Laurentius Valla's Annotations on 2 Corinthians 7:10

“If any of them do not have time to learn the whole Greek language, they will still be helped by the study of Valla, who with wonderful sagacity shook the entire New Testament.” —Erasmus, Letter to Christopher Fisher.[1]

 

* * *

The significance of Laurentius Valla’s contribution to biblical scholarship and his impact upon it in the 15th and succeeding centuries can hardly be over-estimated. It was Valla’s Annotations on the New Testament (discovered by Erasmus in the library of the Abbey of Parc in the summer of 1504), that set the pattern for Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum: his ground-breaking translation of the New Testament that was based on the Greek text, not the Latin Vulgate. It was Erasmus’ Greek NT that Martin Luther used as the basis for his 1522 translation of the NT into German, and it was also the basis for William Tyndale’s 1526 translation of the NT into English. The translation of the Bible into the language of the common people—“the plowboy” as Tyndale famously said—is what paved the way for the Reformation in 16th century Europe. This movement based its beliefs and practices upon the teachings of Scripture alone, as opposed to the dogmas & traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus it has well been said that Valla in his day, and Erasmus in his, “who, each in his own way, might be called the harbingers of the Protestant Reformation.” 

Following is my personal translation of Laurentius Valla’s comments on 2 Corinthians 7:10, excerpted from his Annotations on the New Testament. These comments are important from a philological and grammatical point of view in that they describe the true meaning of “repentance” (Gr. metanoia) as being a reconsidering, or a change in one’s judgment. It is well to note that Valla wrote in Latin, commenting on the Greek text of the New Testament. Erasmus is known to have discovered a manuscript copy of Valla’s Annotations, and it so impressed him that he subsequently had it published.[2]

Never before, to my knowledge, have Valla’s Annotations on 2 Corinthians 7:10 been translated into English. I did come across a few translated fragments (which I only used to check my own work), several of these are included in the notes.

May God be pleased to use this translation to enlighten those who have false ideas and wrong views of repentance, and may they come to see the true sense of the Greek word metanoia, as meaning simply a transition of the mind.

VALLA’S ANNOTATIONS ON 2 CORINTHIANS 7:10

From the Latin Vulgate

CHAP. VII.

10. For the sorrow that is according to God worketh penance, steadfast unto salvation; [but the sorrow of the world worketh death]. It is not being returned to a steadfast salvation, nor to penance, which in Greek is called impenitence, ametalemēton, although the two Greek terms, metanoia and metamelia, are different from ours. For penitence is from regret, which is to be weary, or to be reluctant, as in Virgil: “And let him not be sorry of having rubbed the reed with the lip.” [Eclogues ii. 34.] Of which term Aulus Gellius in favor of Marcus Tullius [Cicero] argues against Asinius Pollio, that the Greek words were said to be interpreted in the sense of reconsidering, and care to change for the better: a more elegant expression, as Lactantius says, than ours. [That is, the Greek wording is more elegant than the Latin.] And so in our word [poenitentia] the signification is, sorrow [for something] committed: in the Greek [the signification is], an amendment [or correction] of the mind [i.e. a change of mind]. Wherefore those who argue upon this passage, whether sorrow is the same as penance, say nothing [convincing]; they say that there is a threefold penance, one which is contrition, the second which is confession, and the third which is satisfaction. That opinion is false, hence it does nothing to explain Paul’s thought.

A PHRASE-BY-PHRASE TRANSLATION WITH NOTES

CHAP. VII.

10. Quae enim secundum Deum tristitia est, poenitentiam in salutem stabilem operator.] Non refertur stabilem ad salutem, sed ad poenitentiam, quod Graece dicitur Impoenitibilem, ametamelēton, quanquam duo vocabula Graeca, metanoia & metamelia different a nostro. Nam poenitentia dicta est a poenitet, quod est taedet, vel piget, ut apud Vergilium: Nec te poeniteat calamo trivisse labellu.

10. For the sorrow that is according to God worketh penance, steadfast unto salvation; [but the sorrow of the world worketh death]. It is not being returned to a steadfast salvation, nor to penance, which in Greek is called impenitence, ametalemēton, although the two Greek terms, metanoia and metamelia, are different from ours. For penitence is from regret, which is to be weary, or to be reluctant, as in Virgil: “And let him not be sorry of having rubbed the reed with the lip.” [Eclogues ii. 34.]

Notes:

Other English translations of Virgil’s statement are similar:

• “Nor let it repent thee to run thy tender lip along the reeds” (translated by J. W. MacKail)

• “you’d not regret chafing your lips with the reed” (translated by A. S. Kline)

• “Nor would you be sorry to have chafed your lip with a reed” (translated by H. R. Fairclough)

De quo vocabulo Aul. Gell. pro M. Tulli contra Asinium Pollionem disputat, Graeca vocabula dicta sunt a sensu retractando, & cura in melius mutanda: elegantior dictio, ut ait Lactantius, quam nostra. Itaquie in nostro verbo significatio est, tristitia commissi: in Graecis, mentis emendatio.

Of which term Aulus Gellius in favor of Marcus Tullius [Cicero] argues against Asinius Pollio, that the Greek words were said to be interpreted in the sense of reconsidering, and care to change for the better: a more elegant expression, as Lactantius says, than ours. [That is, the Greek wording is more elegant than the Latin.] And so in our word [poenitentia] the signification is, sorrow [for something] committed: in the Greek [the signification is], an amendment [or correction] of the mind [i.e. a change of mind].

Notes:

A partial translation of this portion of Valla’s Annotations on 2 Cor. 7:10 is found in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, in the volume (vol. 9b) on 2 Corinthians. Under the heading “THE MEANING OF TRUE REPENTANCE” (p. 216), the following commentary is given: “Lorenzo Valla states that ‘the two Greek nouns metanoia and metamelia have a different meaning than our Latin noun poenitentia. For the noun poenitentia is related to the Latin verb poenitet, which means ‘it irks’ or ‘it annoys.’ But the Greek words metanoia and metamelia are related in their meaning to ‘pulling back’ and ‘concern to change for the better.’ . . . And so, our Latin word poenitentia signifies ‘to become sorrowful,’ while the Greek word metanoia signifies ‘a change of mind.’” (Scott M. Manetsch, Editor, 2 Corinthians, Reformation Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, IXb [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022], p. 216, italics, ellipsis, and brackets his. Note: See under the heading: “THE MEANING OF TRUE REPENTANCE.”)

Quare nihil dicunt qui super hunc locum disputantes, an tristitia idem sit quod poenitentia, ajunt triplicem esse poenitentiam, unam quae est contritio, alteram quae est confessio, tertiam quae est satisfactio. Quae sententia cum falsa sit, tum nihil ad explanandam sententiam Pauli faciens.

Wherefore those who argue upon this passage, whether sorrow is the same as penance, say nothing [convincing]; they say that there is a threefold penance, one which is contrition, the second which is confession, and the third which is satisfaction. That opinion is false, hence it does nothing to explain Paul’s thought.

Notes:

Bentley has a translation of Valla: “At 2 Cor. 7:10 he criticized the use of poenitentia as a translation for metanoia. The Latin word, he observed, connotes weariness or annoyance and does not accurately reflect the more positive sense of the Greek word, ‘reconsidering one’s judgment,’ or ‘concern to become better.’ [....] Behind this philological point there stood an important theological implication: ‘They jabber nonsense,’ Valla argued, ‘who, disputing at this point whether sadness (tristitia) is the same thing as [the sacrament of] penance (poenitentia), maintain that penance is tripartite, composed of contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Since it is false, this opinion contributes nothing to the elucidation of Paul’s teaching.” (Jerry H. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983], p. 64, first brackets added.)

A similar translation is given by Christopher S. Celenza in his book The Italian Renaissance and the Origins of the Modern Humanities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021). Commenting on Valla’s Annotations on 2 Cor. 7:10, Celenza says that “what matters most to Valla is the word ‘penance.’ He believes the Latin used here, poenitentia [which can be translated as either ‘repentance’ or ‘penance’], does not reflect the meaning of the Greek word it translates, metanoia. As Valla points out (referring to it and to another Greek word [metameleia] in the Letter), this word [metanoia] means something much closer to ‘changing one’s thought to the better’ and ‘changing one’s mind.’” [Valla, Annotations, on 2 Cor. 7, in Valla, Opera Omnia.]

     Thereafter Valla offers a noteworthy bit of commentary, one of those rare times when he chooses to expatiate [i.e. to write at length or in detail], rather than leave his discussion at the purely lexical level. He writes: ‘Therefore, they say nothing at all who, in discussing this passage and whether ‘sorrow’ is the same as ‘penitence,’ say that ‘penitence’ is threefold, with one part being ‘contrition,’ the next ‘confession,’ and the third ‘satisfaction.’ This sentiment is not only false, it also offers nothing at all toward explaining Paul’s meaning.” (Celenza, The Italian Renaissance and the Origins of the Modern Humanities [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021], pp. 51-52, brackets added.)

THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF VALLA’S ANNOTATIONS

     “As we survey the later middle ages, from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, we may observe ‘a line of men conspicuous according to the standard of their times, in different walks of intellectual pursuit.’ Learning revived, especially in Italy; men of bold and independent minds began here and there to question the unlimited authority hitherto attached to the holy fathers; a few understood the Greek language, and ventured occasionally to depart from the troddeth path. Among these Wycliffe and Huss, to whom may be added Laurentius Valla, stand preeminent.” (Samuel Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, Developed and Applied; Including A History of Biblical Interpretation [Edinburgh: 1842], p. 192.)

     “And in the last foregoing age, how scarce removed out of our sight are Laurentius Valla, both the Earls of Mirandula &c. and the rest of those famous waymakers to the succeeding restitution of the evangelical truth!” (Bp. Hall, Cases of Conscience, cited in Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language [London: 1818], 5 vols., vol. 5, see under the word “WAYMAKER”.)

     “There was Lorenzo della Valle (1407-1457)—better known by the name of Valla—that keen, independent, and penetrating spirit, that close observer of the rules of the ancient language, that founder of scientific grammar.” (Bernhard Ten Brink, translated by Wm. Clarke Robinson, History of English Literature [London: George Bell & Sons, 1901], vol. II, book IV, p. 316.)

    “That this word (metanoia) used in the New Testament, is more fitly translated repentance, to signify a change of the mind, then by them, penance, to betoken some outward penal satisfactory act, thus it is proved.

     Arg. 1. The Greek word everywhere used [in the NT], is metanoia, which signifieth as Laurentius Valla noteth, emendationem mentis, the change or amendment of the mind; and no such outward satisfactory Penance as they pretend.” (Andrew Willet, Synopsis Papismi, that is, A Generall View of Papistrie: Wherein the Whole Mysterie of Iniquitie, and Summe of Anti-Christian Doctrine Is Set Downe, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ [London: 1614], p. 712. Note: In several places the English has been updated to conform to modern English spelling.)

     “Luther, when first he began to fall away from the Catholic Church, took it upon himself to impugn this doctrine [of penance]. He eliminated from contrition and penance everything savouring of sorrow, of sadness, of bitterness. True contrition, he said, can be found without these; the best of penances is a new life, optima poenitentia nova vita; the rest only serves to make a man a hypocrite and a greater sinner; we must rather be intent on loving justice than on hating sin; nay, our only preoccupation must be how to act for the future.

     In truth, it might have been asked of Luther, what our Lord in His Passion asked of Pilate, ‘Sayest thou this of thyself, or have others told it thee of Me?’ For, Lawrence Valla [in his notes on the seventh chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians] and Erasmus [in his notes on the third chapter of St. Matthew], who, each in his own way, might be called the harbingers of the Protestant Reformation, had already, with a great apparatus of Greek and Hebrew erudition, put forth the opinion that sorrow for the past is not an essential requisite for penance. In the course of time, Theodore Beza [in his commentaries on the third chapter of St. Matthew] adopted this interpretation, and styled the contrary doctrine [i.e. the doctrine of penance] a prejudice of illiterate minds.” (Alexius M. Lepicier, Indulgences: Their Origin, Nature, and Development [London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co. Ltd.], pp. 7-8.)

     “Luther made his admiration for Valla abundantly clear at his table. Valla was the ‘best Italian’ he had come to know: ‘Valla pleases me and he is a good author and a good Christian; I read him avidly.’ Significantly, Luther praised Valla because Valla ‘strove for candidness in piety and in letters at the same time,’ […] Valla was pious and he had provided a Christian rhetoric that left the mysteries of faith unmolested by philosophical reason. He was straightforward, plain or honest, sincere, direct, and also skillful. […] One should recall that Valla had relied on and praised St. Paul as the proper interpreter of Scripture.” (William J. Wright, Martin Luther’s Understanding of God’s Two Kingdoms [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010], pp. 97-98, brackets added.)

     “Luther had much praise for Valla, both as a writer and as a Christian.” (Harry J. McSorley, Luther: Right or Wrong? [New York: Newman Press, 1969], p. 326.)

     Writing to Erasmus, Luther makes the following statement regarding his break with the Roman Catholic Church: “No doubt you feel some hesitation when you see arrayed before you so numerous a succession of learned men, and the unanimous voice of so many centuries illustrated by deeply read divines, and by great martyrs, glorified by numerous miracles, as well as more recent theologians and countless academics, councils, bishops, pontiffs. On this side [that is, on the side of the Roman Catholic Church,] are found erudition, genius, numbers, greatness, loftiness, power, sanctity, miracles, and what not beside? On mine, Wickliff, Laurentius Valla, Augustine, (although you forget him), and Luther, a poor man, a mushroom of yesterday, standing alone with a few friends, without such erudition, genius, numbers, greatness, sanctity, or miracles. Take them all together, they could not cure a lame horse. . . . Et alia quae tu plurima fando enumerare vales (and innumerable other things you could mention). For what are we? What the wolf said of Philomel, Vox et praeterea nihil (a sound, no more). I own, my dear Erasmus, you are justified in hesitating before all these things; ten years since, I hesitated like you. . . . Could I suppose that this Troy, which had so long victoriously resisted so many assaults, would fall in one day? I solemnly call God to witness that I should have continued to fear, and should even now be hesitating, had not my conscience and the truth compelled me to speak.” (Martin Luther, quoted by M. Michelet, Translated by G. H. Smith, The Life of Luther, Gathered from His Own Writings [London: 1846], p. 13, ellipsis his.)

     “Lorenzo Valla. 1407-1457. Italian philologist and rhetorician, perhaps the most brilliant mind of the Renaissance.” (www.biblicaltraining.org/library/lorenzo-valla)

     “[Valla’s] writings abound with evidence of that singular sagacity and grasp of mind, which sometimes seems to place him, at a bound, centuries ahead of his age.” (Benjamin J. Wallace, Editor, “Laurentius Valla.” Presbyterian Quarterly Review, Vol. IX [Jan. 1861], p. 410.)

     “Laurentius Valla, a fastidious grammarian of the 16th century….” (Edward Gibbon, Edited by H. H. Milman, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (London: 1846), 6 vols., vol. 4, p. 195. Note: The Roman numerals in the original have been updated to the current format.)

     “The honor of having written the first specifically philological commentary must be assigned to LAURENTIUS VALLA.” (F. W. Farrar, Rev. Samuel Cox, Editor, “The Reformers as Expositors.” The Expositor [1884], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 46.)

     “The founder of critical scholarship was Lorenzo Valla. He was a born critic, loving opposition, but loving truth still better. We have seen how he applied his critical axe to the traditions of the Catholic Church; and he carried his warfare into every field of knowledge. [...] He even dared to lay hands on the Vulgate itself [in his Annotationes in Novum Testamentum].” (Arthur Tilley, The Dawn of the French Renaissance [Cambridge: The University Press, 1918], p. 36, brackets added. Note: The above statement appears in chapter 1, titled: “THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE”.)

     “[Valla’s] Annotations upon the New Testament have always been well spoken of.” (A New and General Biographical Dictionary [London: 1798], vol. XV, p. 48, brackets added.)

     “His work is the first of the class in modern times, and the one which Erasmus adopted as a basis for his investigations.” (Benjamin J. Wallace, Editor, “Laurentius Valla.” Presbyterian Quarterly Review, Vol. IX [Jan. 1861], p. 407.)

     “[Erasmus’] stupendous undertaking [his critical revision of the New Testament] had been suggested by Lorenzo Valla, in his Annotations to the New Testament. This tractate by Valla seems to have been recovered by Erasmus in the year [1504 or] 1505. It represents the starting-point in Biblical criticism and exegesis.” (Harry Thurston Peck, A History of Classical Philology [New York: The MacMillan Company, 1911], p. 294.)

     “[T]he learned writer [Erasmus] made a positive contribution to the Reformation. His unremitting labors devoted to the revival of the classics brought to his attention the need of an edition of the New Testament based upon the original Greek version, with a translation in Latin, accompanied with scholarly notes. A noble beginning in this direction had been made by the Italian humanist, Lorenzo Valla, whom Erasmus admired above all other humanists. In the year 1504 Erasmus found a copy of the Notes on the New Testament by Valla, which work had not yet been printed. With the aid of this work and ten manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament, Erasmus prepared his new edition and published it in 1516 under the title of Novum Instrumentum. The word ‘Instrument’ was changed to ‘Testament’ in the reprint of 1518, and the change held good for all subsequent editions. In 1519 there appeared the Greek version together with a Latin translation differing considerably from the Vulgate, and also copious notes. At least sixty-five reprints followed before the death of Erasmus in 1536. The Greek text with the commentaries received a cordial welcome from the Oxford Reformers in England, while the Germans profited much from this work. It exerted very great influence upon Luther, Zwingli, and Melanchthon.” (Albert Hyma, “Erasmus of Rotterdam”, Wilfred B. Shaw, Editor, The Quarterly Review of the Michigan Alumnus [Winter 1937], p. 398.)

     “Plurum itaque studiosi debebunt Laurentio. [‘Therefore many scholars will owe a debt to Laurentius.’] Such is the language in which, on behalf of scholars, Erasmus acknowledges their debt to a man whose talents, taste, learning and character—save that Valla had nothing of the timidity of his eulogist—were not dissimilar to his own. The critical judgments of posterity must not only endorse the obligation, but enlarge its measure. Not only the scholar, but the whole after-world [everyone living after Valla’s time], owes a large debt of gratitude to that man, the influence of whose life and writings has now for centuries been felt in that new life of the nations, which dates from the great Reformation of the sixteenth century.” (Albert Hyma, “Erasmus of Rotterdam”, Wilfred B. Shaw, Editor, The Quarterly Review of the Michigan Alumnus [Winter 1937], p. 381, brackets added.)

Appendix 1

ERASMUS’ PREFACE TO VALLA’S ANNOTATIONS

Erasmus discovered a manuscript of Valla’s Annotations on the New Testament in the summer of 1504, and it so impressed him that he had it published in 1505. He wrote a somewhat lengthy Preface, of which the following statements are excerpts. Keep in mind that when Erasmus refers to “our version” of the New Testament, he’s referring to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation, which had by that time been in circulation for well over 1,000 years! Some excerpts from Erasmus’ Preface to Valla’s Annotations on the New Testament (1505) are as follows:

“If men give heed to Nicolas Lyranus when he ventures to criticize Jerome of old, . . . in what consists the sin of Laurentius, if, having collated a few early and authentic Greek MSS., he calls attention to some passages of the New Testament which in the original Greek either deviate from our version or appear to be inadequately translated . . . or find a more expressive setting in the original tongue, or, lastly, if it is evident that some portions of our text are corrupt? It may in all likelihood be said that Valla, the grammarian, cannot pursue the same course as Nicolas, the theologian. I may answer that Laurentius is held in repute amongst the learned both as a philosopher and a theologian. But, setting this fact aside, when Lyranus analyses an expression is he the theologian, or is he the grammarian? The truth is the translation of Scripture is perforce the work of the grammarian . . . and if we cannot look upon Grammar as the first of the Sciences, we must admit that it has an important function to fulfil. . . . If it was possible for errors to creep into the Old Testament Version, particularly as respects matters not vital to the faith, may not the same thing happen in the case of the New Testament? . . . And are we to place human errors at the door of the Divine Spirit? Even should scholars succeed in making a faultless version, that which has been correctly rendered may be tampered with. Jerome revised, and yet his new version has already become corrupted. . . . But it is not permissible, some contend, to alter Holy Writ, seeing that the very points have their own special significance. This only goes to prove how criminal it is to wrest them, and how careful the learned should be to correct the errors of the ignorant, always manifesting, of course, that reverent and cautious scholarship which all books, and especially the Sacred Scriptures, have the right to demand. . . . Should some one say that it is beneath the dignity of theology to be hampered by syntactical rules, and that the interpretation of Holy Writ is a matter of inspiration, I reply that a new claim is thus advanced in the behalf of theologians if it is to be their privilege alone to write nonsense. . . . But I am reminded that the ancient translators were men of learning and that their version is sufficient for all practical purposes. I answer that I have eyes of my own and choose to use them in preference to borrowing the spectacles of others, and further, that much yet remains to be done when the gains of scholarship have been reckoned up at their highest figure.”[3]

ENDNOTES

[1] This is my personal translation of the Latin, which reads: “Si quibus non vacat totam Graecorum linguam perdiscere, ii tamen Vallae studio non mediocriter adjuvabuntur, qui mira sagacitate Novum omne Testamentum excussit.” (Erasmus, Letter to Christopher Fisher, Epistle 182. Paris [c. March], 1505. Translated with Google Translate. For more information see: Erasmus, Opus epistolarum des Erasmi Roterdami [Oxford: 1906], Revised and Enlarged by P. S. Allen, vol. 1, pp. 406-412.) Note: For an English translation of the same, see Erasmus’ Letter to Christopher Fisher (Epistle 182) in the book by Francis Morgan Nichols, The Epistles of Erasmus: From His Earliest Letters to His Fifty-First Year (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1901), pp. 384-385: “And if there are any who have not the leisure to learn Greek thoroughly, they may still obtain no small help by the studies of Valla, who has examined with remarkable sagacity the whole New Testament”. The Latin word excussit (from excutiō) can be translated either as “shook” or “examined”, hence the difference in wording between the two English translations. There is also an interesting comment by John Foxe from his book Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, related to how Valla “shook” the Latin Vulgate, or shook the dust off the New Testament—which by his time had become so encrusted with the traditions of the church. Foxe says: “By these and such-like sayings, which may be collected innumerable, it may soon be seen what hearts and judgments the people had in those days of the Romish clergy; which thing, no doubt, was of God as a secret prophecy, that shortly religion should be restored; according as it came to pass about this time, when Dr. Martin Luther first began to write; after Picus Mirandula, and Laurentius Valla, and last of all Erasmus of Rotterdam, had somewhat broken the way before, and had shaken the monks’ houses. But Luther gave the [final] stroke, and plucked down the foundation, and all by opening one vein, long hid before, wherein lieth the touchstone of all truth and doctrine, as the only principal origin of our salvation, which is, our free justifying by faith only, in Christ the Son of God.” (John Foxe, Edited by Stephen Reed Cattley, The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe [London:1837], Vol. IV, p. 259.)

[2] Eramus describes the occasion in a letter to his friend Christopher Fisher. Erasmus writes: “When I was hunting last summer in an old library,—for no coverts [hidden places] afford more delightful sport,—some game of no common sort fell unexpectedly into my nets. It was Laurentius Valla’s Notes on the New Testament. I was taken on the spot with the desire to communicate my discovery to all the studious, thinking it churlish to devour the contents of my bag without saying anything about it. I was somewhat frightened, however, not only by the old prejudice against Valla’s name, but also by an objection specially applicable to the present case. But as soon as you had perused the book, you not only confirmed my opinion by your weighty judgment, but began to advise and even urge me with reproaches not to be induced by the clamour of a few to deprive the author of the glory which he deserved, and many thousands of students of so great an advantage, affirming without doubt, that the work would be no less agreeable than useful to healthy and candid minds, while the others with their morbid ideas might be boldly disregarded. In pursuance of your opinion we shall discourse in the present Preface of the purpose and utility of the work, provided that we may premise a few words in confutation of the general prejudice against the name of Laurentius.” (Erasmus, Letter to Christopher Fisher [Epistle 182], excerpted from the book by Francis Morgan Nichols, The Epistles of Erasmus: From His Earliest Lettes to His Fifty-First Year [New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1901], pp. 380-381.) Note: It should be pointed out that Erasmus’ letter (Epistle 182) “served as a Preface to his edition of Valla’s Annotations”. (John A. Faulkner, Erasmus: The Scholar [Cincinnati: Jennings and Graham, 1907], p. 71.)

[3] Earnest F. H. Capey, Erasmus (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1903), pp. 104-106, ellipsis his. Cf. Erasmus, Letter to Christopher Fisher (Epistle 182), c. March 1505.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

     Laurentius Valla, Annotations on the New Testament (Paris: Iehan Petit, 1505), with Preface by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. Link to Valla’s Annotations on the New Testament (1505 Edition):

www.google.com/books/edition/Laurentii_Vallensis_in_Latinam_Noui_test/vGdnAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PP76&printsec=frontcover&dq=poenitentiam

     Laurentius Valla, Annotations on the New Testament (Basil: 1526), with Preface by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. Link to Valla’s Annotations on the New Testament (1526 Edition):

www.google.com/books/edition/Laurentii_Vallae_in_nouum_testamentum_an/fBEkFYwLutIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA258&printsec=frontcover

     Laurentius Valla, In Novum Testamentum Annotationes (Basil:1541). Note: The book's title translated into English is: Annotations on the New Testament. The title page (p. 19) reads: “Laurentii Vallae, viri tam graecae quam latinae linguae peritissimi, in Novum Testamentum, ex diuersorum utviusque linguae codicum collation Annotationes, ad subdubios in sacra Scriptura locos, declarandos, quammaxime conducibiles.” Translated into English it says: “Laurentius Valla, a man most skilled in the Greek and Latin languages, collated Annotations to the New Testament from the various codices of each language, to clarify doubtful passages in the Holy Scriptures, as much as possible.” Link to Valla’s Annotations on the New Testament (1541 Edition):

www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb10189074?page=368

 

     Laurentius Valla, Opera Omni (Basil: 1543). Note: The title page says: “Laurentiii Vallae opera, nunc primo non mediocribus uigilns & iudicio quorundam eruditiss. Uirorum in unum volumen collecta, &, exemplaribus uarns collatis, emendate. Ludimagistris, aut alias bonas literas profitentibus, incredibiliter utilia adeoque necessaria. Quam ob rem rectissime a doctioribus fere omnibus iujicantur neque docti necque uere studiosi, qui non omnes huius autoris libros habent, idque praecipuo loco.” Translated into English it says: “The works of Laurentius Valla, now first collected into one volume by the observation and judgment of certain learned men, and, having collated the copies, corrected them. Teachers, or those otherwise proficient in good literature, are incredibly useful and therefore necessary. For this reason almost all are judged by the more learned to be neither learned nor truly studious, who do not have all the books of this author, and that in an important place.” Link to Valla’s Annotations on 2 Corinthians 7:10 (in the 1543 edition):

www.google.com/books/edition/Laurentii_Vallae_Opera/QSBLAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PA872&printsec=frontcover

     Laurentius Valla, Jacobus Revius, Editor, Laurentii Vallae Vivi Clarissimi De Collatione Novi Testamenti, Libri Duo. Ab interitu vindicavit, recensuit, ac notas addidit Jacobus Revius (Amsterdam: 1630). Note: The English translation of the book’s title is: On the Collation of the New Testament. Link to Valla’s Collation of the New Testament (1630 Edition):

www.google.com/books/edition/De_collatione_novi_testamenti/nIpRAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA152&printsec=frontcover