The Church Fathers and the Canonicity of the Apocalypse in the Sixteenth Century: Erasmus, Frans Titelmans, and Theodore Beza
When Erasmus challenged the place of the Apocalypse in the New Testament canon in 1516 and in 1522, he was merely giving a fairly dispassionate appraisal of the patristic literature at his disposal: the ante-Nicene Fathers were chiliasts; Jerome had noted that the fourth/fifth-century Greek church d...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, Inc.
1998
|
| In: |
The sixteenth century journal
Year: 1998, Volume: 29, Issue: 3, Pages: 651-666 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | When Erasmus challenged the place of the Apocalypse in the New Testament canon in 1516 and in 1522, he was merely giving a fairly dispassionate appraisal of the patristic literature at his disposal: the ante-Nicene Fathers were chiliasts; Jerome had noted that the fourth/fifth-century Greek church did not accept the book. Eusebius and Dionysius of Alexandria questioned the Johannine authorship. Finally, Erasmus accepted the book because of the consensus ecclesiae and because of its historical value. In his reply to Erasmus (1530), Frans Titelmans insisted on the consensus ecclesiae, which he demonstrated went back to Dionysius the Areopagite and included the ante-Nicene Fathers and several later patristic and medieval commentators (excluding Joachim of Fiore and his disciples). Titelmans did not raise the question of chiliasm. Theodore Beza, who also tackled Erasmus (in 1557), chose to defend the book's canonicity on the strength of its generic similarity to Old Testament prophecies and because its status was guaranteed by the ante-Nicene Fathers. By privileging their testimony, Beza inadvertently admitted chiliasm. Erasmus' attack and the responses of both his adversaries show the fragility of the canonical status of the Apocalypse in the sixteenth century. The rediscovery of patristic literature meant in this case that the doubts of the early Greek church resurfaced in the totally Western context of the Reformation. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2326-0726 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The sixteenth century journal
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2307/2543682 |