Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457) was a genius. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes him as "one of the most important humanists of his time." He is noted as being the one who demonstrated that Pseudo-Dionysius was not the companion of Paul (see this lecture or this article; N.B. I do not endorse the lecturer's views on the relationship of Christianity and the New Testament) and that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery (as mentioned here; see this acknowledgment by the Vatican). He also provided a critique of Aristotelean logic.
One of Valla's contributions was not well-appreciated during his lifetime, but proved to be immensely important. He compared the Vulgate Latin text of his day with the Greek New Testament. A manuscript edition of this work was found and published by Desiderius Erasmus.
Lorenzo Valla was the first significant biblical scholar of the Renaissance. He set himself the task of comparing the Vulgate to the Greek text of the New Testament during his amazingly fruitful period, 1435–48, at the south Italian court of King Alfonso the Magnanimous. He seems to have completed a first draft by 1443 and continued to work on this version up to 1453, five years after coming to Rome from Naples. He called this first recension Collatio Novi Testamenti and dedicated it to Pope Nicholas V.[FN35] From 1453 to his death in 1457 Valla revised this first version, leaving at his death a clearly more sophisticated, though shorter, text that carried the title In Latinam Novi Testamenti Interpretationem Annotationes in the 1505 editio princeps put through the press by its discoverer, Erasmus of Rotterdam. [FN36] The Annotationes, which were the only recension available in print until 1970, have in common only about 60% of the lemmata found in the Collatio,[FN37] and even in the case of these common lemmata the Annotationes offer a considerable revision of the Collatio. Valla’s work enjoyed a minimal circulation[FN38] until Erasmus discovered a copy of the Annotationes in the abbey of Parc outside of Leuven in the summer of 1504. From that point on, it has been the object of divergent interpretations and serves almost as a Rorschach test of one’s attitude towards Valla. Erasmus drew inspiration from it and spent much of his preface defending the notion that a grammaticus (ostensibly Valla, but as the future would reveal, really Erasmus himself) could legitimately treat sacrae litterae.[FN39] Erasmus's scriptural method would go far beyond Vallas's narrow grammatical approach, and he would at times express annoyance at Valla's tendency to quibble over minutiae.[FN40][FN35] For the history of the text see Alessandro Perosa’s preface to his edition of Valla’s Collatio Novi Testamenti (Florence, 1970).
[FN36] The single extant manuscript of the second recension has a different title: Correctio. Novi Testamenti; see the description of MS 4031-4033 of the Bibliothèque Royale Albert I, Brussels, in J. Van den Gheyn et al., Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique (Brussels, 1901-48) p. 91, no. 211. For a compendium of the Annotationes prepared by an unknown fifteenth-century scholar, see Riccardo Fubini, "Una scolastica testimoniaza manoscritta delle 'Annotationes in Novum Testamentum,'" in his L’Umanesimo italiano, pp. 169-83.
[FN37] See Perosa in Valla, Collatio, p. XXVII.
[FN38] In addition to the codex unicus of the Annotationes, only two manuscripts of the Collatio survive; see Perosa in Valla, Collatio, pp. IX-XVII.
[FN39] Ep. 182, Allen 1, pp. 406-12.
[FN40] See Jerry H. Bentley, "Biblical Philolohy and Christian Humanism: Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus as Scholars of the Gospels," The Sixteenth Century Journal 8 (1977), 8-28, at pp. 14 and 22. See also Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto, 1986), p. 88: "In many cases Valla's findings formed no more than a point of departure for Erasmus ... It must also be acknowledged that the sum total of Valla's notes is small by comparison with Erasmus' detailed commentary."
(Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus 2008, pp. 21-22)
Interestingly, the work referenced in FN35 above omits the Apocalypse as well as Philemon. Bentley explains that Valla's work circulated as a first draft and then a subsequent second draft, the latter of which Erasmus ultimately printed (source).
What are Valla's comments in Revelation?
(In Latinam Novi Testamenti interpretationem ... adnotationes By Laurentius Valla · 1505)(Laurentii Vallensis viri tam gr[a]ec[a]e q[am] latin[a]e linguae peritissimi in Latinam Noui testamenti interpretationem ex collatione Gr[a]ecorum exemplarium Adnotationes apprime vtiles By Laurentius Valla · 1505)
At Revelation 1:
Gratia vobis ab eo qui est & qui erat & qui venturus est, et a septem spiritibus qui in conspectu throni eius sunt. Nescio an aliquid mysterii sit in hoc quod graece dicitur, ab iis qui est, & ab iis qui erat & ab iis qui venturus est sive ut ad verbum transferam ab ens, & ab iis quis erat, & ab iis qui venturus: quanquam graece propter articulos concinnius dicitur, ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. An voluit Ioannes in deo significare immutabilem proprietatem quod non facit cum nominat septem spiritus: ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων. Illud autem quod qui venturus est transfertur: praesentis est potius participium quam futuri. Sed cur interpres non transtulit nunc nomen graecum throni per sedis ut caeteris in locis facit?
Grace to you from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne. I do not know whether there is any mystery in this that is said in Greek, from those who are, and from those who were and from those who are to come or as to translate word for word from being, and from those who were, and from those who are to come; although in Greek it is more aptly said due to the articles, ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Did John want to signify in God an immutable property, which he does not do when he names the seven spirits: ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων? However, that which is translated as 'who is to come' is rather a present participle than a future one. But why did the translator not translate now the Greek name of the throne through 'seat' as he does in other places?
Transcription:
Dicentia sanctus sanctus sanctus. Quid causae est cur cum graeci codices omnes havent novies sanctus: latini habeant omnino ter & mysterium illud ter trium qui est numerus ordinum angelorum perdant? Et propter voluntatem tuam erant & creati sunt: graece non legitur erant sed sunt: εἰσἰ, de deo enim dicitur quod erat, non de rebus creatis.
Saying holy, holy, holy. What is the reason why, when all the Greek manuscripts have 'holy' nine times, the Latin ones have it altogether three times and lose that mystery of three times three, which is the number of orders of angels? And for your will they were and were created: in Greek, it is not read as 'were' but as 'are': εἰσἰ, for it is said of God that He was, not of created things.
At Revelation 11:
Transcription:
Gratias agimus tibi domine deus omnipotens qui es & qui eras & qui accepisti virtutem. Graece est, Qui es, qui eras, & qui venturus es: quia recepisti virtutem καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὅτι εἴληφας.
We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who are and who were and who have taken power. In Greek, it is, 'Who are, who were, and who are to come: because you have taken power' (καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὅτι εἴληφας).
At Revelation 16:
Iustus es domine qui es & qui eras Sanctus: quia haec iudicasti. graece est: ut superius admonui: erat non eras: quasi dicatur tu domine, is qui est & qui erat qui sanctus, neque enim graece sanctus refertur ad erat ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ἅγιος.
You are just, O Lord, who are and who were, Holy: because you have judged these things. In Greek, it is, as I have warned above: 'was' not 'were'; as if it is said, 'you, Lord, he who is and who was, the holy one,' for in Greek 'holy' is not referred to 'was' (ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ἅγιος).
Notice that the focus is on Revelation 16:5.
Similar comments can be found in the other editions of Valla's comments.
From his Annotations (In novum testamentum annotationes By Laurentius Valla, Lorenzo Valla · 1526)
At Revelation 1 (pp. 338-9)
Ultimately, therefore, when we look at the most likely source for Erasmus on this point, we see Valla.
No comments:
Post a Comment