Although Erasmus wrote a great deal about Jesus, his Christology is seldom discussed ex professo. Terence Martin has thus chosen a good subject. Here, however, the term does not have its usual meaning. Rather, “Christology” describes how Erasmus urged his readers to make the imitation of Christ the goal of their lives. The book uses Christology as a lens to bring out Erasmus’ contribution to the religious thought of his era. Moreover, since Erasmus rarely comes up in the history of theology except for the debate with Luther, Martin suggests there is profit for theologians in a close reading of Erasmus’ “humanistic Christology” (pp. 23–24).
Eight chapters deal with specific works: the System of True Theology; the long essays from the 1515 Adages; his reply to charges that his Greek New Testament opened a door to Arianism; defenses of two of his translations from the Greek, rendering Logos in John 1:1 by sermo (speech), not verbum (word), and giving a literal translation of Hebrews 2:9, “For you have made him a little lower than the angels”; and, finally, his early debate with John Colet about Christ’s agony in the garden (Erasmus argued that Jesus feared death, Colet that he wept for Jews who would be punished for rejecting him). Making allowance for the hesitations of traditional Christology, Erasmus vigorously defended the full humanity of Christ. This is the one point at which Martin connects Erasmus to theological issues usually considered under the heading of Christology. More so than some of his critics, he took seriously the εκενωσεν of Philippians 2:7: “He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, born in a human likeness.”
Martin stresses, following Erasmus, that Christ was “first and foremost a teacher” (p. 12). Erasmus placed great faith in the power of Jesus’ life and teaching, as recorded in the New Testament. In his view, the Gospels “Restore Christ to us so completely and so vividly that you would see him less clearly should you behold him standing before your very eyes” (p. 52). For if Christian life consisted in imitation of Christ, Christ himself was above all “an exemplary model of humility” (p. 209). In his redemptive death, the Lord cast himself down for our sake; in his humility, “we see what we must imitate.” Christ, the “model of perfect humility,” is the scopus, the “goal for the ethical transformation of human life” (p. 208).
The works selected for consideration are well chosen, Martin’s interpretations are well supported, and his clear summaries let readers see how Erasmus thought and wrote.
Martin stays within his limits, speaking as he understands Erasmus to have spoken. But an Erasmus scholar can hardly ignore the charge that Erasmus stressed the moral dimension of the gospel to the exclusion of its doctrine, almost reducing religion to ethics. Martin offers occasional suggestions of a rebuttal. In matters of doctrine he was “an obedient man of the church,” yet capable of an impartial evaluation of what he took to be Arian teaching (pp. 125–127). As for the Nicene Creed, Erasmus did not think that affirming the Son of God to be “consubstantial” with Father had been worth decades of quarreling among Christians, “the shameful sundering of world concord” (pp. 148–149). Still, Erasmus did not in Martin’s view diminish the person of Christ. Rather, he broadened the power of Christ by valorizing “the ideal life at the center of ethical teaching.” For “if Christ is identified with virtue,” then “someone who aspires to virtue can be said to be searching for Christ” (p. 48).
Unfortunately, the historical context, although mentioned initially, receives scant attention, even where context would have been helpful. On p. 258 the author notes a passage that seems mindful of with Martin Luther; his point would have been enhanced by reference to a recent study of how Erasmus’ thinking changed as he studied Paul’s Letters (Greta Kroeker, Erasmus in the Footsteps of Paul (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011)). On p. 31 he makes the interesting suggestion that Erasmus’ “three-circles” metaphor for the organization of society may come from “estates literature,” a phrase that may puzzle readers. (Erasmus’ friends included men active in the estates of Brabant, then engaged in querulous negotiations with their sovereign.) Elsewhere (p. 33), Martin finds that Erasmus’ description of princely power “sounded a realistic note.” No student of sixteenth-century power politics would accuse Erasmus of being a realist. The credence that Erasmus placed in the power of the Gospels makes more sense if one considers the extraordinary hopes occasioned by a wider diffusion of the Gospels. The New Testament was now available in the original Greek (Erasmus and his publisher made sure his edition was first to circulate), and vernacular translations were being read, at least in Protestant territories. How could the Word of God, newly presented in its pristine character, not have an impact?
Finally, what about the wider context of Christology, as the term is used here? Where did Erasmus’ sense of who Jesus was as a man fit into the vast repertoire of literary, artistic, and devotional representations of Christ during this period? Points of possible comparison or contrast are beyond counting. One might give as an example a striking contrast between two paintings. The Christ of Michaelangelo’s “Last Judgment” (pp. 1536–1541) rises from his throne, raising his right hand to condemn those who deserve it. In the “Seven Works of Mercy” by the Master of Alkmaar (p. 1504), a bland-faced Christ stands among the poor in each panel, waiting for his loaf of bread or cup of water. Despite Erasmus’ deep and personal connections with the scholarship of the Italian Renaissance, his Christology suggests a different connection, to the world of an anonymous painter working in a small Holland town. Martin shows that Erasmus presented Christ in a particular way, but Erasmus’ way was not his alone.
