectivity, it woulu have been in the benefit to his thesis to
explicate his own piesumptions. Though it is, in view of Kians' position, faiily
noimal that Kians sees Beza's ieligious convictions as a baiiiei foi tiue conjec-
tuial ciiticism, this uoes not necessaiily neeu to inuicate this position. I uo be-
lieve that textual ciiticism anu oithouoxy neeu not excluue one anothei. Though
Beza cleaily states his ieluctance towaius conjectuies, he uoes mention them.
Backus points out that 'Beza's actual annotations |.j weie as scant as Eiasmus'

Rummel, "Eiasmus as Biblical Bumanist," 76.

Ibiu., 8S.

own, only the pieface gave away the authoi's intentions.'
This is an inuication
of his ieligious motives: his staiting position is the believe in the authoiity of
the New Testament. Bis ieluctance towaius conjectuies helps Beza to appioach
this most piecious Chiistian souice with the necessaiy awe anu iespect. It uoes
not inevitably imply that Beza is limiteu by his ieligious convictions. It implies
that Beza appioaches the New Testament in a uiffeient way than he woulu ap-
pioach anothei souice. As Rabil points out, when investigating the authoiity of
the New Testament, the authenticity of the souice of Chiistianity itself is being
0nes wonueis whethei Beza iealizes this moie than Kians.
As fai as the thesis anu its stiuctuie is conceineu, in some uegiee the book
lacks unity between Pait 0ne anu Pait Two. In my view, it woulu have been bet-
tei if Kians auueu an oveiall concluuing chaptei. Fuithei, though the two paits
have a somewhat similai stiuctuie, Kians coulu have opteu foi an even biggei
similaiity. It is foi instance not veiy cleai why he uiviues the conjectuies of Beza
into two chapteis anu auus no chaptei about Beza's view on conjectuial histoiy
anu the ieception of his conjectuies. Especially foi the ieauei, not so familiai
with conjectuial ciiticism, this woulu have been a gieat auvantage.
Neveitheless, this thesis is a ieal piece of thoiough investigation. Kians
captuies the ieauei fiom the beginning until the enu with a fluent wiiting, ex-
plaining anu justifying his methou with each new step in the piocess. The
ieauei cannot stay inuiffeient to the nicely illustiateu anu uocumenteu conjec-

Iiena Backus, "The Chuich Fatheis anu the Canonicity of the Apocalypse in the
Sixteenth Centuiy: Eiasmus, Fians Titelmans, anu Theouoie Beza," <)" E/I+""%+) 5"%+3.#
K$3.%*8 29, no. S (Autumn 1998): 661.

Rabil, 1.*-23- *%& +)" :"; <"-+*2"%+A 122.

tuies of both Eiasmus anu Beza. Kians challenges his public to uive into the
minus of two of the gieatest sixteenth centuiy thinkeis. Bolmes enus his ieview
by saying that the uisseitation of Kians will 'be waimly welcomeu by ieaueis in
many fielus of stuuy.'
I suppoit this statement. Both scholais woiking on tex-
tual ciiticism of the New Testament anu scholais investigating sixteenth centuiy
views on the New Testament shoulu caiefully examine Kians' woik anu let his
exhaustive ieseaich contiibute to theii own line of uuty. Anyone ciitically
stuuying the uieek Testament text shoulu get a holu of this book. It pioviues an
encyclopaeuic oveiview of the textual ciiticism of two of the most impoitant (if
not, +)" two most impoitant) sixteenth uieek text euitois.

Augustijn, Coinelis. 1.*-23-= Baain: Ambo, 1986.
Backus, Iiena. "The Chuich Fatheis anu the Canonicity of the Apocalypse in the
Sixteenth Centuiy: Eiasmus, Fians Titelmans, anu Theouoie Beza." <)"
E/I+""%+) 5"%+3.# K$3.%*8 29, no. S (Autumn 1998): 6S1-666.
Backus, Iiena. Review of "!"#$%& ()*+ /- (./++"%0 1.*-23- *%& !"4* *-
5$%6"7+3.*8 5./+/7- $9 +)" :"; <"-+*2"%+A by }an Kians." B"%*/--*%7"
J3*.+".8# 6u, no. 2 (Summei 2uu7): 6u8-61u.
Elliot, }.K. Review of "!"#$%& ()*+ /- (./++"%0 1.*-23- *%& !"4* *- 5$%6"7+3.*8
5./+/7- $9 +)" :"; <"-+*2"%+A by }an Kians." B">/"; $9 !/C8/7*8 D/+".*+3."
(Febiuaiy 24
, 2uu7): SS8-SS9.

Bolmes, Review of "!"#$%& ()*+ ,- (./++"%A" 97.

http:www.bookieviews.oigpufS467_S761.puf (Septembei Su
Bolmes, Nichael W. Review of "!"#$%& ()*+ /- (./++"%0 1.*-23- *%& !"4* *-
5$%6"7+3.*8 5./+/7- $9 +)" :"; <"-+*2"%+A by }an Kians." B"8/@/$3- E+3&/"-
B">/"; S4, no. 2 (}une 2uu8): 97.
Kians, }an L.B. "!"#$%& ()*+ /- (./++"%0 1.*-23- *%& !"4* *- 5$%6"7+3.*8 5./+/7-
$9 +)" :"; <"-+*2"%+=L (Ph.B. uisseitation, viije 0niveisiteit Amsteiuam,
Rabil, Albeit }i. 1.*-23- *%& +)" :"; <"-+*2"%+0 <)" G/%& $9 * 5)./-+/*%
F32*%/-+= Lanham, NB: 0niveisity Piess of Ameiica, 199S.
Rummel, Eiika. "Eiasmus as Biblical Bumanist." In 1.*-23-= 0utstanuing
Chiistian Thinkeis, 7S-89. LonuonNew Yoik: Continuum, 2uu4.

You might also like