The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - What is the authentic New Testament text?

Jerusalem Blade · #27 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 03:40 PM

CONCERNING ERASMUS

I want to quote first from a paper titled, “That Rascal Erasmus—Defense Of His Greek Text”, pages 5-8, by Dr. Daryl R. Coats (available for $2.00 at BFT – Bible For Today Webstore – item # OP2456). Most of us have heard stories of Erasmus’ poor copies of texts available to him, and especially the one about his offering to insert 1 John 5:7 into his Greek editions if but one Greek MS was shown him which contained it. Dr. Coats writes,

The supposed “Erasmian Inventions”

Modern critics such as Metzger almost gleefully repeat the story that when Erasmus put together his Greek New Testament, he had access to only one copy of Revelation, a “very mutilated” copy missing the last six verses of the book and damaged in verse 17:4. As a result Erasmus supposedly retranslated the missing verses from the Latin vulgate back into Greek, producing several readings supposedly known in no Greek manuscripts and one word (akaqavrthtoV in 17:4) which doesn’t even exist in Greek. These readings (to Metzger’s apparent distress!) “are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus” [The Text of the New Testament: its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd Edition, by Bruce Metzger (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 100.

Even if this story were completely true,* these “Erasmian inventions” are of no consequence unless a person believes that the New Testament exists in no language other than the “original Greek.” Pressed to prove the seriousness of his claim of supposed inventions, Metzger lists only 33 words. Of these 33 words, 18 match the text of the UBS Greek New Testament which Metzger helped edit! Of the 15 words that don’t Metzger’s own text, 11 make no difference in English translation. Of the four words that do affect translation, three are found in Codex Sinaiticus (a), the oldest existing “complete Greek manuscript of Revelation!**

There are, however, at least three good reasons to doubt the validity of the story of Erasmus and his mutilated copy of Revelation: 1) the only evidence for it is that the manuscript apparently used by Erasmus for Revelation is missing its last page;*** 2) Erasmus’s Latin New Testament doesn’t agree with the Latin Vulgate in the last six verses of Revelation (a problem if his Greek text for those verses was derived from the Vulgate); and 3) there exists Codex 141.†

H.C. Hoskier spent a lifetime collating every edition of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, several other printed Greek New Testaments, and almost all of the known Greek manuscripts of Revelation….His study and collation of Revelation in Codex 141 surprised him, because it contained substantially the same text that appears in Erasmus’s Greek New Testament. In Hoskier’s own words:

Upon reaching the end [of Revelation] and the famous final six verses, supposed to have been re-translated from the Vulgate into Greek by Erasmus when Codex I was discovered and found to lack the last leaf: the problem takes on a most important aspect. For if our MS. 141 is not copied from the printed text, then Erasmus would be absolved from the charge for which his memory has suffered for 400 years! [Emphasis in the original]
In an effort to nullify the testimony of Codex 141, most “scholars” assign the manuscript a “young” age and simply claim that it is a copy of Erasmus’s (or Aldus’s or Colinaeus’s) printed Greek New Testament. But based on his study of the penmanship of the scribe who composed it, Hoskier determined that Codex 141 was executed in the 15th century—well before Erasmus’s Greek New Testament was printed; and based on his study of its contents (and the collation of same), Hoskier determined that MS 141 “has no appearance of being a copy of any [printed edition of the Greek New Testament], although containing their text (Coats’s emphasis).†† There is, then, manuscript evidence to support the supposed “Erasmian readings”—as much as there is to support the reading of Revelation 5:9 that appears in all the modern “bibles”—and critics who claim otherwise are either ignorant or purposely deceitful.

-------------
Footnotes

* By their own admissions, not all the stories which these “scholars” tell about Erasmus are true. Since 1964, on p. 101 of all three editions of Text of the New Testament, Metzger has claimed that Erasmus inserted 1 John 5:7 in his Greek New Testament only because “in an unguarded moment [he] promised that he would….if a single manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a manuscript was found—or made to order!” He has claimed further (pp. 62, 101) that Erasmus wrote notes stating his suspicions that the manuscript was a forgery and the passage was spurious. Yet in the third edition, in small print in footnote 2 on p. 292, he makes this admission: “What was said about Erasmus’ promise….and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to [add 1 John 5:7 to the text], needs to be corrected in light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” [bold emphasis mine –SMR; italic Coats’]. Why isn’t this admission in larger type in the text of the book? Why is the “assertion” (that is, lie!) still included? Because the enemies of the Bible are liars and crooks at heart.

** In Text of the New Testament (p. 100, n. 1), Metzger lists these “Erasmian inventions” in Revelation: one word in 17:14; one in 22:16; three in 22:17; seventeen in 22:18; ten in 22:19; and one in 22:21. But the “coined word” of 17:4 and the “invented words” of 22:16 & 17 are synonymous with the “original” words and make no difference in English translation.

Of the 17 words in question in 22:18, twelve match the text of the UBS Greek New Testament; two more are synonymous with the “original words” and make no difference in English translation. One word (a personal pronoun) “missing” from Erasmus’ Greek New Testament is also “missing” from many manuscripts of the Received Text, including von Soden’s subgroups c, d, and e—and including it makes no difference in English translation, because the King James translators already added a personal pronoun to the English text for clarity. The other two “invented words” appear in the scribal corrections in Codex a. (Other words in Erasmus’ text of this verse also appear in Codex A and the corrections in Codex a.

Six of the ten “invented words” in 22:19 match the USB Greek text. Three more represent only differences in spelling or inflection (case; conjugation/voice) andmake no difference in English translation. Only biblou (“book”) would affect English translation (“book of life” vs. “tree of life”). The invention cited for 22:21 is almost laughable: amhvn (“amen”! The word is rejected by the UBS Greek New Testament, but it’s found in most of the manuscripts of the Received Text as well as in Codices a, 046, 051, 94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2020, 2042, 2053, 2065 (commentary section), 2073, and 2138. It is also translated in most of the counterfeit “bibles” on the market…

*** The audacity of “scholars” in speculating (and then basing theories and “facts”) on the contents of a missing leaf of a manuscript—or even in assuming that the leaf was missing when Erasmus used the manuscript (provided that this is the manuscript he used)—aptly demonstrates the reliability of such men in matters of scholarship.

† The manuscript is listed under several call numbers. Under Hoskier’s, Scrivener’s and the Old Gregory classification systems, it is MS 141; under the New Gregory system it is 2049; and under von Soden’s system, it is w 1684. It is located in the Parliamentary Library in Athens.

†† For full details, see H.C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collations of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition, Together with the Testimony of the Versions, and Fathers; a Complete Conspectus of All Authorities, Vol. 1 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd, 1929), pp. 474-477. It was also Hoskier who noted that Erasmus’s Latin New Testament differs from the Vulgate in the last six verses of Revelation.

-------------

There are many more interesting details to Dr. Coats paper, mostly regarding the integrity of Erasmus’ text vis-à-vis modern text editors and editions.

Another informative paper on Erasmus is available online: In Defense of Erasmus, by Dr. John Cereghin: http://www.watch.pair.com/erasmus.html.

Although Dr. Coats’ short paper (11 pages) has many scholarly details regarding the text, I think the best of all is a booklet by David Cloud, now available as part of a larger and excellent book, Myths About Modern Bible Versions. It’s certainly worth springing 15 bucks for. Click on the link and you can see the contents.

In another thread someone showed there was a text version of his booklet; Cloud on Erasmus: http://www.textfiles.com/occult/CHRISTIAN/myth1.txt. It’s not too readable (to me anyway), unless you copy and paste it into a Word document in a font that’s easy on the eyes. Then it’s alright. I think the books is the better bet; it’s easier to take a book to bed with me and read, than a laptop.

James Price, in his ¶ 38, writes,

Hills did not base this view of the Textus Receptus on any claim that it always reflected the readings of the majority of the Greek manuscripts, for it does not. He argued that Erasmus was providentially guided by the common faith. Without realizing it, Hills has made an exceedingly important admission. He wrote of Erasmus, “He was not himself outstanding as a man of faith” (Hills, B.B.S., p. 63). But if Erasmus was not outstanding as a man of faith and yet his textual work was good, would that not mean that one cannot properly condemn a text on the basis of the spiritual failings of the editor? Does such a statement not mean that one does not necessarily have to be an outstanding man of faith to do good textual criticism? If Hills is correct about Erasmus, would not the same conclusion hold true for later editors of the Greek text such as Westcott and Hort? It should be noticed that the Hebrew Old Testament was preserved by non-Christian Jews. One almost feels compelled to ask why it is that only Westcott and Hort’s textual work seems to be rejected on the grounds that they were not outstanding men of faith.

I suppose the phrase “outstanding as a man of faith” should be more rigorously defined and examined in the context of Erasmus’ life. Was he “outstanding” in the sense of Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, or Spurgeon, to name but a few? No. Perhaps it should rather be asked, “Was he man of faith? Genuine faith?” I think this is of great import in such a discussion, where Dr. Price favorably compares Westcott and Hort to him. I think it is clear from their writings and statements the two revisers were not regenerate men. Was Erasmus? It is documented in his biographies that as a youth he had been brought up among the Brethren of the Common Life, a Roman Catholic group who followed the way of “Gerard Groote (1340-84) of Deventer. The son of a prominent merchant, he lived in a worldly manner until, in 1374, he had a conversion experience, which caused him to adopt an ascetic way of life. From 1379 he became a preacher of repentance, criticizing the clergy so severely that some of them caused him to be officially silenced. He appealed to the pope, who granted him permission to preach, but he died before this permission could reach him.” (http://www.eldrbarry.net/heidel/bcl.htm)

This group “held the Bible in great awe and reverence…Erasmus through life always had a similar reverence and respect for God’s Word.” (Lion’s History of Christianity, p. 359)
----------
Bibliographic note: The Christian Renaissance: a History of the Devotio Modern ( Century, 1924) and The Brethren of the Common Life: Gerard Groote and the Founding of the Brotherhood (Eerdmans, 1950) by Albert Hyma. Hyma's thesis is that the teaching ministry of the Brethren gave birth to the Protestant Reformation. He also wrote: Erasmus and the Humanists. (Crofts 1930) and The Youth of Erasmus.
-----------

David Cloud, while critical of Erasmus for not separating from the Roman “church”, nonetheless sees in him a born-again individual. Erasmus was hated and widely spoken against for his accompanying commentary to his Greek and Latin editions of the New Testament, where he compared the Romish “church”, its false teachings, and ungodly clergy to the holy character of the apostles and New Testament saints; he revealed the glory and actual person of the Lord Jesus by making the Scriptures clear and understandable. His Greek editions rocked all of Europe. Historian J.H. Merle D'Aubigne comments on what Erasmus had done:

The great work of the 16th century was about to begin. A volume fresh from the presses of Basle had just crossed the Channel. Being transmitted to London, Oxford, and Cambridge, this book, the fruit of Erasmus’s vigils, soon found its way wherever there were friends of learning. It was the New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ, published for the first time in Greek with a new Latin translation—an event more important for the world than would have been the landing of the pretender in England, or the appearance of the chief of the Tudors in Italy. This book, in which God has deposited for man’s salvation the seeds of life, was about to effect alone, without patrons and without interpreters, the most astonishing revolution in Britain.

When Erasmus published this work, at the dawn, so to say, of modern times, he did not see all its scope. Had he foreseen it, he would perhaps have recoiled in alarm. He saw indeed that there was a great work to be done, but he believed that all good men would unite to do it with common accord. “A spiritual temple must be raised in desolated Christendom,” said he. “The mighty of this world will contribute towards it their marble, their ivory, and their gold; I who am poor and humble offer the foundation stone,” and he laid down before the world his edition of the Greek Testament.

Then glancing disdainfully at the traditions of men, he said: “It is not from human reservoirs, fetid with stagnant waters, that we should draw the doctrine of salvation; but from the pure and abundant streams that flow from the heart of God.”

And when some of his suspicious friends spoke to him of the difficulties of the times, he replied: “If the ship of the church is to be saved from being swallowed up by the tempest, there is only one anchor that can save it: it is the heavenly word, which, issuing from the bosom of the Father, lives, speaks, and works still in the gospel.” These noble sentiments served as an introduction to those blessed pages which were to reform England. Erasmus, like Caiaphas, prophesied without being aware of it.

The New Testament in Greek and Latin had hardly appeared when it was received by all menof upright mind with unprecedented enthusiasm. Never had any book produced such a sensation. It was in every hand: men struggled to procure it, read it eagerly, and would even kiss it. The words it contained enlightened every heart. but a reaction soon took place. Traditional Catholicism uttered a cry from the depths of its noisome pools (to use Erasmus's figure). Franciscans and Dominicans, priests and bishops, not daring to attack the educated and well-born, went among the ignorant populace, and endeavoured by their tales and clamours to stir up susceptible women and credulous men. “Here are horrible heresies,” they exclaimed, “here are frightful antichrists! If this book be tolerated it will be the death of the papacy!” “We must drive this man from the university,” said one. “We must turn him out of the church,” added another. “The public places re-echoed with their howlings,” said Erasmus. The firebrands tossed by their furious hands were raising fires in every quarter; and the flames kindled in a few obscure convents threatened to spread over the whole country.

The irritation was not without a cause. The book indeed contained nothing but Latin and Greek: but this first step seemed to auger another—the translation of the Bible into the vulgar tongue. Erasmus loudly called for it. “Perhaps it may be necessary to conceal the secrets of kings,” he remarked, “but we must publish the mysteries of Christ. The Holy Scriptures, translated into all languages, should be read not only by the Scotch and Irish, but even by Turks and Saracens. the husbandman should sing them as he holds the handle of his plough, the weaver repeat them as he plies his shuttle, and the weary traveler, halting on his journey, refresh him under some shady tree by these godly narratives.” These words prefigured a golden age after the iron age of popery. A number of Christian families in Britain and on the continent were soon to realize these evangelical forebodings, and England was to endeavor to carry them out for the benefit of all the nations on the face of the earth.

The priests saw the danger, and by a skillful maneuver, instead of finding fault with the Greek Testament, attacked the translation and the translator. “He has corrected the Vulgate,” they said, “and puts himself in the place of Saint Jerome. He sets aside a work authorized by the consent of ages and inspired by the Holy Ghost. What audacity!” and then, turning over the pages, they pointed out the most odious passages: “Look here! This book calls upon men to repent, instead of requiring them, as the Vulgate does, to do penance!” (Matt. 9:17). The priests thundered against him from their pulpits: “This man has committed the unpardonable sin,” they asserted, “for he maintains that there is nothing in common between the Holy Ghost and the monks—that they are logs rather than men!”….”He's a heretic, an heresiarch, a forger! He's a goose….he's a very antichrist!” (D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Vol. V, pp. 153-156; in recent one-volume edition, pp. 729, 730)

Cloud has quoted part of the above in his booklet. This is from Cloud’s booklet:

The term "humanist" meant something entirely different in the sixteenth century than it means today. In December 1984 I wrote to Andrew Brown, at that time the Editorial Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, and asked about the charge of Erasmus being a humanist. Brown's reply was most enlightening:

"Erasmus was a thoroughgoing `Christian humanist' from his youth to his
death. The use of the word `humanist' in the Renaissance and Reformation
period does not in any way share the atheistic connotations which that word
now has in popular usage. A `humanist' in that period was simply someone
who was interested in classical literature, culture and education, as a
means of attaining a higher standard of civilised life. Stephanus, Calvin
and Beza were all humanists in this sense, and it is these `humanist'
ideals which have largely shaped Western culture in the succeeding
centuries, blended with the teachings of the Christian Gospel.

"Erasmus was both a Catholic and a Reformer at the same time. He criticised
many of the worst abuses and corruptions of the Catholic church, but he
thought that the church should be reformed from within and that it was
wrong to separate from it. He was praised and criticised by Protestants and
Catholics alike. Some of his writings are highly spiritual, even if there
are occasional traces of unsound doctrine. His Enchiridon (Manual of a
Christian Soldier) was so edifying that it was translated into English by
William Tyndale, the translator of the first printed English New Testament.
I am sending separately an extract from one of his last works, the
`Treatise on Preparation for Death,' which I think will satisfy you
concerning his spiritual outlook. A good biography of Erasmus is R.
Bainton's Erasmus of Christendom." (Letter from Andrew Brown of the
Trinitarian Bible Society, Jan. 7, 1985.)
Erasmus’s doctrinal orthodoxy is seen in his writings

Erasmus's own writings illustrate his doctrinal soundness and repulsion at Roman heresies. This was evidenced in his commentary to the Bible, but I want to quote from some of his other writings. We will begin with a quote from the last part of the work mentioned by Brown, Erasmus's “Manual of the Christian Soldier”. It is obvious from this that Erasmus did not follow Roman thought, but was sound at least regarding the major teachings of the Gospel. And it is certain that Erasmus was no humanist in any modern sense. As to the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God, Erasmus was orthodox.

Bainton informs us that Manual was "a resolute call to action in the Christian warfare" (p. 66). "As with Kempis and the Brethren [with whom Erasmus spent his early years], the stress is laid upon the exemplification of the gentler virtues: humility, meekness, self-effacement, tenderness, compassion, yielding rather than asserting one's due, forgiveness, love of enemies, overcoming evil with good. ... The color of monastic habits, the wearing of girdles and sandals are all inconsequential ... The sacraments, we learn, are without value apart from the spirit."

Let us hear it in Erasmus's own words. Following are quotes from "Treatise on Preparation for Death":

"Would you please Peter and Paul? Then emulate the faith of the one and the charity of the other. Thereby you will do better than if you make ten
pilgrimages to Rome ... You honor a statue of Christ in wood or stone and
adorned with colors. You would do better to honor the image of his mind
which through the Holy Spirit is expressed in the gospels. Are you excited
over the seamless robe and the napkin of Christ and yet doze over the
oracles of his law? Far better that you should believe than that you should
treasure at home a piece of the wood of the cross. Otherwise you are no
better than Judas, who with his lips touched the divine mouth. The physical
presence of Christ is useless for salvation ... In a word, let all your
possessions, all your concern, all your care be directed toward the
imitation of Christ, who was not born for himself, lived not to himself,
died not to himself, but for our sakes ...

"We are assured of victory over death, victory over the flesh, victory over
the world and Satan. Christ promises us remission of sins, fruits in this
life a hundredfold, and thereafter life eternal. And for what reason? For
the sake of our merit? No indeed, but through the grace of faith which is
in Christ Jesus. We are the more secure because he is first our doctor. He
first overcame the lapse of Adam, nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our
redemption with his blood, which has been confirmed by the testimonies of
the prophets, apostles, martyrs, and virgins and by the universal Church of
the saints. He added the seal of the Spirit lest we should waver in our
confidence ... What could we little worms do of ourselves? Christ is our
justification. Christ is our victory. Christ is our hope and security.
"Unto us a child is born." Unto US, born for us, given for us. He it is who
teaches us, cures our diseases, casts out demons, for us suffers hunger and
thirst, is afflicted, endures the agonies of death, sweats blood, for us is
conquered, wounded, dead and resurrected, and sits at the right hand of God
the Father ...

"As we approach death the sacraments are not to be despised, but of greater
importance is faith and charity without which all else is vain. I believe
there are many not absolved by the priest, not having taken the Eucharist,
not having been anointed, not having received Christian burial who rest in
peace, while many who have had all the rites of the Church and have been
buried next to the altar have gone to hell. There is no point in putting on
a cowl. Better to resolve to live a better life if you get well. I know a
noble woman who gave a large sum to a priest to have masses said for her
soul at Rome. Her money might better have been spent to obligate the priest
never to go to Rome. ...

"Christ said, ‘Come unto me all ye that labour.’ Take refuge then in his
cave in the rocks. Flee to his wounds and you will be safe. The way to
enter paradise is the way of the penitent thief. Say simply, `Thy will be
done. The world to me is crucified and I to the world.'" (Erasmus,
"Treatise on Preparation for Death," quoted by Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus
of Christendom (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), pp. 68, 69, 70, 269, 270.)

-------------

I would like to wrap up this section on Erasmus with a couple of examples from David Cloud’s booklet (to which I have given the link to the entire text version above):

So much more, of course, could be given from Erasmus's writings to illustrate the man's Bible faith and love for Christ, but we think one more quote will suffice to prove our thesis. The following was composed by Erasmus for the boys at a school established by his Bible-believing friend John Colet. Note Erasmus's love for Christ and his pure faith in the true Christ of the Bible--truly God, truly man, only Savior. And note, as well, that there is no hint here of that false Catholic mysticism which attempts to pass itself off as devotion to Christ. Give an ear to Erasmus's exhortation to these sixteenth century boys:

Who in all history is like to Jesus, ineffably, inconceivably God of God,
born before all times, eternal and fully equal to his eternal and loftiest
parent? Does not his human birth easily overshadow that of all kings? By
the will of the Father and the breath of the Spirit he was born of a
Virgin, a man in time and still God, unsullied by our corruption. Who is
richer than he who gives all things and is not diminished? Who more
illustrious as the splendor of the glory of the Father, enlightening every
man that comes into the world? Who more powerful than he to whom the Father has given power in heaven and on earth? Who more mighty by whose nod the universe was established? at whose nod the sea is calm, species changed, diseases flee, armed men fall on their faces, devils are expelled, rocks
rended, the dead raised, sinners repent, and all things are made new? Who
is more august whom angels adore and before whom devils tremble? Who more invincible than he who has conquered death and cast down Satan from heaven? Who more triumphant than he who has harrowed hell and brought souls to heaven where he sits at the right hand of God the Father? Who is more wise
than he who founded and governs the universe in harmony? Whose authority is greater than his of whom the Father said, "This is my beloved Son. Hear ye
him"? Who is more to be feared than he who can cast body and soul into
hell? Who more fair than he whom to behold is perfect joy? Who is more
ancient than he who has no beginning and will have no end? But perhaps boys may better think of him as a boy, lying in swaddling clothes in a manger,
while angels sang, shepherds adored, the animals knew him, the star stood
over where he lay, Herod trembled, Simeon embraced, Anna prophesied. O
humble simplicity! O sublime humility! How can thoughts conceive or words
suffice to express his greatness? Better to adore than to seek to explain.

What then shall we do, if John the Baptist said he was unworthy to unloose
the latchet of his shoes? Strive, my dear boys, to sit at the feet of Jesus
the teacher. (Bainton, p. 102.)
In these writings we see the heart and soul of a Protestant, not a true Roman Catholic; of a Bible-believing Christian, not a humanist.

In his booklet, Cloud mentions concerning the manuscripts Erasmus had at his disposal, as well as those the Greek editors who came after him had. (A hint: if in the URL I gave above to Cloud’s booklet, if you change the part of the URL that says “myth1” to “myth2” you will have the second booklet in the series [or second chapter in the book I spoke of above], “Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence”.)

Concerning the death of Erasmus, he says,

We read that "in 1535, he [Erasmus] again returned to Basel and died there the following year IN THE MIDST OF HIS PROTESTANT FRIENDS, without relations of any sort, so far as known, with the Roman Catholic Church." [emphasis Cloud’s] (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 194, quoting T.A. Dorey, Erasmus (London: Kegan Paul, 1970); Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom; W. Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Translation (Cambridge: University Press, 1955), pp. 92-166; Preserved Smith, Erasmus, (New York: Harper, 1923).

One may read these works (some made available to you in their entirety) and see that what is said about Erasmus is far from true. Both about him personally – his faith – and about his access to materials. It was not for nothing he was considered the premiere scholar in all of Europe; his access to libraries (even the Vatican’s, and its Codex B) and manuscripts throughout all Britain and Europe was unrivaled. He was a welcome guest everywhere (except the Catholic enclaves, after his publishing his NT, along with its devastating commentary on RC).

To close this section I would like to leave you with the link to Dr. E.F. Hills’ chapter 8 of his, The King James Version Defended, which – only 9 paragraphs in – has a good section on Erasmus, his life, and textual matters. I hope this has been of benefit in clarifying the life, heart, and work of Erasmus.

I will continue to critique Dr. James Price’s critique of Dr. Hills in a forthcoming post. Again, I say I hope this is not tedious, but as defending Dr. Hills I state much (though not all) of my views, and disarm those who misunderstand Hills’ thought, and seek to denigrate the KJO view therewith. It seems that Dr. Price’s article has been seminal to much of this misunderstanding.