The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

OXFORD STUDIES IN HISTORICAL THEOLOGY

Series Editor
David C. Steinmetz, Duke University

Editorial Board
Irena Backus, Universite de Geneve
Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University
George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame
Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University
Heiko A. Oberman, University of Arizona
Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat Bonn
Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago
John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame
Geoffrey Wainwright, Duke University
Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia

P R I M I T I V I S M , RADICALISM, AND THE LAMB'S WAR

The Baptist-Quaker Conflict in Seventeenth-Century England
T. L. Underwood

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus
Craig S. Farmer
The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus

CRAIG S. FARMER

New York Oxford

OXFORD U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS
1997
Oxford University Press
Oxford New York
Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bombay Buenos Aires
Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong
Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne
Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto
and associated companies in
Berlin Ibadan

Copyright © 1997 by Craig S. Farmer

Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Farmer, Craig S. (Craig Steven), 1961-
The Gospel of John in the sixteenth century: the Johannine
exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus / Craig S. Farmer.
p. cm. —(Oxford studies in historical theology)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 0-19-509903-6 (cloth)
1. Musculus, Wolfgang, 1497-1563. Commentariorvm in evangelistam
loannem. 2. Bible. N.T. John—Criticism, interpretation, etc.—
History—16th century. I. Title. II. Series.
BS2615.F35 1997
226.5'06'092—dc20 96-24737

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
For Richard Luman
Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563). Courtesy of Burgerbibliothek Bern.
 Preface

I n telling the story of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation, his-

torians have understandably focused on those figures whose influence was deci-
sive in defining distinct theological traditions. Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and
Zwingli rightfully hold preeminent place in any attempt to understand the Refor-
mation as a whole because their religious ideas spread far beyond the geographical
confines of Wittenberg, Geneva, and Zurich, influencing generations of people
throughout Europe and North America. Yet many other lesser-known figures who
contributed to the theological legacy of the Reformation period have been left out
of the story, figures who were held in high esteem by their contemporaries and
whose reformational activities and theological insights were of critical importance
in the shaping of the Protestant Reformation.
To a significant degree, this neglect has been addressed in modern scholarship
of the last century: the story has been enlarged to include the contributions of fig-
ures such as Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, Johannes Brenz, Balthasar Hub-
maier, and Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt. Yet in recent years, the momentum
to incorporate the contributions of such secondary figures has been slowed some-
what by the focus of social historians who have criticized the preoccupation with
personalities and intellectual history as presenting a skewed, top-sided view of the
Reformation that fails to take into account its effects on the political, social, and
religious life of the masses. This criticism was not completely undeserved, and social
historians have made valuable contributions that correct the unbalanced presen-
tation of prior historiography. Nevertheless, no one can rightfully deny that to a
great extent the Reformation was indeed about ideas and the personalities who
expressed and debated them. The fact that most of these personalities, as church-
men and scholars, occupied a privileged class in sixteenth-century Europe does not
belie the influence of their theological protest on popular religion and culture. Just
 viii Preface

as the story of the Reformation is not exhausted by a recitation of the ideological

substance of the protest, so also the Reformation is not understandable in purely
socioeconomic terms divorced from the context of the theological debates.
In this book I introduce a figure whose theological writings were widely read
and influential in sixteenth-century Europe. His influence, however, is not reflected
in modern scholarship; to most students and scholars of the Reformation, Wolfgang
Musculus remains a shadowy figure at best. Studies of his life, theology, and po-
litical thought have been exceedingly rare, and much work needs to be done in order
for us to understand Musculus's contributions as a leading churchman during the
turbulent years of the first half of the sixteenth century. I have chosen to introduce
Musculus, however, not by writing a critical biography or an overview of his the-
ology but by examining in some detail his interpretation of sacred writ. This might
seem to be an odd place to begin when introducing such a little-studied figure as
Musculus, but I am convinced that it is a proper place. It was as a commentator on
Scripture, after all, that Musculus labored for most of the mature years of his life;
his biblical commentaries, judged by their printing history, were exceedingly popu-
lar, and in the eyes of his contemporaries Musculus was seen, above all, as a skilled
interpreter of the Bible. To examine Musculus as an exegete, therefore, allows us
to take him on his own terms and to see him in a role that perhaps defines his cen-
tral theological contributions to the Reformation era.
This study is defined by a particular method known loosely as the history of
exegesis. Fundamentally, this method means that in order for us to understand
Musculus as an exegete, we must examine the actual words of his biblical exegesis,
and we must do so in context; that is to say, we must study his comments against
the sounding board of the antecedent tradition of interpretation. Therefore, in this
book I focus on one of Musculus's commentaries, his work on the Gospel of John.
I do so by examining his interpretations of the seven miracle stories—the so-called
sign passages—in the context of patristic, medieval, and early sixteenth-century
exegesis. This approach brings to the fore both the distinctive and the traditional
elements in Musculus's work as a biblical commentator. It also allows us to see how
Musculus interpreted the fourth gospel in conversation with a host of Johannine
interpreters, some of whom addressed different audiences and shared different
theological convictions.

Although most of the commentaries I have consulted remain untranslated into

English, I have made use of translations when available. Unless noted otherwise,
all translations are my own. The following publishers have generously given per-
mission to use extended quotations from copyrighted works: from The Fathers of
the Church, vol. 33: Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist, Homilies
1-47, by John Chrysostom, translated by T. A. Goggin, copyright 1957 by The
Catholic University of America Press; vol. 78: Tractates on the Gospel of John 1-10,
by Augustine, translated by John W. Rettig, copyright 1988 by The Catholic Uni-
 Preface ix

versity of America Press; vol. 79: Tractates on the Gospel of John 11-27, by Augus-
tine, translated by John W. Rettig, copyright 1988 by The Catholic University of
America Press; and from Martini Buceri Opera Latina,vol. 2: Enarratio in Evangelion
Iohannis, edited by Irena Backus, copyright 1988 by E.J. Brill.
This book was made possible largely by a generous grant from the Deutscher
Akademischer Austauschdienst that enabled me to spend a year in Europe reading
medieval and sixteenth-century commentaries on John. I am especially grateful to
the helpful staff of the Augsburg Staats- und Stadtbibliothek and to numerous
friends at the Gemeinde Christi in Augsburg who provided me and my family with
loving support. Several people have read portions of the completed manuscript
and offered criticisms that helped me to improve the work significantly: Irena
Backus of the Universite de Geneve, David Steinmetz of Duke University, Lee
Magness of Milligan College, and Edwin Tait of Durham, North Carolina. More
than anyone, Margaret, my wife of fourteen years, has labored with pen in hand,
correcting and editing my prose and challenging me to clarify my thinking and
writing. I could not have completed this work without her companionship.

Johnson City, Tennessee C. S. F.

January 1996
This page intentionally left blank
Contents

Introduction 3

ONE
Musculus and the Exegetical Tradition on the Wedding at Cana 11

TWO
Musculus and the Fathers on the Healing of the Ruler's Son 29

THREE
Musculus and the Medieval Commentators on the Feeding
of the Five Thousand 48

FOUR
Musculus and the Humanists on the Miracle at Sea 78

FIVE
Musculus and Sixteenth-Century Catholic Commentators
on the Healing at the Pool of Bethesda 109

SIX
Musculus and the Lutheran Commentators on the Healing
of the Man Born Blind 132

SEVEN
Musculus and the Reformed Commentators
on the Raising of Lazarus 148
xii Contents

Conclusion 178

Notes 183

Selected Bibliography 231

Index 243
The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century
This page intentionally left blank
 Introduction

For over thirty years, Wolfgang Musculus worked as a leader of the re-
ligious reformations in the cities of Augsburg and Bern. During that time, he
authored a substantial corpus of writings that firmly established his reputation as
a first-rate theologian and biblical scholar. One may gain some idea of his popu-
larity as a theologian by examining the printing history of his theological magnum
opus, the Loci communes sacrae theologiae. First published in 1560, this massive
exercise in systematic theology was revised by Musculus for a new edition in 1561.
Thereafter printings followed in 1563, 1564, 1567,1573, and 1599. Furthermore,
the work was published in English translation in 1563 and 1578 and in French in
1577, and portions were translated into German in 1618.1
In his work as an exegete, Musculus wrote commentaries on Matthew (1544),
John (1545), the Psalms (1550), the Decalogue (1553), Genesis (1554), Romans
(1555), Isaiah (1557), 1 and 2 Corinthians (1559), Galatians and Ephesians (1561),
and Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and 1 Timothy (1564). All of
these works were released in multiple printings, giving evidence of a wide reader-
ship that continued long after his death. For example, Musculus's Matthew com-
mentary went through at least nine printings (the last in 1611), and his Psalms
commentary was printed at least seven times (the last in 1618) and was translated
for an English edition in 1586. His John commentary was similarly successful. The
first installment, covering the first seven chapters, was published by the Basel firm
of Bartholomaus Westheimer in 1545. The Basel publisher Johann Herwagen then
published the entire commentary in 1547 and in the same year released a compan-
ion volume to the Westheimer edition containing Musculus's comments on chap-
ters 8-21.2 Thereafter the book was printed by Herwagen in 1553,1554, and 1564,
by Eusebius Episcopius in 1580, and by Sebastian Henricpetri in 1618.
Through his commentaries, Musculus won fame and honor throughout Europe.
He was remembered well into the seventeenth century as a distinguished interpreter

3
 4 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

of Scripture. The French Oratorian Richard Simon (1638-1712), arguably the great-
est biblical scholar of his age, praised Musculus as a scholar who understood the
proper way to interpret Scripture.3 The extent of Musculus's influence as a com-
mentator is also attested by his contemporaries. Martin Micron, the Reformed
theologian and pastor in Norden, informed Musculus that his commentary on
Genesis had been extremely useful to the Protestants in East Frisia. Felix Cruciger,
pastor at Secymin and superintendent of the Reformed churches in Little Poland,
sent word to Musculus that his "lucubrations on the New Testament" had found
a wide and receptive audience among the Protestants there.4 Musculus's commen-
taries seem to have found a similar audience in Scotland, for by 1560 Scottish
libraries stocked several of his exegetical works.5 Guillaume Farel, the Genevan re-
former and colleague of John Calvin, wrote from Neufchatel to Johann Haller in
Bern that many people were eager to get their hands on Musculus's new Psalms
commentary.6 Calvin, in the preface to his own Psalms commentary, ranked
Musculus's interpretation of the Psalms with Bucer's and noted that Musculus "by
his diligence and industry has earned no small praise in the judgment of good men."7
Largely on the basis of his reputation as a skilled commentator, Musculus received
numerous offers to assume teaching posts throughout Europe. After leaving
Augsburg because of the Interim, Musculus received a letter (dated July 17,1548)
from Bernardino Ochino extending an invitation from Thomas Cranmer, arch-
bishop of Canterbury, to take a teaching position in London.8 The invitation was
renewed in December of the same year with the added incentives of a generous travel
allowance and the opportunity (if Musculus so desired) to lecture at Canterbury.
Musculus politely refused because he was expecting to receive an official call from
Bern—a call that came in February 1549. Cranmer, however, persistently sought
Musculus's services, and in 1551 Musculus received a further invitation to assume
the teaching post at Cambridge formerly occupied by Martin Bucer. In the years
that followed, Musculus was offered several other honorable positions. The Elector
Otto Henry of the Palatinate, to whom Musculus had dedicated the Herwagen edi-
tion of his John commentary, wrote Musculus in 1552 offering a teaching position
in Neuburg an der Donau. In 1553 Thomas Erastus pleaded with Musculus to join
him on the faculty at the University of Heidelberg. Additional calls came from
Strasbourg, Augsburg, and Marburg.9 Persistent rumors also circulated that Musculus
was eagerly sought in Poland.10 Musculus refused all of these calls, usually pleading
his age or the ill health of his family, but the evidence clearly indicates that he was
recognized throughout Europe for his gifts as a scholar.11

REVIEW OF SCHOLARSHIP ON MUSCULUS

Despite his influence and importance in the Reformation period, Musculus has re-
ceived little attention in modern scholarship. Only two studies have appeared that
 Introduction 5

focus exclusively on Musculus's thought. In 1933, Paul Josiah Schwab published a

condensed version of his Yale dissertation on Musculus's view of religious tolerance.
Although the study is narrowly focused, Schwab makes use of a broad spectrum of
Musculus's writings, including the commentary literature, theological treatises, let-
ters, and the Loci communes, to prove that Musculus expressed a more moderate and
tolerant view of religious dissent than most of his fellow reformers.12 The second work,
published in 1959 by Richard Baumlin, is an article-length study of Musculus's view
of natural law. Working primarily from the Loci communes, Baumlin demonstrates
that Musculus appropriates thomistic elements in his theory of natural law and that
this theory is the key to his distinctive legal justification of magisterial control of the
territorial church.13 In addition to these two studies, a book appeared in 1953 by
Helmut Krefiner, who devoted a chapter to Musculus's theoretical justification in
the Loci communes (chapter 69, "De magistratibus") of the complete political suprem-
acy of civil authority in ecclesiastical affairs. This theory influenced the development
of Anglican ecclesiology via John Whitgift and Thomas Erastus.14
Tangential investigations of topics from Musculus's Loci communes have ap-
peared in other works devoted to the history of dogma.15 In particular, several stud-
ies have noted Musculus's contribution to the development of federal theology.16
A work on the political thought of Thomas Erastus has argued for his indebted-
ness to Musculus's notion of the Christian state and presents a summary of
Musculus's teaching on the subject.17 A study on Martin Micron has also pointed
to the influence of Musculus's thought.18 In the history of exegesis, several works
have appeared that include Musculus's exegesis in studies of particular biblical
passages.19 His exegesis has also been examined in studies that utilize the history
of exegesis to illuminate the thought of John Calvin.20
The most important biographical source for Musculus is the work written by
his son Abraham Musculus (1434-1591), minister at the Miinster in Bern, and
published in 1595 by Abraham's son Wolfgang Musculus (1556-1625), minister
at Hochstetten.21 In the nineteenth century two biographical studies of Musculus
were published, both heavily dependent on the biography by Abraham Musculus.
The first work is a book-length biography by Ludwig Grote, which, for all its short-
comings (including an overly romanticized portrayal and numerous factual errors),
still holds the distinction of being the first modern biographical study of Musculus.22
In his tenth chapter, "Musculus als Dichter," Grote presents all the poems and
hymns attributed to Musculus, although he admits that Musculus's authorship
cannot be firmly established for many of the hymns.23 The second work, authored
by the Basel professor Wilhelm T. Streuber, is a shorter but more solid treatment
of Musculus's life. The work was incomplete at the time of Streuber's death but
was edited and completed by Streuber's student Ludwig Lauterburg and published
in the Berner Taschenbuch series.24 Streuber presents a more sober assessment of
Musculus than Grote and makes use of other source materials, particularly
Musculus's diary of the events leading to the Wittenberg Concord of 1536.25
 6 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

The works of Grote and Streuber remain the standard biographical references
for Musculus, but no study on Musculus can now afford to neglect the biographi-
cal sketch recently published in 1988 by the Bernese professor Rudolf Dellsperger.26
Making use of Abraham Musculus's biography, Theodor Beza's literary portrait,27
numerous letters, and other source materials, Dellsperger presents an excellent
critical study of Musculus's career. His copious footnotes alone summarize almost
all the work that has been done on Musculus to date.
Aspects of Musculus's career are also treated in the various histories of the Ref-
ormation in Augsburg and Bern. The most significant work on Augsburg is
Friedrich Roth's magisterial AugsburgsReformationsgeschichte, which gives exten-
sive treatment to Musculus's reformational activities.28 For Bern, the most impor-
tant studies are those of Henri Vuilleumier and Kurt Guggisberg.29 Various aspects
of Musculus's career are also treated in biographical studies of other Reformation
figures such as Martin Bucer and Caspar Schwenckfeld.30

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF WOLFGANG MUSCULUS

The custom among aspiring scholars in early sixteenth-century Europe was to adopt
a latinized form for their name.31 Wolfgang not only latinized his family name of
Meusslin but also adopted the Roman name for Dieuze, the small village in Lorraine
where he was born on September 8,1497; thus, he arrived at the professional name
Wolfgang Musculus Dusanus.32 In his youth, Musculus attended school in Dieuze
and in several Alsatian towns before entering a Benedictine monastery in 1512 in
the village of Lixheim in Lorraine. As a monk, Musculus eventually acquired ordi-
nation and shared in the preaching duties in the monastery and in the neighbor-
ing towns until 1527, when he abandoned the religious life.
During his years in the monastery, Musculus had become familiar with the writ-
ings of Martin Luther, whose criticisms of ecclesiastical abuses found a receptive
audience in the Lixheim cloister. Musculus's sermons took on a decidedly pro-
Lutheran tone, so much so that he became known in the region as "the Lutheran
monk." Only when the authorities began to clamp down on such dissenting voices
did Musculus's position at Lixheim become untenable. With the blessing of his
prior, Musculus renounced his religious oaths and headed for Strasbourg with his
future bride, Margaretha Barth, the prior's niece.
In Strasbourg Musculus's reputation as a talented preacher won him the atten-
tion of Martin Bucer and Burgermeister Jacob Sturm, who assigned him a preach-
ing office in the neighboring village of Dorlitzheim. On weekdays Musculus worked
in Strasbourg as Bucer's personal secretary. After a year, the Strasbourg council
placed Musculus on the city payroll as an assistant to Matthaus Zell, preacher at
the Munster. During the two years in which Musculus held this position, he at-
 Introduction 7

tended the theological lectures of Bucer and Wolfgang Capito, began to study
Hebrew, and continued to undertake preaching missions in outlying towns.
In early 1531 Musculus moved to the free imperial city of Augsburg, where he
assumed a preaching post at the Church of the Holy Cross (Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche).
The city was being torn apart by inner conflict among competing religious par-
ties—the Zwinglians, Lutherans, Catholics, and Anabaptists—and the council had
appealed to Bucer for preachers who would help to defuse the volatile situation.33
Musculus quickly rose to a position of prominence among the Augsburg minis-
ters, entering into religious discussions with the Lutherans on the thorny issue of
the Lord's Supper and serving as a delegate at the Wittenberg Conference in 1536.
He also represented Augsburg at the conferences in Worms (1540) and Regensburg
(1541). In 1544 the council sent Musculus to Donauworth to introduce reform, a
task he accomplished in three months. Regarding the Anabaptists, Musculus urged
the council toward a more lenient position and initiated a program of prison visi-
tation that resulted in several public recantations. He was less charitable toward
the Catholics and urged the council to restrict the celebration of the Mass. In 1537
the council finally forbade all Catholic ceremonies, and much of the Catholic clergy
fled the town. Musculus then assumed the preaching post at the cathedral church
(Dom), a position he held until he left Augsburg in 1548.
Musculus's departure was prompted by the city council's decision to accept the
terms of the Interim. The council had little other choice. The Schmalkald League
had been defeated in battle in 1547, imperial troops were in the city, and the Catholic
clergy were resuming their ecclesiastical offices by imperial mandate. Musculus fled
to Zurich, where he was received by Heinrich Bullinger, and then went to Basel for
a meeting with his publisher Johann Herwagen. He was reunited with his family in
Constance and then proceeded to St. Gallen, where he remained for several months
due to the ill health of his wife and children. In the fall of 1548 Musculus moved
his family to Zurich, where he remained until the following spring, when he was
appointed to succeed Simon Sulzer as professor of theology in Bern.
Until his death on August 30, 1563, Musculus worked primarily as a scholar,
publishing numerous theological and exegetical works and lecturing in the
Protestant "Hohe Schule," which had been newly established in 1528 on the model
of the Zurich "Prophezey."34 He served as an ecclesiastical adviser and helped to
mediate in the incessant disputes between Calvin and the Bernese clergy. Musculus
rarely mounted the pulpit because he never felt comfortable with the local dialect,
and he refused the council's offers of a permanent preaching post. Musculus had
closed the chapter on his pastoral ministry in Augsburg and was devoted now to a
life of scholarship and helping other young men prepare for the ministry. Midway
through his commentary on 1 Timothy, Musculus succumbed to a fever and died
a few days before his sixty-sixth birthday. He fathered a preaching dynasty in the
canton; six of Musculus's sons entered the ministry, and generation after genera-
 8 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

tion of Muslins assumed roles of ecclesiastical leadership well into the nineteenth
century.35

PURPOSE AND M E T H O D OF THE P R E S E N T STUDY

The primary goal of this study is to characterize Musculus's work as a biblical

commentator by examining in detail his commentary on the Gospel of John. To
accomplish this goal, I will compare his exegesis of the seven miracle stories—the
so-called signs—with the exegesis of his predecessors and contemporaries. By plac-
ing his comments in the context of the exegetical tradition, it is possible to estab-
lish the distinctive features of his commentary and the extent of his indebtedness
to traditional interpretations. This study will show that Musculus was a remark-
ably thorough and skillful exegete whose commentary reveals a judicious appro-
priation of patristic and medieval exegetical ideas and methods of interpretation,
a critical use of humanist biblical scholarship, and an emphasis on moral and alle-
gorical modes of exposition—an emphasis that distinguishes his exegesis from that
of most of his contemporaries.
By selecting the sign passages for exegetical comparison, I am not suggesting that
Musculus knew anything of a sign source in the Bultmannian sense. Rather, this
group of pericopes serves as a convenient set of passages on which to focus a com-
parative exegetical study. However, this selection is not purely arbitrary, for it is in
the miracle stories that much of the action of John's gospel takes place, and as such
the commentator on these passages is often faced with more exegetical questions
than the commentator on the purely didactic or discursive sections of the gospel.
Each of the sign passages tells a story, and therefore the commentator must ex-
plain not only the meaning of Jesus' sayings but also the meaning of his actions.
Questions of motivation also arise: Why does Jesus act in this way and not in an-
other? What prompts the behavior and statements of the secondary figures in the
stories? How should one characterize these figures? It is the storylike quality of the
sign passages that allows more room for imaginative interpretive decisions, yield-
ing a more interesting and diverse spectrum of interpretations in the exegetical
tradition.
In selecting commentaries for comparison, I have chosen works that predate
Musculus's own commentary. I have included both the works he consulted in
composing his commentary (as indicated by his explicit citations) and the works
that were available to him in published form. Thus, for example, I have not in-
cluded Bonaventure's John commentary because it was not published until after
Musculus's and because Musculus gives no evidence of having read it. Several of
the works consulted here as commentaries did not begin as commentaries at all
but rather as homilies (as in the case of Augustine and Chrysostom) or lectures (as
in the case of Zwingli and Melanchthon) on the fourth gospel. But because these
 Introduction 9

works provide a continuous interpretation of the entire gospel and because they
entered the stream of the exegetical tradition as single works on the gospel, they
may rightfully be considered commentaries on John.
This study proceeds as follows. In the first chapter, I compare Musculus's inter-
pretation of the first sign passage with a cross-sectional sampling of the entire ante-
cedent exegetical tradition. In each of the subsequent chapters, I focus on a differ-
ent sign passage, placing Musculus's exegesis in the context of a different segment
of the exegetical tradition: chapter 2, patristic commentators; chapter 3, medieval
commentators; chapter 4, humanist commentators; chapter 5, sixteenth-century
Roman Catholic commentators; chapter 6, Lutheran commentators; and chapter
7, Reformed commentators. Each of these contexts brings distinctive features of
Musculus's exegesis into relief, contributing to a general picture of his work as a
biblical commentator.
In adopting this comparative approach to Musculus's John commentary, my
primary concern is with the interplay of exegetical ideas and with the similarities
and differences of interpretive method. It is not my concern to establish whether
or not Musculus actually used each of the commentaries brought to bear on this
study. The question of direct influence, however, is not completely ignored. When
I can establish Musculus's reliance on another commentator, I do so; but I never
assume that the similarity of an idea can serve alone as an adequate criterion for
proving dependence. For the purposes of this study, the central question is to what
degree Musculus makes use of the methods of his forebears and contemporaries
in the exposition of Scripture and to what degree he repeats, rejects, or modifies
the traditional interpretations of the Johannine signs.
This study will show that the exegetical tradition exerts a powerful influence on
Musculus's commentary and that much of what he says is rooted in the ideas of
the past. This point is significant because the exegesis of the Protestant reformers
has often been characterized in general terms for its radical discontinuity with the
tradition. Take, for example, the statement in a popular introduction to the his-
tory of biblical interpretation: "[Catholic exegesis] interprets the Bible by the tra-
dition of the church. Protestant exegesis makes a fresh start, often overturning the
accumulated decisions of centuries."36 While there is an element of truth in this
statement, it contributes nevertheless to the general impression that the Protes-
tant commentators worked in an exegetical vacuum. In the case of Musculus, at
least, this is demonstrably false.
This study will also show that Musculus makes constructive use of traditional
methods of spiritual exegesis. In particular, he shows an extraordinary predilec-
tion for moral interpretation, a feature that is so pronounced that it is arguably
the distinctive mark of Musculus's exegesis. He also makes liberal use of allegori-
cal exposition, sometimes repeating or modifying traditional allegories and at other
times creating his own. This feature, which resonates with the medieval and patristic
commentaries, distinguishes his interpretation from most of his contemporaries,
 10 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

who are generally more restrained in their reading of the symbolic meanings of
the biblical text. Yet Musculus cannot simply be classified as a medieval commen-
tator because this study also demonstrates that he makes sophisticated use of the
critical biblical scholarship of the humanists, particularly in matters relating to
translation and textual problems. The complex confluence of forces at work in
Musculus's John commentary comes to light in the chapters that follow.
 ONE

Musculus and the Exegetical Tradition

on the Wedding at Cana

I n the course of this study, I will examine Musculus's exegesis in a series

of contexts that illuminate the distinctive and traditional elements in his work as a
commentator on the fourth gospel. Subsequent chapters will explore his comments
against the sounding board of various subgroups within the exegetical tradition.
Here, however, I place Musculus's exegesis of the first sign passage (Jn 2:1-11) in
the context of a cross-sectional sampling of the entire antecedent exegetical tradi-
tion. I want to explain why this is a valuable exercise for our understanding of
Musculus and the exegetical tradition.
By examining Musculus's comments against the full stream of Johannine inter-
pretation, we are better able to evaluate the history of exegetical ideas. What may
at first glance appear to be an unusual or insightful comment by Musculus
may prove to be a commonplace in sixteenth-century exegesis; further investiga-
tion may show that this sixteenth-century commonplace is itself a variation on a
theme expressed by medieval commentators who, in turn, are dependent on the
insights of their ancient forebears. In short, there is a remarkable stability in the
exegetical tradition that manifests itself in a contextual study of Musculus's bibli-
cal interpretation. By taking into account the entire sweep of this tradition, we are
also able to see the development of new concerns and insights in the interpretive
history of a given text; that is to say, we are able to discern not only the stability of
the tradition but also the evolution of interpretive ideas.
However, to investigate and describe Musculus's exegesis in the context of the
entire antecedent tradition poses serious methodological problems in a study that
seeks to introduce the interpretive history of considerable portions of the biblical
text. The vast amount of exegetical material can easily plunge the historian into an
ocean of data that makes coherent and systematic analysis extremely difficult.
Therefore, in order to study the interpretive history of a biblical text, historians

11
 12 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

have usually imposed certain limits on their materials that make it possible to write
about the history of exegesis. Frequently, historians have limited the amount of bib-
lical material to be investigated to a single verse, or phrase, or word of the scriptural
text. Historians who have studied larger portions of the biblical text have often im-
posed a different kind of limit; they confine their studies chronologically to a certain
period in the history of exegesis. Indeed, the story of the wedding at Cana (Jn 2:1-
11) has been thoroughly investigated by historians of exegesis, but all of these stud-
ies have focused exclusively on patristic interpretations.1 No study has attempted in
one sweep to survey patristic, medieval, and sixteenth-century exegesis.
In this study I have imposed two limits that make it possible to describe
Musculus's exegesis of the story of the wine miracle at Cana in the context of the
antecedent tradition. First, I have limited the number of commentaries under
investigation to nine of the most influential expositions of the fourth gospel prior
to Musculus. From the Church Fathers, I include the interpretations of John
Chrysostom (347-407), Augustine of Hippo (354—430), and Cyril of Alexandria
(d. 444). From the many medieval John commentaries, I have selected those of
Hugh of St. Cher (ca. 1195-1263), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), and Denis the
Carthusian (1402/3-1471). Finally, from the sixteenth-century commentators on
John, I include the interpretations of Desiderius Erasmus (ca. 1466-1536), Philip
Melanchthon (1497-1560), and Martin Bucer (1491-1551).
Second, I have not attempted to present an exhaustive study of all of the ques-
tions that have troubled interpreters of the Cana pericope. Rather, I have limited
my focus to the central exegetical problems identified by Musculus, and I have
examined his discussion of these problems in light of the previous commentaries.
Musculus's exegesis of the wedding at Cana can be divided into three main topics
that provide a framework for the present study. First, he discusses the method Jesus
used to perform the miraculous transformation of water into wine. Second,
Musculus discusses the troubling problems associated with the encounter between
Mary and Jesus in the story. And third, he treats the moral lessons of the story on
the subjects of marriage and drunkenness.
None of the topics that Musculus treats are completely new; they all receive
attention to greater or lesser degrees by the patristic, medieval, and sixteenth-
century commentators who precede him. It is possible, therefore, to demonstrate
the relationship of Musculus's comments to the matrix of the exegetical tradition
on the Cana pericope and to characterize his understanding of this gospel story in
reference to the understanding of his predecessors.

THE METHOD OF THE MIRACLE

Throughout the exegetical tradition, commentators have focused considerable atten-

tion on the method Jesus used to produce wine at the wedding feast in Cana. This
 On the Wedding at Cana 13

emphasis is understandable since the gospel text itself carefully highlights the proce-
dure adopted by Jesus in performing his first miraculous sign. In the text Jesus orders
the servants to fill six stone urns with water. He then instructs them to draw out some
of the liquid and to deliver it to the steward of the banquet. Surely, most commenta-
tors argue, Jesus could have used any number of procedures to produce wine; there-
fore there must be a particular and deliberate rationale for the procedure he chose.
According to Musculus, the ultimate goal of the miracle was to produce faith in
the disciples and spectators. In order to facilitate the production of faith, any pos-
sible suspicion concerning the authenticity of the miracle had to be minimized.
Therefore, Jesus deliberately chose a method that would establish the miraculous
nature of the event beyond a doubt. A miracle, Musculus argues, must be unam-
biguously extraordinary in order to produce astonishment and admiration in the
spectators; only then can the miracle be a true sign, something that points to a
greater reality. In this case the sign signified that Jesus was endowed with divine
power, and thus it produced faith in the disciples.2
The water pots have two characteristics that help to make the miracle more
obvious. First, since they are related to Jewish ceremonial purification (verse 6),
the pots are associated with water, and water only. Musculus argues that "for the
proof of the miracle" (ad evidentiam miraculi Jesus deliberately made wine "not
in wine vessels, but in those water pots, whose perpetual use was of water."3
Musculus's explanation here echoes Chrysostom, who notes that the ceremonial
function of the water pots would preclude any suspicion that the servants had
poured water into containers holding wine dregs and had simply mixed the solu-
tion into thin wine.4 This observation is a standard part of the exegetical tradition
and is found, usually with a reference to Chrysostom, in the commentaries of Tho-
mas Aquinas, Hugh of St. Cher, and Erasmus.5 The second characteristic of the
water pots noted by Musculus is their capacity. Although he expresses uncertainty
regarding the precise volume indicated by the term metreta, he assumes (rightly)
that the water pots had a large capacity.6 The Evangelist intentionally mentions the
volume of the pots, Musculus argues, in order "to express the excellence of the
miracle." The fact that Jesus ordered all six water pots to be filled to the brim "was
evidence of certain and plentiful divine power and also of liberality." The magni-
tude of the miraculous product would also help to eliminate any suspicion of trick-
ery.7 Once again, Musculus repeats here a theme expressed by earlier commenta-
tors. Thomas, for example, argues that the capacity of the water pots would make
it "abundantly clear that the water in such jars could be changed into wine only by
divine power."8 Erasmus argues that it would have been impossible for jars of such
size and weight to have been brought in secretly.9 Like Erasmus, Musculus discusses
the difficulties associated with the transportation of such vessels. The number and
weight of the jars are evidence, he suggests, that the wedding may have taken place
in some kind of civic building, since it would have been too difficult to transport
so many heavy objects to a private dwelling.10
 14 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

As the water pots function to verify the miracle, so also the servants and the stew-
ard serve as impartial witnesses to the occurrence of the miracle. According to
Musculus, Jesus utilized the servants so that they might provide unbiased testimony
concerning the source of the miracle. Similarly, since the steward was unaware of
the miracle, he provided objective testimony concerning the wine's goodness. At
every step of the unfolding of the miracle, "the order had to be preserved by which
the miracle would be rendered more conspicuous."11 Musculus's exegesis is cer-
tainly not innovative on this point, for Chrysostom, Thomas, Hugh, and Erasmus
offer the same explanation of the roles played by the servants and the steward.
However, unlike Musculus, they emphasize the unique prerogative of the steward
to judge the wine. For unlike the guests, who had drunk freely and were in no con-
dition to render a sound judgment, it was his duty to remain sober in order to
manage the wedding party.12 Additionally, Erasmus suggests that the steward must
have been something of a wine connoisseur; therefore they bring the wine to his
judicious palate in order to receive an expert verdict concerning the wine.13
Musculus is uneasy with the portrayal of a drunken gathering, and perhaps for
that reason he does not emphasize the sobriety of the steward. Instead, Musculus
emphasizes the contribution of the steward and servants as indicative of God's
"method of operating" (operandi rationem) in the world. Although God is certainly
able to perform his will without any human assistance, he has graciously allowed
human beings to contribute to his purposes. Using an agricultural metaphor,
Musculus states: "He arranged it thus that we might plant and water, but he him-
self adds the growth."14
While the use of the water pots, the servants, and the steward all add weight to
the veracity of the miracle, there remains one puzzling aspect of Jesus' modus
operandi that Musculus addresses. Why did Jesus not create the wine from noth-
ing? Wouldn't the miracle have been more marvelous and more evident if Jesus
had created wine without the use of a material medium?15 This question, first raised
by Chrysostom, is a standard component in traditional exegesis of the Cana story.
And the solution offered by Chrysostom finds its way into many medieval com-
mentaries on this text. According to Chrysostom, Jesus wisely chose to use a
material medium in many of his miracles because creation from nothing, although
in his power, would have been too incredible. Jesus "deliberately curtailed the great-
ness of His miracles so that they might be more readily accepted."16 However,
Chrysostom argues that a second motive was also involved. Jesus wanted to establish
the divine origin of created nature in order to refute the Manichaean heresy. Jesus
proved that he himself is lord of nature, for "he did in an instant at the wedding
what takes place in nature over a long period of time."17 Thomas and Hugh repeat
Chrysostom's explanations, but Thomas adds a third reason: "Christ made the wine
from water, and not from nothing, in order to show that he was not laying down
an entirely new doctrine and rejecting the old, but was fulfilling the old."18
 On the Wedding at Cana 15

In his discussion of Jesus' reason for using water, Musculus reiterates the solu-
tion offered by Chrysostom. If Jesus had simply created wine from nothing, the
miracle would not have been believable. Such a miracle would have immediately
been vulnerable to the suspicion of magic.19 However, Musculus argues that an-
other reason is also at work. Certain things, such as the earth, the sea, and the sky,
were created by God ex nihilo. Wine, however is not produced like these "new crea-
tures" (nova creatura) but is the secondary product of another element of creation.
Therefore, Jesus created wine from water in order to preserve what Musculus calls
the "order of divine working" (ordo divini opificii) for, in fact, the conversion of
water into wine is a miracle which occurs with regularity in nature.20 Here Musculus
echoes Augustine, who argues that Jesus was merely duplicating in the water pots
the same miracle he performs in grape vines every year: "For just as what the
attendants put into the water jars was turned into wine by the Lord's effort so also
what the clouds pour down is turned into wine by the effort of the same Lord. But
that does not amaze us because it happens every year; by its regularity it has lost its
wonderment."21 Likewise, Hugh states that Jesus wanted to demonstrate "that it is
he himself who, daily through increments of time, changes water into wine in na-
ture in the middle of the vine."22 Following the same reasoning, Musculus notes
that the conversion of water into wine is not extraordinary in itself since it occurs
regularly in nature. What makes the Cana miracle truly miraculous is the speed at
which the mutation takes place. Jesus simply accelerates an ordinary process that
occurs naturally in the created order.23

JESUS AND MARY

In his discussion of the method of Jesus' miracle, Musculus enters into a conversa-
tion that takes place, for the most part, in patristic and medieval commentaries.
Erasmus briefly discusses a few of the traditional topics, while Melanchthon and
Bucer are completely silent concerning this whole sphere of exegetical problems.
However, in his treatment of the role of Mary, Musculus deals with a series of prob-
lems that are discussed by almost all commentators on the Cana narrative.
The gospel text presents a puzzling drama between Mary and her son that cries
out for exegetical explanation. Mary, having noticed the deficiency of wine, reports
this problem to Jesus, who seems to reject her with a puzzling reply: "What is it to
me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come."24 Not dissuaded, Mary pa-
tiently instructs the servants to await his command. The problems raised by the
text are numerous. Why was Mary at the wedding? What motivated Mary to appeal
to Jesus? Why does Jesus reply so rudely (seemingly) to her innocent remark? As
Augustine puts it: "Has he come to the wedding for the purpose of teaching the
disparagement of mothers?"25 What does Jesus' enigmatic remark mean? And why,
 16 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

if his hour had not come, does Jesus proceed to remedy the situation? The discus-
sion of these and other questions raises a host of mariological, christological, and
theological issues that occupy a significant portion of traditional exegesis on the
Cana narrative.
The very presence of Mary at the wedding is the occasion for speculation in
medieval exegesis about her relationship to the bride and groom. Hugh and Denis
discuss the possibility that John the Evangelist himself was the groom and the
nephew of Mary and that Jesus was therefore attending the wedding of his cousin.
This explanation, found also in other medieval commentaries, is rooted in a pro-
logue to John's gospel that was traditionally attributed to Jerome.26 The problem
for many medieval expositors is to reconcile this tradition with another seemingly
contradictory tradition: namely, that John the Evangelist was a virgin. Hugh ar-
gues that Jerome's identification of the groom as John, the nephew of Mary, is not
probable because John had committed himself to a life of perpetual virginity.27 But
even if John was the groom, he did not abandon his commitment to virginity. He
may have temporarily lost the virginity of mind (a virginity that may be restored
by penance) by consenting to marry, but he never lost the virginity of the flesh (a
virginity that, once lost, may never be restored).28 Denis accepts the identification
of John as the groom and nephew of Mary and asserts that Jesus came to the wed-
ding on a kind of rescue mission. Before John could consummate the marriage,
Jesus persuaded him to enter the religious life.29
Sixteenth-century commentaries include little, if any, speculation about the
identity of the groom. However, the medieval interpretation is not unknown. Bucer
remarks: "It is silly to affirm that John was this groom."30 All that one can assert,
according to Bucer, is that Mary must have known the people at the wedding.
Erasmus and Musculus affirm that Mary was related to the groom or bride but offer
no speculation regarding the nature of that relationship.31 According to Musculus,
while Mary was invited by virtue of her kinship, Jesus was invited for another rea-
son. His invitation came from Nathanael, whose encounter with Jesus took place
immediately before the Cana story (Jn 1:43-51) and whose home town was Cana
(Jn21:2). 32
Another locus of exegetical discussion centers on the question of Mary's mo-
tives in appealing to her son. The harsh reply of Jesus seems to suggest that Mary
in some respect erred and therefore deserved correction. Yet most of the commen-
tators are very reluctant to ascribe anything but purity of motivation to Mary's
actions. Chrysostom, however, argues that she may have been prompted by human
motives that necessitated Jesus' sharp retort. Perhaps, he suggests, she felt that Jesus
owed her special obedience since she was his mother. She forgot that her proper
place was to revere him as her lord. Thus, Jesus reminds Mary of her station and
offers an example of the proper attitude toward parents. In general, parents must
be obeyed but not when they stand in the way of a spiritual good.33
 On the Wedding at Cana 17

Most commentators are reluctant to follow Chrysostom down this path. Jesus'
reply must be explained, but that explanation should not be sought in a deprecia-
tion of Mary's motives.34 Thomas therefore asserts that Mary's motives flowed out
of her kindness and mercy. She simply wanted the trouble to be relieved. In addi-
tion, she indicates her reverence for Jesus by the way she makes her request. She
does not tell him what to do or how to do it but merely expresses the need for more
wine. In this way she sets an example of the proper method of supplication in prayer.
Interpreted mystically, Thomas argues that Mary's petition reveals her role as
mediatrix: "It is through her intercession that one is joined to Christ through
grace."35 Hugh also ascribes purity of motivation to Mary. Mary knew that it was
not necessary to inform Jesus about the situation. However, she wanted to dem-
onstrate two noble things: her compassion and his power. Her entreaty is evidence
of her special compassion for the poor, since the failure of the wine indicates the
poverty of the families involved.36 Denis also praises the compassion of Mary, who
sympathized with the disgrace of the bride and groom. She, who sinned neither
mortally nor venially, had only pure motives. Her behavior is a wonderful example
of her intercessory role. Since she ran to the assistance of their corporeal needs
without even being asked, even more eagerly will she offer her compassion and
assistance to those who invoke her concerning spiritual needs. By using the fewest
words possible in her entreaty, she demonstrates her virtue and prudence by sim-
ply relinquishing the situation to the will of her son. For Denis, however, she gives
an example not of prayer but of monastic obedience: "We are taught to place our
situation and need simply and modestly with our superiors, and to relinquish to
their power what should be done."37 According to Erasmus, Mary was compas-
sionate for two reasons. She empathized with the shame and embarrassment of the
groom, who had not prepared liberally enough for the banquet. And she was also
concerned that this lack of foresight would dampen the merriment of the party.
Mary had the right as a mother to seek assistance from her son, and she indicates
her reverence for him by the manner of her request.38 Bucer also wants to exclude
the possibility of any baseness of motivation in Mary's petition. She was not look-
ing for an opportunity to become famous from the miracles of her son. On the
contrary, one must attribute her behavior "to her love and humanity rather than
to an eagerness for vain glory."39 In addition, the manner of her request is an
example not only of faith but also "of praying with few words" (verbis paucis orantis).
She simply and succinctly states the need, and by doing so she offers a model of
the soul praying out of faith.40
In his interpretation of Mary's role in the Cana narrative, Musculus follows the
general pattern established by the antecedent exegetical tradition. The text could
certainly fuel an attack on Catholic mariology, but Musculus strictly limits his
polemical remarks. Mary's words and behavior are admirable and establish a model
of compassion and faith. While her petition is certainly not regarded as an earthly
 18 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

representation of her heavenly role as mediatrix, it is regarded as a beautiful

example of faithful prayer on the part of the believer.
For Musculus, Mary's concern for the troubled circumstances of the banquet
reveals her kindness and compassion. She was sincerely troubled by the potential
disgrace of the groom. Her concern for his predicament gives an example of the
compassion that all Christians should feel for anyone in need. Christian compas-
sion is not mere sentimentalism but expresses itself in a way modeled by the Vir-
gin—namely in the confidence that Christ is willing and able to come to the assis-
tance of those in need. Therefore, Christians should imitate Mary in bringing the
needs of others to Christ.41
According to Musculus, the simplicity of Mary's request teaches two moral les-
sons. First, one must not exaggerate the excess or intemperance of those experi-
encing want. Mary does not come to Jesus as a complainer or accuser; "She does
not say: They squandered and intemperately consumed all the wine. But [she says]
simply and modestly: They have no wine."42 The potential disgrace of the groom
does not necessarily indicate his culpability in the shortfall of wine. Neither the
groom nor the guests, who perhaps drank a little too freely at the beginning of the
banquet, should be blamed for the predicament. Rather, just as no one is blamed
for the blindness of the man in John 9, so also the lack of wine should be seen merely
as an occasion for the revelation of God's glory. Second, Musculus argues that Mary
gives an example of how to make needs known to Christ. It is not necessary or fit-
ting to attempt to persuade the Lord with human arguments; in petitioning Christ,
one should simply state the need. Mary does not insult Jesus by giving him reasons
for heeding her request, but rather she states simply, "They have no wine."
Although Mary's request is praiseworthy, it is her response to Jesus that is em-
phasized by Musculus. Here is revealed what Musculus terms the "admirable phi-
losophy of the Virgin" (admirabilisphilosophia Virginis). In this "philosophy" there
are three points of emphasis. First, although Mary was treated rather harshly by
her son, she did not grieve or answer back but patiently received his "scolding"
(obiurgatio),43 Other commentators also eagerly reassure their readers that Mary
did not take offense at the words of Jesus. Hugh states that she was "not disturbed
or irritated by the response of her son; but rather [she was] confident concerning
his power and piety."44 According to Denis, she continued to believe that Jesus loved
and honored her, and she did not receive his words as if said in scolding.45 Erasmus
maintains that Mary was "not offended by the harsh response of her son, nor anx-
ious in the meantime concerning his goodness and power."46 The theme is repeated
by Melanchthon, who praises Mary for her confidence and lack of indignation.47
Following the general course set by these commentators, Musculus highlights
Mary's humble acceptance of the rebuke in order to make a moral application. Mary
demonstrates the proper response of those who are reprimanded for sin. When
one is admonished concerning sinful behavior, one should not respond with an-
noyance but should confess the sin and make amends.48
 On the Wedding at Cana 19

The second point in Musculus's "philosophy of the Virgin" deals with the hope
and confidence she maintained in the face of seeming rejection. By her attitude
she gives an example of the nature of faith exercised in prayer. This point is empha-
sized by Musculus, Bucer, and Melanchthon and seems to be a special interest of
the Protestant commentators. Thomas and Denis make no mention of it, prefer-
ring to emphasize Mary's encounter with Jesus as an earthly drama of her role as
heavenly mediatrix. Hugh implicitly and briefly makes the prayer analogy in his
explanation of Jesus' response to Mary. Jesus' reply shows that God does not always
answer prayer immediately.49 However, all of the Protestant expositors strongly
emphasize Mary's persistence and perseverance as illustrative of the proper dispo-
sition for prayer. Perhaps they take their cue from Chrysostom, who alludes to this
theme, stating: "From this we learn that even if we are unworthy of receiving our
request, often we make ourselves worthy by our perseverance to do so."50
For the three reformers, Mary's persistence and faith are indicated primarily by
her instructions to the servants: "Whatever he says to you, do it" (Quodcunque dixerit
vobis, facite). She was not put off by Jesus' words, nor did she despair, but she quietly
and confidently prepared for the remedy she knew would come. For Bucer, this is a
prime example of faith, since faith often perceives the assistance of the Lord even
when that assistance is not yet visible.51 Melanchthon sees in Mary's words "an ex-
cellent example of faith which is confirmed in prayer." She trusted only in his mercy
and did not rely on her merit. Being committed to his will, and exercising her faith,
she expected him to provide what she sought. Mary shows that we must continue to
expect Christ's assistance even when he seems to have forsaken us.52
According to Musculus, it would have been an entirely natural and understand-
able reaction if Mary, stung by Jesus' initial rebuff, had instructed the servants to
see where they could purchase some wine. But instead, she prepared the servants
to await his instructions. She did not know when or how Jesus would remedy the
situation, but she knew he would be true to himself and not abandon those expe-
riencing difficulties. Her firm confidence demonstrates the nature of a faith which
conquers by petition and perseverance: "This constancy of faith was in the Virgin,
which alone penetrates the clouds of an angry God, and which hopes against hope,
and by hoping finally conquers."53
Thus for Musculus, Mary is a model for the believer in several aspects. Her ex-
emplary manner, however, does not support the superstitious worship and adora-
tion heaped upon her by her admirers. This argument, Musculus's third point in
his "philosophy of the Virgin," is the only place where he introduces a polemic
against Catholic mariology. Mary does not seek glory for herself; she does not her-
self give instructions. Rather, "she directs them to Christ, and admonishes them
to submit to his words." What is pleasing to her, and to all of the saints in the uni-
verse, is obedience to Christ.54
While Musculus shows the behavior of Mary in her encounter with Jesus to be
admirable and pleasing, Jesus' behavior is not so easily explained. Clearly, he argues,
 20 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

Jesus was not presenting an example of irreverence toward his mother, since the
Bible commands honor for one's parents.55 What then do Jesus' puzzling words
mean? In answering this question, Musculus essentially offers a combination of the
interpretations of Augustine and Chrysostom. In fact, nearly all of our commen-
tators repeat the solutions given by these two Fathers. Thomas, Hugh, and Denis
summarize the interpretations of both Augustine and Chrysostom and offer them
as equally correct understandings of John 2:4.56 The difficulty of the verse precludes
a single reading for these medieval commentators. Thus, two authoritative inter-
pretations are given that, if not mutually exclusive, certainly explain Jesus' words
quite differently.57
According to Augustine, a proper interpretation of Jesus' statement must be
based on an understanding of the distinct spheres of Christ's two natures. His
miracle-working capacity belongs properly to his divine nature, which he received
from his heavenly father, while his suffering belongs properly to his human na-
ture, which he received from his mother.58 So when his mother makes her request,
Jesus responds by saying in effect: "That in me which does a miracle you did not
give birth to, you did not give birth to my divinity; but because you bore my weak-
ness, I shall recognize you then, when that weakness will hang on the cross."59
Augustine's interpretation is directed against two poles of false exegesis. First, he
combats the Manichaean interpretation that finds in Jesus' statement a denial of
his fleshly existence. When Jesus called Mary "woman" he was not denying his fil-
ial relation to her; rather he was denying her authority in that sphere of operation
that pertained to his divinity.60 Second, Augustine contends against the false inter-
pretation of the astrologers who argue that Jesus was subject to fate. When Jesus
says, "My hour has not yet come," he is not declaring his subjection to a fated hour.
Rather, he declares that it is not yet the fitting time to undergo the passion; when
Jesus suffers, he does it willingly, not by the governance of the stars.61
While Augustine understands Jesus' words as a subtle statement concerning
christology, Chrysostom sees the words as a strategic maneuver related to the dis-
closure of the miracle. He argues that Mary, believing herself to have special pre-
rogative by virtue of her motherhood, wanted Jesus to perform the miracle at an
inopportune time—that is, before the need for wine was generally known. In order
for the miracle to be believed and appreciated, the lack of wine needed to be a public
crisis, not a private one.62 Cyril of Alexandria makes a similar point. By delaying
his response, Jesus elicited gratitude for the miracle: "For it behooved Him not to
come hastily to action, nor to appear a Worker of miracles as though of His Own
accord, but, being called, hardly to come thereto. .. .But the issue of things longed
for seems somehow to be even more grateful, when granted not off-hand to those
who ask for it, but through a little delay put forth to most lovely hope."63
Like Augustine, Chrysostom argues that Jesus was not subject to a fated time;
rather, Jesus chose to do everything at the most fitting time. However, while
Augustine interprets Jesus' "hour" as the time of Jesus' passion, Chrysostom inter-
 On the Wedding at Cana 21

prets it as the time of his miracle-working ministry.64 Therefore, Chrysostom must

answer the question: If the hour was not fitting, why then did Jesus proceed to
perform the miracle? He did so, Chrysostom responds, precisely in order to dem-
onstrate that he was not subject to any fixed times. Also, Jesus did not want to expose
his mother to public shame. Therefore, out of respect for his mother he performed
the miracle at a time that was not the most opportune moment.65 Similarly, Cyril
argues that Jesus proceeded with the miracle in order to honor his mother: "Be-
sides, Christ hereby shews that the deepest honor is due to parents, admitting out
of reverence to His Mother what He willed not as yet to do."66
Unlike the medieval commentators, who present the explanations of Augustine
and Chrysostom side by side as two authoritative literal explanations, the sixteenth-
century commentators are reluctant to present multiple literal interpretations. They
compose their solutions in conformity with one or the other of the two patristic
interpretations, or they attempt to blend elements from Augustine and Chrysostom
into one explanation. Melanchthon's interpretation follows, in part, the course set
by Chrysostom. He argues that Jesus rebuked Mary in order to reject "every pre-
rogative of the flesh" (omnis praerogativa carnis). Despite the virtue of her moth-
erhood, Mary was of no more value to Jesus than any other sinful woman. Jesus
tells Mary, in effect, to trust only in his mercy and not to rely on any notion of
merit.67 Bucer presents variations on the theme expressed by Augustine. He argues
that Jesus rebuked Mary in order to establish his true identity. Everyone knew him
to be a man and the son of Mary; but he wanted to declare himself "to be the elected
Son of God, from whom they might hope for salvation." Therefore Jesus calls her
"woman" and not "mother" in order to shatter their misconceptions.68
According to Erasmus, who adopts elements of the themes expressed by both
Augustine and Chrysostom, Jesus' rebuke was for the purpose of demonstrating
proper spheres of authority. When and how Jesus engaged in the business of the
gospel could not be guided by any human authority or feelings but only by the will
of the Father. Jesus was not rejecting his mother, or even refusing her request; rather,
he was demonstrating that she had no authority in the sphere of his miracle-
working. In addition, Jesus did not want to appear as a showman, flaunting a the-
atrical display of power. Therefore, he deliberately delayed the miracle until the
troubled situation was generally known.69
Like Erasmus, Musculus incorporates elements of Augustine's and Chrysostom's
exegesis into his explanation of Jesus' words. By his words, Jesus teaches that no
human authorities should be recognized "in matters of God and faith" (in rebus
dei ac fidei). In the sphere of the gospel, Jesus did not receive his mother as an
authority. Here, Musculus follows Augustine's interpretation. However, in his
explanation of the words "my hour has not yet come," Musculus offers an inter-
pretation similar to Chrysostom's. Jesus was not denying his help but rather he was
delaying his response until just the right moment. He wanted to time the miracle
to best serve the glory of God and the salvation of humankind. The matter of proper
 22 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

timing leads Musculus into a discussion of expectancy in prayer. The timing of

God's response to prayer should be left to his prudence. Often God allows people
to undergo suffering and evil for a period of time, delaying his response to those
who plead for relief. By doing this, God makes them more grateful when they finally
experience the benefit of answered prayer.70

MORAL LESSONS

Jesus makes two implicit endorsements at the wedding of Cana. First, by his pres-
ence at the wedding party, Jesus gives his tacit approval of marriage. This approval
is highlighted by the fact that Jesus honors the occasion by performing a miracle.
Second, Jesus gives his tacit approval of the celebrating that accompanies such an
event, an approval that is highlighted by his provision of a large supply of wine
after the guests had apparently consumed all of the wine on hand. Of these two
implied endorsements, Musculus wishes to emphasize the first and deny the lat-
ter. He stresses the moral application of the story to the subject of marriage but is
uneasy with a Jesus who approves of excessive feasting, especially feasting that in-
cludes the consumption of large quantities of wine.
In his uneasiness, Musculus follows a line of commentators who are troubled
by certain aspects of Jesus' presence at a wedding party. All of the commentators
agree that Jesus comes to the wedding to show his approval of marriage, but to
some interpreters his participation in the feast seems below his dignity. Cyril em-
phasizes that Jesus came to the wedding "to work miracles rather than to feast with
them."71 Chrysostom also states that by attending the wedding celebration Jesus
"did not consider his own dignity, but our benefit." By attending the party, Jesus
demonstrated his humility in associating with sinful people: "He who reclined
together with publicans and sinners would, much rather, not refuse to recline with
those who were present at the marriage."72 Similarly, Thomas argues that Jesus
decided to attend this wedding in order to give an example of humility. He did not
look to his own dignity but rather accepted the form of a servant.73 In an interest-
ing variation on this theme, Hugh worries that the invitation of Jesus to a wedding
banquet might be used to argue against his poverty, for poor people are not nor-
mally invited to such feasts. Therefore, Hugh argues that the families of the bride
and groom must have been poor, and hence they invited people of their own kind
to the wedding celebration.74
The mere presence of Jesus at the wedding party does not bother Musculus so
much as his provision of additional wine. By accepting the invitation, Jesus dem-
onstrates that his holiness is not jeopardized by association with sinful men and
women. Here, Musculus ridicules the monks and nuns who would consider them-
selves defiled if they had to associate with "seculars" (secularibus hominibus) at such
an event. Do they think they are holier than Jesus and more chaste than his virgin
 On the Wedding at Cana 23

mother? Although he was not born from a marriage, he came to a wedding and
honored it by his presence. For Musculus, this is an example of the divine com-
mand to rejoice with those who are rejoicing. Jesus also shows that Christians may
accommodate themselves to human custom, with the provision that it is "permis-
sible" (licitus) and "honorable" (honestus).75
It is this provision, however, that makes Jesus' miracle problematic for Musculus.
Can Jesus be accused of providing the means for inebriation? Here, Musculus raises
an issue that receives little attention in the exegetical tradition on the Cana narra-
tive. The abundance of wine is not problematic for most commentators, who inter-
pret the conversion of water into wine allegorically.76 Chrysostom sees the con-
version as symbolic of the change from a life of luxury and gluttony to a life of
abstinence, an interpretation that stands the literal sense on its head.77 For Augus-
tine, the wine created by Jesus represents the new christological interpretation of
the Scriptures. When the Old Testament is read literally, it is tasteless like water.
But Jesus changes this water into wine and "what was tasteless acquires taste, what
was not intoxicating intoxicates."78 For Cyril, Erasmus, and Melanchthon, the new
wine symbolizes the gospel, which was superseding the Law, represented by the
wine, which was running out.79 The richness of the metaphor of conversion is cer-
tainly not lost upon the medieval commentators; Thomas, Hugh, and Denis present
multiple spiritual interpretations of the conversion of water into wine.80
Bucer and Musculus, however, part with the exegetical tradition in their attempts
to explain the significance of the miraculous wine. Rejecting the wealth of sym-
bolic possibilities, they must explain its significance purely on the literal level of
interpretation. Why did Jesus create such a large quantity of wine for the wedding
party at Cana? While this question is certainly troubling for Musculus, Bucer sees
it as an opportunity to portray Jesus as a man who in fact enjoyed celebrations and
parties. He contrasts the Jesus who approved of "moderate merriment" (hilaritatem
moderatam) with the rather prudish morality of the Anabaptists. Jesus was not sim-
ply serving necessity in his miracle, for water could have quenched the thirst of the
guests. Rather, "and, what you may be amazed at," argues Bucer, "the author of
sobriety presented . .. wine to the guests—among whom there were doubtlessly
those who drank more than necessity required—and in fact wine of the best qual-
ity." Jesus thereby teaches that created things are to be enjoyed and received as gifts
of God. Furthermore, God has established for his people times of rejoicing and
feasting, as well as times of mourning and fasting. Bucer argues that the dour
moralism of the Anabaptists cannot make sense of Jesus' behavior at Cana: "Doubt-
lessly, the Catabaptists, if they had then been present, would have severely rebuked
the Lord, if not even excommunicated him."81
While Bucer expresses a cheery delight in the miraculous provision of wine at
the party, Musculus expresses a concern that false inferences will be drawn from
the story. He opposes "the lovers of wine" who seize upon the story
to make two false conclusions. First, they argue that inebriation is an ancient and
 24 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

long-cherished custom. Musculus admits that drunkenness is certainly not a re-

cent vice, but he argues that its oldness is no defense of its permissibility. If one
defends drunkenness on account of its long history, then one must also defend the
ancient vices of lying, jealousy, fornication, and murder. Second, the wine lovers
argue that Jesus himself furthered drunkenness in the wedding party at Cana.
According to Musculus, this argument falsely assumes that the guests at the party
were already drunk before Jesus performed the miracle. The assumption is based
on the words of the steward, who says: "Every person serves the good wine first,
and when they have become inebriated, then that which is worse."82 Musculus
argues that the steward was speaking in general terms about common custom; he
was not referring specifically to the condition of the guests at the Cana wedding
party. Furthermore, Musculus finds it unbelievable that the miraculous wine could
have been abused for the cause of drunkenness. The wine was simply sampled by
the guests in order to verify the occurrence of the miracle. Even if some of the guests
had been drunk, Jesus cannot be accused of furthering that vice. Otherwise, Jesus
must be blamed for all vices. Christ created iron, but he cannot be blamed for
murder. Christ gave language to mankind, but he cannot be blamed for lying and
false oaths. Having received so many blessings from God, it is the height of impi-
ety to blame God for the human abuses of those blessings. Thus, Musculus shows
the inferences drawn by the wine lovers to be baseless, especially when contrasted
with the many places in Scripture that clearly define drunkenness as a vice.83
For Musculus, therefore, the Cana narrative offers no implied endorsement of
drunkenness or heavy wine consumption. But the story does imply an important
moral application. As Musculus states: "This place is usually used for the honor-
ing of marriage for the very reason that Christ was present at this wedding."84 Nearly
every commentator from Augustine to Bucer makes the same argument.85 Mar-
riage is thus a standard topic of discussion in the exegetical tradition on the Cana
narrative. However, while nearly every commentator briefly mentions the honor-
ing of marriage implicit in Jesus' presence at the wedding, most place greater
emphasis on the allegorical significance of marriage.
Thus for Cyril and Augustine, the wedding at Cana is a metaphor for the incar-
nation. As Augustine states: "For the Word was the bridegroom, and human flesh
was the bride . . . . That womb of the Virgin Mary ... was his bridal chamber."86
In addition to the incarnational metaphor, the wedding at Cana symbolizes for
Augustine the marriage between Christ and the Church.87 These themes are devel-
oped further by the medieval commentators; for them, the wedding at Cana be-
comes more and more an excuse for an extended discussion of the spiritual sig-
nificance of marriage. Thomas discusses the two themes expressed by Augustine
and also interprets marriage as symbolic of the union between Christ and the
individual soul.88
In the comments of Hugh and Denis, the emphasis on spiritual marriages over-
shadows the approval of human marriage implicit in Jesus' presence at the wed-
 On the Wedding at Cana 25

ding. While Hugh mentions the approval of ordinary marriage, his discussion cen-
ters on four types of spiritual marriage symbolized by the wedding at Cana: first,
the marriage between God and human nature resulting in the incarnation; second,
the marriage between Christ and the Church, discussed in the fifth chapter of
Ephesians; third, the marriage between God and the soul, which takes place in the
sacrament of penance; and fourth, the marriage that takes place between Christ
and those who have bound themselves with monastic vows—that is, "between
Christ and the religious" (inter Christum religiosum). Hugh discusses each of these
marriages extensively and buttresses his comments with numerous biblical state-
ments concerning marriage. He shows remarkable ingenuity in manipulating the
details in the Cana wedding story into appropriate symbols for each of the four
types of marriage. For example, the temporal reference "on the third day" is for
Hugh a symbol of the time of grace, which follows the time before the Law (day
one) and the time under the Law (day two). The marriage between God and human
nature and the marriage between Christ and the Church both take place in this
time of grace. In the marriage between Christ and the human soul, the third day
refers to the three moments in the sacrament of penance: contrition, confession,
and satisfaction. The same symbol is interpreted in the marriage between Christ
and the religious as the three monastic vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience.
Hugh shows similar exegetical skill in his interpretation of the water pots, the
water, and the wine. It is significant that Hugh's fourth marriage (between Christ
and the religious) necessitates a commitment to celibacy and is therefore in ten-
sion with Jesus' approval of ordinary marriage.89
This tension is more explicit in the comments of Denis on the marriage theme.
He argues that although Jesus approves of human marriage, he really intends to
call believers into the higher states of spiritual marriage. For Denis, there are two
types of spiritual marriage. One is the marriage of the Word with human nature
that is celebrated in the womb of the Virgin. The other is the marriage between
Christ and the Church which is celebrated in the "bed of the purer conscience" (in
cubili conscientiae purioris). In addition to these spiritual marriages, Denis argues
that there is the "marriage of beatific enjoyment" (nuptiis beatificaefruitionis) that
is celebrated in the "palace of majesty" (inpalatio majestatis). While human mar-
riage is legitimate, Jesus' presence at the wedding of Cana also implies a moral
exhortation concerning spiritual marriage. Denis states: "Therefore, let us celebrate
spiritual marriage in our conscience, by uniting and intimately joining our souls
to the Word... to the groom of the souls of the saints... so that our souls maybe
fertilized and impregnated by heavenly seed, that is, with the light of abundant
grace, in order that they may produce spiritual fruit, that is, virtuous acts." The
higher value of spiritual marriage over carnal marriage is emphasized even in Denis's
literal exposition. Jesus went to the wedding, he argues, not simply to show his
approval of human marriage but, more important, to call the groom back into the
higher state of celibacy.90
 26 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

In contrast to the many interpreters who see a wealth of symbols in the mar-
riage theme, Musculus focuses his attention exclusively on ordinary human mar-
riage. This exclusive focus is not characteristic of all sixteenth-century exegesis, for
both Erasmus and Melanchthon offer allegorical interpretations of the wedding in
their commentaries.91 Musculus himself, as we shall later see, makes liberal use of
allegorical exegesis in his commentary on John. But here Musculus follows the lead
of Bucer, his former teacher, in excluding the traditional allegorical interpretations
of the Cana pericope. Bucer remarks: "Allegories are weaved out of this, but nei-
ther Christ nor the Evangelist said anything allegorically in this. Bare history is that
which is related."92 The traditional allegories must be rejected because they are
"uncertain and man-made" (incerta et conficta ab hominibus). However, Bucer
suggests that marriage is an appropriate topic of discussion in the context of com-
mentary on the wedding at Cana: "Marriage is a commonplace that is usually treated
here.. .. The chief point is: 'It is not good for man to be alone' [Gn 2:18]."93
Since Musculus, like Bucer, makes no use of the allegorical possibilities of the
marriage theme, all that remains for him is the tacit approval of marriage implied
by the presence of Jesus at the wedding. However, Musculus magnifies this impli-
cation to such proportions that it completely dominates his reading of the story;
nearly a third of his comments are devoted to the subject of marriage. He divides
his discussion of marriage into six sections with the following titles: "Observations
concerning weddings," "What marriage is," "Its source, that is, its author," "How
it is honorable," "How it is useful," and finally, "How it is necessary." Musculus is
concerned above all to elevate the dignity of the married state over against the
Roman priests who, he argues, prefer concubinage and whoremongering to the
proper and honorable union of marriage that is established by God.94
Although Musculus omits allegory, his treatment of marriage is hardly limited
to a simple exposition of the Cana story; in fact, his discussion is completely dis-
engaged from the Scripture text. There is simply not enough scriptural data in the
story to fuel the discussion he wishes to pursue. Therefore, Musculus essentially
interrupts his running commentary to insert a moral treatise on marriage. In part,
Musculus's interest in the subject can be placed in the larger context of the Refor-
mation. The rejection of clerical celibacy by the reformers went hand in hand with
an effort to defend the honor and dignity of marriage. More specifically, the de-
fense of marriage was a personal issue for Musculus. His decision to embrace the
Reformation was also a decision to break his monastic vows and to marry.

CONCLUSION

The distinctive characteristics of Musculus's interpretation can only be seen when

that interpretation is placed in the context of the antecedent exegetical tradition.
As the story of the wedding at Cana was interpreted in the patristic and medieval
 On the Wedding at Cana 27

periods, a standard exegetical agenda emerged. This agenda established the inter-
pretive problems facing a commentator, as well as the possible solutions to those
problems. This exegetical tradition exerts an influence on Musculus's interpreta-
tion; his comments reflect his response not only to the words of the biblical text
itself but also to the words of the commentators who precede him. This conversa-
tion between Musculus and the exegetical tradition is largely a silent one. That is,
Musculus does not himself present to the reader the context that he has assumed.
He neither cites nor refers to other commentators in the course of his interpreta-
tion. His silence, however, should not be construed as evidence of his indepen-
dence from the tradition.
The dependence of Musculus on the work of previous commentators can be seen
clearly in his discussion of the method of the miracle. The exegetical tradition had
established a set of interpretive questions that Musculus assumes in his comments
on the story. Why did Jesus use the massive water pots and why did he create so
much wine? Why did he make use of the servants and the steward? And why did he
not perform a more spectacular miracle by creating wine ex nihilo? In addressing
these questions, Musculus follows a basic interpretive trajectory established by
Chrysostom that reoccurs throughout the medieval tradition—namely, that every
detail of Jesus' method was intentionally employed in order to establish beyond
doubt the real occurrence of a real miracle.
In interpreting the encounter between Mary and Jesus, we have seen how
Musculus follows in the footsteps of previous commentators who express a fun-
damental sympathy for the virgin mother. Although she is scolded by Christ,
Musculus, like most commentators, sees nothing blameworthy in her appeal to
Jesus. In fact, her role in the story expresses a beautiful model of patience and faith-
fulness in prayer. Musculus is also quite conservative in his explanation of Jesus'
rebuke, relying, like nearly every commentator, on the explanations of Chrysostom
and Augustine.
When Musculus discusses the moral applications of the story to the subjects of
drunkenness and marriage, he shows more exegetical independence. In part, he is
using the text to express particular concerns of his own age. But his treatment of
these subjects is also due to his reluctance to use allegory as a mode of interpreta-
tion. If the miraculous wine is not symbolic of a greater spiritual reality, then one
is left to explain Jesus' creation of a large quantity of wine and wine only; and clearly
that troubles Musculus.
In his discussion of marriage, Musculus takes a standard observation of the tra-
ditional exegesis—Jesus' approval of human marriage—and develops it into a full-
blown treatise on the subject. While he avoids the traditional allegorizing of the
topic, his emphasis on marriage in the context of the story of the wedding at Cana
is not new. Earlier commentators had clearly established that marriage is an
appropriate topic of discussion for an interpreter of the pericope. Musculus there-
fore uses the text as a springboard for a thorough treatment of human marriage, a
 28 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

subject of special interest to many of the Protestant reformers. His treatment, how-
ever, is certainly not limited to a simple literal exposition of the text at hand. That
is, one cannot characterize his exegesis as a simple exposition of the historical or
literal meaning of the text in opposition to the uncontrolled speculation of the
allegorical interpretations. While his reading may not violate the meaning of the
biblical text, it goes well beyond the scope of a simple literal explanation of
the narrative. As we shall see, Musculus's tendency to include voluminous moral
discussions in the course of his commentary is one of the most characteristic fea-
tures of his work on John.
 TWO

Musculus and the Fathers on the Healing

of the Ruler's Son

I n Protestant circles, Musculus was considered an authority on the Fa-

thers. He devoted much of his scholarly career to the study of patristic literature,
publishing several editions and translations of Greek patristic writings. In almost
all of his theological writings, the fruit of this scholarship is evident. Even a cur-
sory reading of Musculus's Loci communes sacrae theologiae (1560) reveals an au-
thor steeped in the writings of the ancient Church Fathers; patristic references and
citations abound throughout this massive work in systematic theology.1
It is hardly surprising then that Musculus makes liberal use of patristic exegesis
in his work as an interpreter of the Bible. Indeed, in some of his commentaries he
makes the evaluation of patristic interpretations an explicit part of his program as
commentator. In his Psalms commentary, for example, he makes this purpose clear
in the very title of the work: In Sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium commentarii,. . .
nonpraetermissis orthodoxorum etiam Patrum sententiis, ita tractantur, ut Christianus
lector nihil desiderare amplius possit. Similarly, in the title of his Genesis commen-
tary, Musculus declares his intention to evaluate the exegetical opinions of "an-
cient and recent authorities": In Mosis Genesim plenissimi commentarii, in quibus
veterum & recentiorum sententiae diligenter expenduntur. Although Musculus does
not openly declare this intention in his John commentary, he clearly shows his
dependence on the patristic exegetical tradition, citing the commentaries of
Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyril throughout.
In this chapter I will consider Musculus's interpretation of John 4:46-54 in the
context of patristic commentaries in order to characterize his use of patristic exe-
gesis. While Musculus does not explicitly cite any opinions of the Fathers in his
commentary on this short passage, there are definite echoes of patristic exegetical
ideas. As a preamble to the exegetical study, I first present an overview of Musculus's
educational and scholarly development, focusing on his studies in the Fathers. This

29
 30 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

survey of his literary, linguistic, and theological education provides an important

backdrop for this and the following chapters; it shows the knowledge and tools that
Musculus brought to the text as a biblical commentator. Second, I address
Musculus's own statements concerning the value of the patristic witness for the
Christian in general and for the biblical expositor in particular. His discussion of
the relationship of Scripture and tradition is examined in order to assess his esti-
mation of the authority of the Fathers in matters of faith.

MUSCULUS'S EDUCATIONAL FORMATION

A review of Musculus's education begins with the years he spent as a grammar stu-
dent in Upper Alsace. Very little is known about these years. According to his
biographer, Musculus set out as a boy from his hometown of Dieuze in Lorraine
and wandered throughout Alsace in search of both patronage and education. He
attended in succession the Latin schools in Ribeauville (Rappoltsweiler), Colmar,
and Selestat.2 Although precise information is lacking concerning Musculus's edu-
cation in these schools, one thing is certain: at Selestat Musculus received one of
the best Latin educations available to a boy in early sixteenth-century Europe.
The Selestat school, founded in the late fourteenth century, came under the in-
fluence of the educational reforms of the Brethren of the Common Life through
the rectorship of Ludwig Dringenberg (1441-1477). The fame of the school grew
and continued after Dringenberg through the rectorships of three humanistically
minded pedagogues: Crato Hofmann (1477-1501), Hieronymus Gebwiler (1501-
1509), and Johannes Sapidus (1510-1525). Under the direction of these men, the
school produced an outstanding number of scholars, among whom were Jakob
Wimpfeling (1450-1528), Martin Bucer (1491-1551), Leo Jud (1482-1542), Paulus
Constantinus Phrygio (1485-1543), Beatus Rhenanus (1485-1547), and Hieronymus
Gemuseus (1505-1549).3 This remarkable output of scholars prompted Erasmus
to write an encomium in which he states: "That is uniquely yours, that both one
and small, you produce so many men distinguished in virtue and in talent."4
It was the fame of the Selestat school that drew Musculus and hundreds of boys
from Lorraine, Alsace, and Switzerland. Unfortunately, evidence is lacking to
indicate when Musculus arrived in the town. Ludwig Grote argues that Musculus
studied there during the rectorship of Hieronymus Gebwiler.5 Yet Abraham
Musculus states that his father remained in Selestat until his fifteenth year.5 If his
statement is correct, Musculus also studied under Johannes Sapidus, himself a
former student at Selestat, who was appointed rector in December 1510, when
Musculus would have been thirteen years old. In any case, both Gebwiler and
Sapidus offered essentially the same educational curriculum, inspired by the spirit
of the Northern Renaissance.
 On the Healing of the Ruler's Son 31

What books did Musculus read at Selestat? Although neither Musculus himself
nor his son Abraham mention specific works, a glimpse of the daily curriculum at
Selestat is provided by a letter from a student, Boniface Amerbach, written to his
father in 1508: "You wrote in your letters that I should write you what our teacher
does. As you may know, he expounds Alexander in the morning; at nine o'clock
some poems from authors such as Horace, Ovid, etc.; after twelve [we read] in
Mantua. On Mondays he adds some poems for us to examine for the meter. At
four o'clock we review what we did during the course of the entire day."7
This statement indicates that Musculus probably studied Latin using the basic
grammar textbook of the Middle Ages, the Doctrinale puerorum of Alexander of
Villa Dei (b. ca. 1170).8 The emphasis of the Selestat school on prosody is reflected
by the readings in Horace and Ovid and by the readings in Baptist of Mantua
(1447-1516), who, enjoying the reputation of a Christian Virgil, was added to the
curriculum as an antidote to the pagan poets.9 This emphasis is also reflected in
Abraham Musculus's description of his father's study in Selestat: "Later, leaving
Colmar he came to Selestat, and there he gave attention to letters. He was held even
at that young age by a love of poetry, and he was very persistent in the reading of
the poets."10 According to Abraham, Musculus's teacher held competitions among
the students in reciting poetry from memory, exercises that Musculus found thor-
oughly enjoyable.''
The circumstances that prompted Musculus to leave the Selestat school and join
the Order of St. Benedict are not completely clear. Both religious concerns and
financial ones seem to have motivated his decision. The events that led to this sud-
den change are explained by his biographer as follows. On his way to visit his par-
ents in Dieuze, Musculus stopped to spend the night with his aunt in the village of
Lixheim. Being a religious woman, she took the young Wolfgang to the nearby
Benedictine monastery for evening prayers. As they joined in the singing of ves-
pers, the monks and the prior were awestruck by the beauty of Musculus's voice.
After the service, the prior asked him to enter the monastery, promising to pro-
vide for all of his financial needs. Having obtained the consent of his parents,
Musculus entered the monastery in Lixheim, where he spent the next fifteen years
(1512-1527).12
Although we do not know what books were sitting on the shelves of the Lixheim
monastery, it is quite possible that Musculus began his reading in the Fathers dur-
ing these years. According to his biographer, he occupied his time with much
study.13 However, apart from Latin poetry, the Bible, and certain unnamed works
of Martin Luther that flowed into the monastery in 1518, we do not know for cer-
tain what Musculus read. He was able to continue his reading of the Latin poets
because of a fortuitous discovery. In the attic of the monastery, the young monk
found a pile of manuscripts that he ordered and pieced together; these turned out
to be several works of Cicero and the complete works of Ovid. Musculus was con-
 32 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

sumed with the reading of these classical authors and after a time began to make
his own attempts at versification. He developed this skill to such an extent that he
even produced his own shorter version of Ovid's Metamorphoses.14
Although we know little about Musculus's formal theological training in the
monastery, around his twentieth year he began an intensive course of biblical study,
following the advice of an "older friend" that a good preacher should be well-versed
in the Bible. Musculus soon demonstrated a talent for preaching and was assigned
to the office of public preacher. He delivered sermons in the church in Lixheim
and in other towns in the vicinity of the monastery. Sometime after 1518, Musculus
began to study some of the writings of Luther; these influenced his sermons to such
a degree that he became known as the "Lutheran monk."15
Although Musculus openly sided with Luther, he remained in the monastery until
1527. In that year he threw aside the cowl, married, and headed for Strasbourg.
For three years Musculus lived in that city, working first as a weaver and eventu-
ally as a preacher.16 During his Strasbourg years, Musculus furthered his theologi-
cal and linguistic education. He attended the lectures of Martin Bucer and Wolfgang
Capito and began to study Hebrew.17 For a time Musculus lived in Bucer's home
and worked as his personal secretary, transcribing Bucer's notoriously illegible
handwriting into clean copy for the typesetter. Among other works, Musculus tran-
scribed Bucer's commentaries on Zephaniah and the Psalms.18
Musculus probably studied in the Fathers during his Strasbourg years; he at least
imbibed patristic opinions indirectly through the commentaries of Bucer. It is also
likely that he was introduced to the Fathers during the fifteen years he spent in the
Lixheim monastery. However, we first hear of his patristic studies after his arrival
in the free imperial city of Augsburg. From 1531 to 1537 Musculus worked in
Augsburg as preacher at the Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche.19 During that time he began
a private course of study in the Greek language under the tutelage of the Augsburg
school rector Xystus Betuleius (Sixt Birk).20 Musculus was an adept student of
languages, and his talent in Greek manifested itself in his work as a translator of
Greek patristic literature.21 The humanistically trained Birk may have suggested
this course of study to Musculus as a way to develop proficiency in Greek. In any
event, Musculus's translations were deemed worthy of publication, and in 1536
his first work, a translation into Latin of Chrysostom's commentaries on Romans,
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians, appeared in Basel.22
For the next twenty years, Musculus continued to produce Latin translations of
Greek patristic writings, including works from Basil of Caesaria, Cyril of Alexan-
dria, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Athanasius.23 In addition, he produced a transla-
tion in one volume of the Greek ecclesiastical histories.24 Musculus's work as a trans-
lator was not limited to Christian literature, for in 1549 he published a translation
of books 6 through 18 of the Histories of Polybius.25
Musculus's remarkable output as a translator indicates his possession of or ac-
cess to a significant collection of Greek manuscripts. Due to the efforts of his tutor
 On the Healing of the Ruler's Son 33

Betuleius, Musculus in fact had such access during his tenure in Augsburg. In 1537
the council commissioned Betuleius to make a selection of the best manuscripts and
books out of the city monasteries for the purpose of establishing a city library.26 The
council was determined to build a respectable collection and in 1545, at the urging
of Betuleius, approved the purchase of 126 Greek manuscripts, mostly works of
Church Fathers, for the sum of 742 guilders.27 Although Musculus's translations of
Chrysostom and Basil antedate the purchase, his later translations of Polybius, Cyril,
and Gregory of Nazianzus probably utilized the Augsburg manuscript collection.28
In his work as a translator, Musculus was not limited to Greek writings, for in
1535, at the urging of Bucer, he produced a German translation of Augustine's letter
to the Roman general Bonifacius.29 This translation, to which Bucer added an intro-
duction and an epilogue, emerged in the context of a political debate concerning
the future plans for the Reformation in Augsburg. Bucer and Musculus hoped to
create a groundswell of support for a thoroughgoing reformation of the city. By
translating the letter in which Augustine justifies governmental intervention in the
Donatist controversy, Musculus and Bucer hoped to convince the council likewise
to intervene against the Catholic Church in Augsburg.30 For our purposes, it is
important to note Musculus's eagerness to utilize the Fathers in his polemical writ-
ings, especially in those directed against Catholicism.

MUSCULUS ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE FATHERS

Although Musculus argues that the patristic writings are potent polemical weap-
ons, he does not limit their value to that arena. In the introduction to his transla-
tion of Chrysostom's homilies on Paul, he defends and explains the value of patristic
studies, directing his remarks primarily to those who casually dismiss the opin-
ions of the Fathers.31 Musculus argues that the Fathers, both in their writings and
by the example of their holy lives, have permanent worth for the believer.
Musculus condemns the self-assured attitude of those who act and speak as if
the Bible was first discovered in the sixteenth century. Pious people of all ages have
studied and understood the Word of God. Throughout history, God has illumi-
nated the minds of holy teachers devoted to the Scriptures, especially those who
lived shortly after the apostolic age. In fact, Musculus thinks that the Fathers, by
"their immense labors, vigils, and studies" (immensi illorum labores, vigiliae &
studia), far surpass the efforts at biblical scholarship common in his own age. There-
fore those who dismiss everything in the Fathers are not only arrogant but also
ignorant of history: "They seem to me to err very much, those who are deaf to
everything of others, yet adore their own [opinions], as if all knowledge of the truth
was completely lacking from the ancients."32
Musculus not only recommends a general reading of patristic writings but also
specifically names the Fathers he thinks deserve special attention. From the Latin
 34 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

Fathers, he lists Cyprian, Irenaeus, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Hilary; from
the Greeks, he lists Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Basil, Gregory, and Chrysostom. These
men are the "principal interpreters of the eloquence of God and promoters of the
Christian religion." Their writings are "monuments" (monumenta) that should not
be ignored. Certainly, as human beings, they were able to err, and therefore their
writings "should be read attentively and considered with sound judgment." But
those who refuse to study the patristic writings never discover the treasure therein:
"How will one hold the good, who tests nothing, but despises everything of oth-
ers? How will one test, who deigns not even to read? How will one read, who hisses
at anything he pleases with the highest contempt?"33 Musculus complains that
people too often flatter themselves with their own opinions, not realizing that they
are deceived. A judicious reading of the Fathers will help to dislodge these errone-
ous opinions. However, the Fathers should not be read indiscriminately or to the
exclusion of personal study in the Bible:
I do not advise that the writings of the Fathers should be examined night and day,
superstitiously rather than religiously. For this will divert [us] very much from the
reading of the canonical Scriptures, to which the first and better portion of our studies
must be dedicated. Let us rather enter by the royal way that the holy men have shown
in their writings and by their own example. For as there is the danger that if you
indiscriminately embrace everything, you might take hold of a lie instead of the truth,
the deception of human opinions instead of certainty of meaning, so too on the other
hand it ought to be feared that if you utterly despise [the opinions] of others and
admire only your own thoughts, you might reject the very truth expressed in the
opinions of others, and instead of that [truth] you might adore the fancies of your
own heart. On both sides the danger is quite the same. When the truth has been
neglected, what indeed is the difference, whether you are deceived by your own errors
or by the errors of others?34

While it is possible that the Fathers might lead one astray, deception is more likely
to follow from a blind devotion to one's personal opinions. Consequently, those
who are wise will suspect their own understanding before condemning the opin-
ions of the Fathers.35
Musculus suggests that the reading of the Fathers is beneficial in three main
ways. First, their writings help one to understand the meaning of difficult passages
in the Bible. Before deciding on a particular interpretation of such passages, one
should first consult the opinions of previous commentators. Interpreters of the Bible
are often deceived because they leap to the first explanation that pleases their own
minds; they think their own thoughts "more praiseworthy" (plausibiliores) than
the thoughts of others. They would do better to listen to "those holy men, whose
highest devotion was to remain in the divine Scriptures night and day." In
Musculus's opinion, one is more likely to encounter the truth in those ancient
expositions than in the interpretations of those who "nowadays" (hodie) inspect
the passage once or twice and pronounce everything that should be believed.36
 On the Healing of the Ruler's Son 35

Second, the reading of the Fathers helps one to recognize the teachings of the
ancient heretics. The Fathers should be admired for their zeal and diligence in
confuting those errors. But even more, the patristic writings serve as a warning to
later generations of the continual threat that the classical heresies pose for the
Church. It is the insidious nature of these heresies that they reappear time and again
in the history of the Church. For example, Musculus argues, the old battles con-
cerning the Trinity and the divinity of Christ are being fought once more. The
diligent study of the Fathers helps one to recognize the "ancient cunning of Satan"
and shows one how "the empty phantasms of the heretics must be scattered."37
Third, Musculus argues that the reading of the Fathers helps to establish godly
living. The patristic writings are full of wise counsel "for planting innocence of life
and for correcting the corruption of the Church." This preoccupation with the
virtuous life is found above all in the writings of Chrysostom, whom Musculus
singles out for praise. When Chrysostom attacks the vices and corruption of his
own age, promoting the virtues that the Christian life demands, he in fact speaks
timeless wisdom, appropriate to all ages, especially to Musculus's own day.38
While Musculus extols Chrysostom in particular and the Fathers in general as
an important part of any Christian literary diet, he does not consider patristic au-
thority equal to that of the Bible. The Fathers' opinions have weight because of their
erudite scholarship and because of the sanctity of their lives, but their views do not
have authority per se. Musculus emphasizes this point in his discussion of patristic
literature in the Loci communes, in which he treats the question of the value of this
literature in the context of the relationship between Scripture and tradition. The
accent of this discussion is quite different from his treatment of the Fathers in the
preface to his translation of Chrysostom (Ad lectorem). In the Loci communes
Musculus does not speak to those who have neglected the Fathers. Rather, he
addresses the Catholic overemphasis on patristic authority and thus argues that
tradition has no authority equal to that of the Bible.39
In one area, however, Musculus is willing to allow some authority to tradition—
namely, the area of canon formation. Like Luther, he classifies certain books of the
New Testament as less authoritative because of the witness of tradition: "Among
the books of the New Testament there are some concerning which the opinions
of the ancients vary, namely, the latter Epistle of Peter, the two latter epistles of
John, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse of John,
which is not recited among the canonical Scriptures in the Council of Laodicea
(chapter 59 and the last); along with these, certain more recent authorities also
include that which is attributed to James."40
Although Musculus does not exclude these books from the canon, he is willing
to ascribe less authority to them on the basis of the opinions of the ancient
authorities: "It is not in keeping with my modesty that I should pronounce con-
cerning them... . Nevertheless, the judgments of the ancients make me less bound
to them than to the rest of the Scriptures—although I do not suggest that anything
 36 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

that is read in them may easily be condemned."41 Since the canon is now estab-
lished, it alone is the sole authority for Musculus in matters of faith and doctrine.
The voice of tradition can neither add to nor subtract from the voice of Scripture.
When the Fathers agree with Scripture, Musculus will listen to them; when they
diverge from or go beyond Scripture, he will not. Therefore, the Catholics cannot
gain any ground in doctrinal disputes when they argue from the Fathers: "When
they bring something against us from the writings of the Fathers, I plainly assert
that I refuse to be bound to their authority. For I do not (using the words of Augus-
tine) consider their writings as canonical, but I examine them by the canonical
writings. And if anything in them agrees with the authority of the canonical Scrip-
tures, then I accept it; if however it does not agree, then with their permission I
reject it."42
Musculus presents three arguments for rejecting the Fathers as a locus of au-
thority. First, the Fathers themselves looked only to Scripture as an authority in
doctrinal disputes. Therefore, when the Catholics elevate tradition as an author-
ity, they not only disobey the Holy Spirit but also despise "both the examples of
the ancient Church, which suppressed heresies by the authority of the sacred Scrip-
tures, and the views of the ancient Fathers."43 To prove his point, Musculus pro-
duces extended citations from Chrysostom, Augustine, and Jerome.44
Musculus's second argument sounds the old Abelardian theme concerning the
diversity of the patristic witness. The Fathers, with their countless differences of
opinions, cannot settle doctrinal disputes. Musculus elaborates this same argument
in a letter of 1550 addressed to the Protestant clergy of Hungary.45 In the letter he
states that when the Catholics find a single statement in the Fathers that appears to
disagree with Protestant teaching, "they brag" (iactent) and judge "our teaching,
as if opposing the writings of the Fathers, to be heretical and damnable."46 They
do this, Musculus claims, even when the statements of other Fathers agree perfectly
with Protestant teaching. As an example, he discusses the controversy over the
proper division of the Decalogue. The Catholics, according to Musculus, argue that
the first three commandments should be grouped together on one table and the
remaining seven on the other; the Protestants, on the other hand, place the first
four commandments on one table and the remaining six on the other.47 The Catho-
lics claim their division to be an authentic reflection of patristic opinion because
of a statement of Augustine that supports the three-seven division, and they accuse
the Protestants of introducing new teaching. However, Musculus argues that the
Protestants in fact have stronger patristic support since Origen, Athanasius,
Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine himself (in another place) all sup-
port the four-six division. The controversy ultimately shows, Musculus argues, that
to make the Fathers the ultimate locus of authority is to resign oneself to endless
bickering and debate:48 "When we cite something from Augustine for the doctrine
of grace and justification, there is at hand to [our] adversaries something different
to cite from Chrysostom, a thing which I mention by way of example. For from all
 On the Healing of the Ruler's Son 37

the Fathers two will not be produced whose writings agree in all things, especially
in those which may be cited for our cause."49
In the Loci communes, Musculus makes a similar argument, but he emphasizes
the problem of utilizing the patristic writings as a guide for interpreting the Bible.
Those who assert that the patristic witness is needed in order to clarify the obscu-
rities of Scripture have got it backward:

Who is so stupid, that he thinks that what is clear must be judged by what is obscure,
and not rather that which is obscure by what is clear? Whom will they give us from all
the Fathers, whose writings we should follow as a light for the illumination of sacred
Scripture? If we are willing to follow all those whose writings are extant, it will happen
that what is clear in Scripture will be clouded by using their expositions, on account of
the diversity of their opinions and expositions. If we should choose only one, there will
be no agreement as to who should be chosen; nor will the opinion of one be able to
make our consciences certain, when the others have different opinions.50

Musculus concedes that certain parts of Scripture are difficult to understand.

However, it is not the Fathers but rather the Bible itself that provides the herme-
neutical key to unlock the meaning of these passages. Following the famous dic-
tum of Augustine, Musculus argues that the dark places in Scripture are always
expressed more clearly in other places in the Bible.51 The explanations of the Fa-
thers may help to clarify difficult scriptural passages but only when they are read
critically against the backdrop of the biblical witness. Quoting Augustine, Musculus
states that "no matter how greatly they excel in learning and holiness, I do not
therefore consider [what they say] true just because they thought it so, but because
they were able to persuade me that it agrees with the truth, either by those canoni-
cal authors or by probable reason."52
Musculus's third argument for rejecting the authority of the Fathers is based upon
his own experiences as a textual critic. There are so many textual variations for every
work of the Fathers, he argues, that their original words are obscured in a cloud of
uncertainty. A comparison of the different texts shows "how foul a discrepancy is
everywhere to be found." How much more, he asks, do the existing texts differ from
the originals? Musculus states that if one of the Fathers were alive to see the edi-
tions of his works in the sixteenth century, he would probably not even recognize
them. Faith cannot be based on the authority of something so uncertain: "The
writings of the Fathers have degenerated from their original state with the course
of so many ages, partly by the carelessness of antiquarians and partly by the rash-
ness of heretics, that whoever thinks that the consciences of the faithful should be
bound by their decisions, is clearly very dimwitted or eagerly malicious toward the
Church of God."53
Although Musculus rejects tradition as a pole of authority, he gladly uses patristic
literature as a polemical weapon. Since the Catholics claim to abide by the judg-
ments of the ancient Fathers, they must yield when the Fathers speak, "not on ac-
 38 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

count of any authority which they deserve, but on account of that authority which
they themselves attribute to them."54 For his own purposes, Musculus claims no
need to discover patristic confirmation: "As far as I am concerned, I do not re-
quire the testimonies of the Fathers . . . [but am] content with the authority and
canon of holy Scripture itself."55 Nevertheless, he betrays a cheery confidence that
the Reformation breathes the spirit of the ancient Church as represented by the
patristic writings. Roman Catholicism, according to Musculus, really represents
an understanding of Christianity foreign to the minds of the Fathers: "I beseech
you, where would the whole Roman see be established, with all those counterfeit
bishops, cardinals, prelates, monks, scholastics, sophists, Scotists, Thomists,
Occamists, and other such people, who for several centuries now have seized con-
trol of the Christian religion by right and wrong, by praying and paying, by force
and arms, if they were put to the judgment of the holy Fathers and the ancient
canons and councils?"56 Thus, while Musculus finds no theological justification for
the authority of tradition, he claims nonetheless that the Fathers are the theologi-
cal allies of the Protestants, not of the Catholics.

THE HEALING OF THE RULER'S SON (jN 4:46-54)

In his interpretation of the healing of the ruler's son, Musculus offers no explicit
citations of patristic exegesis. Yet by examining his comments in the context of
patristic interpretations, it is possible not only to demonstrate a significant indebt-
edness to the Fathers but also to begin to define the nature of his indebtedness.
Utilizing only those patristic commentaries that were available to Musculus in
printed editions, this comparative study is limited to the interpretations of
Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine and to the metrical paraphrase of
Nonnus of Panopolis.57 These writings also represent the only patristic interpreta-
tions of John that Musculus explicitly cites in the course of his own commentary.58
An examination of his direct citations of these writings does not show a special
devotion to or dependence on any one patristic John commentator. Frequently,
when encountering a particularly difficult passage, he cites together the opinions
of Chrysostom, Cyril, and Augustine. Having cited their opinions, he either sides
with one of the three interpretations, rejects them all and offers his own explana-
tion, or affirms all of the interpretations as acceptable exegetical alternatives.59 All
the citations of Nonnus occur in Musculus's comments on the fourth chapter of
John. Musculus quotes (in Greek) particular phrases of Nonnus, which he utilizes
not to solve exegetical problems but rather to add color to his own comments.
Because Nonnus rarely goes beyond the limits of paraphrase, the work sheds little
light on a comparative exegetical analysis.60
The story of the healing of the ruler's son is loosely patterned on the wine miracle
at Cana. Therefore it is not surprising that the two stories raise similar exegetical
 On the Healing of the Ruler's Son 39

problems. Both miracles occur at Cana and both involve a petition put to Jesus. In
both cases Jesus seems to refuse the petition with words of censure, only thereafter
to grant the request. And in both stories the ultimate outcome of the miracle is an
increase in faith.61 Musculus organizes his comments according to this basic pat-
tern, with four main sections entitled "the petition of the ruler" (petitio reguli),
"the response of Christ" (responsio Christi), "the miracle of the boy's healing"
(miraculum sanatipueri), and "the fruit of the miracle" (fructus miraculi).
As an introduction to his analysis of the story, Musculus first explains the mean-
ing of the transitional verse: "He came therefore again to Cana of Galilee where he
made the water wine" (Jn 4:46). According to Musculus, the Evangelist purpose-
fully reminds the reader of the first miracle at Cana in order to show why Jesus
returned there. Apparently, one miracle alone was not sufficient to establish a firm
faith in the people who witnessed it. Therefore, Jesus returned to Cana "that he
might irrigate and promote by revisiting with his power and light what he had re-
cently planted by the first of his miracles."62
Musculus certainly echoes here the comments of Chrysostom, who argues that
Jesus returned to Cana "to make stronger by his presence the faith begotten by the
[first] miracle." In addition, by returning to Cana Jesus highlights the superior faith
of the Samaritans, who, without the benefit of miracles, believed simply because
of Jesus' teaching.63 Cyril, however, sounds a different note by emphasizing the
desire of the people at Cana to advance in faith. Because of their eagerness to ad-
vance, Jesus returned in order "to confer an additional benefit on them."64
Although Musculus repeats the comments of Chrysostom, he elaborates upon
them in order to make a moral application. The fact that Jesus had to return to Cana
is, for Musculus, a poignant reminder of the corruption of human nature, which
will not retain "the beginnings of heavenly things" (rerum coelestium principia) unless
they are repeatedly reinforced: "Of all things, they are most easily extinguished."
The opposite is true of those evil things that "conform to our depravity" (pravitati
nostrae conformia); human nature eagerly allows them to take root and grow. By
revisiting Cana, Jesus reminds the Christian "to revisit the beginnings of good things"
(revisere bonarum rerum principia) in order to advance in faith.65

The Petition of the Ruler

For many commentators, the identity of the ruler is the first significant exegetica
problem. The gospel text states that he was a ruler from Capernaum but is silent
concerning his official function.66 It is also not clear from the text whether he was
a Jew or a Gentile. In an effort to answer these questions, many exegetes have con-
cluded that this ruler was the centurion of the synoptic gospels whose son is healed
by Jesus (Mt 8:5-13 and Lk 7:1-10).67
Among the Fathers, neither Cyril nor Augustine speculate concerning the ruler's
official function. Cyril, however, implies that he was a Gentile, while Augustine
 40 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

implies that he was a Jew.68 Nonnus calls the ruler a "royal man"
who was the "commander of an army" ,69 For Chrysostom, the
term implies royalty but may be used more loosely: "Either he was
actually of royal lineage or he was called royal because there was some other dig-
nity of his office to which the title was attached." Chrysostom rejects an equation
of the ruler with the centurion of Matthew because of important differences in the
details of the stories. Most important, the centurion exhibits perfect faith, while
the ruler's faith is weak and deficient.70
Like Chrysostom, Musculus sees no synoptic parallel in his discussion of the
ruler's identity. However, he does speculate concerning his official function. The
term he argues, means "royal" (regius), but in this story the term is used
loosely to refer to an official or prefect of Herod. Musculus argues that this man
was probably Herod's prefect for the city of Capernaum. The royal designation,
however, has a deeper significance for Musculus. The Evangelist purposely refers
to him in this way in order to teach believers to hope for the conversion of their
rulers. Although it rarely happens that such rulers believe in Christ, nevertheless it
is not impossible, "and therefore one must not despair of such things."71
Having established his identity, Musculus turns to the main theme in his analy-
sis of the ruler's petition—namely, the motives and faith that prompt the ruler to
come to Christ. In light of Jesus' harsh retort—"Unless you see signs and prodi-
gies you will not believe"—most commentators conclude that something in the
man's motivation is faulty or that his faith is deficient. Musculus, however, shows
more sympathy with the ruler. Certainly the ruler's faith is weak and in need of
support, but the motives that bring the desperate father to Christ are praiseworthy.
According to Musculus, the father is driven by a deep love for his son, a love
that causes him to disregard the risks to his professional status in associating with
Jesus. Although people come to Jesus for various reasons, many come who are
desperate because of their own suffering or because of the suffering of someone
they love. Parents who have healthy children often are the most irreligious; they
demonstrate no gratitude to God for their children. But this ruler, "desperate for
the welfare of his son, finds refuge in Christ."72
Unlike Musculus, Augustine sees nothing praiseworthy in the ruler's appearance
before Christ. In fact, the ruler simply used his son's illness as a pretext to find out
"what sort of person Christ was, who he was, how much he could do."73 Cyril states
nothing concerning the father's motivation, focusing exclusively on the feeble faith
of the ruler. Nonnus and Chrysostom, however, like Musculus, show sympathy with
the plight of the royal official. Nonnus states that because of his great love, the ruler
"was equally scourged by the fire that was afflicting his son, perhaps even more."74
Similarly, Chrysostom argues that although weak in faith, the ruler is motivated
by paternal love: "Fathers are eager, because of their great love, not only to approach
physicians in whom they have confidence, but also to address those in whom they
have none, wishing to leave nothing untried."75
 On the Healing of the Ruler's Son 41

While the Fathers may disagree concerning the motives of the ruler, they show
greater consensus in their estimation of his faith. For Augustine, the ruler was
either "lukewarm in faith, or even cold, or even of no faith at all." Even though
the weakness of his faith is not immediately apparent, it must have been faulty
or nonexistent given the stinging rebuke of Jesus: "We do not see the heart of a
man lacking faith; but he who both heard his words and looked into his heart
declared it."76
Cyril also faults the faith of the ruler but offers a more precise diagnosis than
Augustine. The ruler's faith is weak because he does not understand who Jesus really
is. This lack of understanding is demonstrated by the nature of his petition. In re-
questing healing for his son, the ruler asks Jesus to do something that only God
can do. However, he foolishly supposes that Jesus must be physically present to
the sick boy in order to accomplish the healing: "For what need for him to be present
to the sick, whom he could easily heal, even absent?... But now both thinking
and acting most foolishly, he asks power befitting God, and does not think He
accomplishes all things as God."77
Chrysostom argues that the ruler exhibited a certain amount of faith simply by
requesting Jesus' aid. Jesus' rebuke indicates only that the ruler did not believe "fully
or soundly." The shallowness and "earthly outlook" of the father's faith is indi-
cated by his words: "Come down before my child dies." These words of despera-
tion show that the father did not believe Jesus was able to heal his son at a distance
or that he was able to raise his son from the dead. Therefore, the ruler demonstrates
that he believed Jesus to be a prophet, not the son of God.78
In his estimation of the ruler's faith, Musculus clearly echoes the comments of
Chrysostom, arguing that the ruler believed that if Jesus was able to place his hand
on the sick boy, then the illness would be driven away. Hence, he believed Jesus to
be a "certain distinguished prophet" (insigni cuidam prophetae). Just as Naaman
wanted Elisha to cure him by touching his leprosy (2 Kgs 5:1-14), so also the ruler
believed it necessary for Jesus to be physically present. However, Musculus does
not censure the ruler for the weakness of his faith but rather praises him for using
the faith he had. Here, Musculus shows independence from the patristic exegeti-
cal tradition. Although the man's faith was "imperfect" (imperfecta) and "rough"
(rudis), Musculus commends him for making use of "the modest beginnings of
faith and hope ... in order to implore for a work of Christ."79
According to Musculus, Jesus does not condemn the weak faith of the ruler but
promotes and perfects it. Others also believed in Jesus as a prophet, but this faith
was never rejected outright.80 The Samaritan woman, for example, initially believed
Jesus to be a distinguished prophet. Yet far from being annoyed with her weak faith,
Jesus accepted and perfected it, so that she and her fellow citizens ultimately come
to recognize him as the Christ, the savior of the world (Jn 4:42). The ruler from
Capernaum also does not understand who Jesus really is. Yet in his mercy Jesus
draws him to a fuller understanding and thus strengthens his faith. For Musculus,
 42 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

the beginnings of faith are always graciously accepted, never severely rejected: "A
dimly burning wick he does not extinguish on account of his goodness."81

The Response of Christ

Since Musculus wants to stress the goodwill of Jesus toward the ruler, the response
of Jesus presents something of an exegetical challenge for him. Hearing the request
of the desperate father, Jesus answers harshly: "Unless you see signs and wonders
you will not believe." When the ruler reiterates his plea—"Lord, come down be-
fore my child dies"—Jesus offers him hope with the words: "Go, your son lives."
As in the story of the wedding miracle, Jesus' words of censure seem incongruous
with his actions. If Jesus is rebuking the ruler for his request, why does he eventu-
ally grant it? For Musculus, as for other commentators, the solution lies in under-
standing whom Jesus is actually addressing. A careful examination of the words
shows that Jesus' rebuke is not directed primarily to the ruler at all but to the Jews
in general.
Many of the Fathers, however, make no attempt to soften the sting of Jesus'
words. Nonnus simply states that Jesus addressed him with his indignant words.82
Augustine also argues that Jesus' rebuke was directed primarily at the ruler; Jesus
looked into his heart and publicly exposed his lack of faith. When he rebuked the
ruler, it was as if he said: "'Go, your son lives,' don't be a nuisance to me; 'Unless
you see signs and wonders you do not believe.' You want my presence in your home;
I can command even with a word. Do not believe from signs. A foreign centurion
believed that I could do [the deed] by word and he believed before I did [it]. But
you, 'unless you see signs and wonders, you do not believe.'"83
Augustine argues, however, that the rebuke was also intended for the Jews, the
ruler's "fellow citizens." Unlike the Samaritans, who believed in light of Jesus' teach-
ing, the Jews demand a sign in order to believe. Having witnessed the sign, only a
few of the Jews believed, whereas a multitude of Samaritans believed "in light of
his word alone." By his rebuke Jesus indirectly praises the faith of the Samaritans,
a faith that characterizes the true Christian: "We are like to those Samaritans. We
have heard the gospel; we have given assent to the gospel; we have believed in Christ
through the gospel. We have seen no signs, we demand none."84
For Cyril, the rebuke is directed at the ruler as a representative of those whose
minds are still hard. Jesus proclaims that they need miracles in order to penetrate
the darkness of their deception. However, he does not reject them because of their
lack of understanding but through a miracle he teaches them so "that they may
easily be reinstructed unto what is profitable." Jesus shows therefore that he "does
not reject our lack of apprehension; but benefiteth even the stumbling."85
For Chrysostom, Jesus' words certainly indicate that something was wrong with
the ruler's faith. However, he argues that the rebuke was intended primarily to praise
the Samaritans who believed without miracles or to upbraid the unbelief of the
 On the Healing of the Ruler's Son 43

ruler's hometown, Capernaum. To the extent that Jesus was speaking to the ruler,
he was saying in effect: "You have faith that is by no means what it should be, and
you are still disposed to believe as if you were listening to a prophet." Jesus indi-
cates therefore that the ruler was no less ill than the sick boy; the ruler's son suf-
fered with a bodily illness, but the ruler himself was ill in "his state of mind." The
ruler falsely assumed that miracles were intended primarily for the sake of the body.
Jesus challenges this assumption "to show that miracles take place first and fore-
most for the sake of the soul." Yet a faith that requires no miracles, such as that of
the Samaritans, is most pleasing to Jesus.86
In his interpretation of Jesus' rebuke, Musculus endeavors more than any of the
Fathers to protect the dignity of the ruler. Like Chrysostom, he acknowledges that
Jesus' words are partially directed at the ruler. However, he stresses the fact that
Jesus uses a plural form of address in his rebuke: "He does not say: Unless you [sin-
gular] see, but: unless you people see signs and omens, you [plural] will not be-
lieve."87 Thus, Jesus intends primarily to reproach the Jewish people who will not
believe unless they are forced by miraculous signs.
According to Musculus, Jesus also indicates that the Jews were suffering with an
illness much more dangerous than the bodily illness of the ruler's boy—namely
the "sickness of unbelief" (diffidentiae morbus). This sickness is caused by the stub-
bornness of human reason, which opposes faith until finally convinced either by
clear signs or certain arguments. The perversity of human reason infects not only
the Jews, who seek signs, but also the Greeks, who seek wisdom (1 Cor 1:22). Nei-
ther the Jews nor the Greeks recognize that the things of God must first be believed
in order to be understood.88
According to Musculus, Jesus' rebuke also has a permanent relevance for all
believers. By his admonition, Jesus teaches two important lessons. First, he shows
how much he detests unbelief and how he desires an eagerness to believe such as
he found among the Samaritans. Echoing the comments of Augustine and
Chrysostom, Musculus writes: "What he said here concerning the unbelief of
the Jews was certainly done for the praise of the Samaritans." Unlike the Jews, the
Samaritans were not moved to faith by signs but, hearing only the teaching of the
kingdom of God, confessed: "For we have heard for ourselves, and we know that
this is truly the savior of the world" (Jn 4:42). Thus, Jesus teaches the believer to
strive for a faith informed by the Word of God, not by the dictates of human rea-
son: "Therefore, let us ask the Lord to give us to believe with a simple and sincere
heart the word and the gospel of the kingdom of God, that we should not seek with
the Jews signs, nor with the Greeks wisdom of the world, but that with the elect we
might captivate our understanding in obedience to faith, whereby we apprehend
by a firm and certain faith that Christ the crucified is the power and wisdom of
God."89
Second, Jesus shows that spiritual illness is always much more dangerous than
bodily illness. He makes this truth known not by any specific words but rather by
 44 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

the method in which he deals with the ruler. Before Jesus heals the body of the sick
boy, he first addresses the more serious spiritual sickness of the ruler, namely
unbelief (diffidentia). Musculus argues in fact that the boy was sick "by divine coun-
sel" (divino consilio) in order to provide an occasion for the spiritual healing of the
ruler and his household.90
For Musculus, not only do the words and behavior of Jesus teach eternal truths,
but the ruler himself represents truths that have a permanent relevance. First, the
ruler represents the "image of paternal love toward children" (imaginem paterni
animi erga liberos). By nature parents pursue the welfare of their children, a truth
children rarely recognize. In all of the gospel stories, one never reads of a son com-
ing to Jesus on behalf of his father; but in several places, parents come to Jesus on
behalf of their children.91
In addition to the positive image of paternal love, the ruler also represents a
negative "image of corrupt love and affection" (corrupti amoris & affectus imaginem}.
This image is indicated by the ruler's neglect of his son's spiritual needs; he seeks
only a physical healing.92 One sees this corruption of paternal love, Musculus
argues, throughout the gospels: "What parent ever came to the Lord, who said:
'Lord, my son is not endowed with any fear of God, he is not moved by eagerness
for piety, as a result of which I perceive him to be in danger of losing the welfare of
his soul. Please, will you help?' "93 According to Musculus, this distorted paternal
love is so deep-rooted in human nature that it continues to influence even Chris-
tians. It is a shameful fact that parents rarely solicit the prayers of the Church for
the spiritual welfare of their children. Because of the corruption of their love, par-
ents are moved to such piety only when their children are in physical danger.94
Thus, not only was the ruler's faith weak according to Musculus, but his love
was distorted by worldly values. Insofar as Jesus addresses the ruler, however, he
does not rebuke him but rather speaks the words of hope: "Go, your son lives."
Jesus never specifically reprimands the weakness of the ruler's faith: "He could have
said: 'Don't you believe me able to cure even though absent? What is the need that
I should come down with you? Moreover, even if your son should die, don't you
believe me able to restore the dead to life?'"95 Instead, Jesus simply grants the
miracle, which heals not only the boy's bodily sickness but also the spiritual sick-
ness of the ruler and his household.

The Miracle of the Boy's Healing

According to Musculus, the miracle of the boy's healing happens in such a way
that the ruler and his household might have a sure "experience" (experientia) of
the miracle. Initially, neither the ruler nor the servants experience the full impact
of the miracle. The ruler hears Jesus declare his son well, but he believes that Jesus
has seen by prophetic vision the natural recovery of the boy. The servants witness
the sudden recovery, but they have no idea how it has happened. Not until the ruler
 On the Healing of the Ruler's Son 45

questions his servants concerning the time of the boy's recovery do they have a
certain "proof (experimentum) of the power of Jesus' words over sickness and
death. Musculus believes that the ruler's boy in fact died and was restored to life
since Jesus does not say, "Your son is well," but rather, "Your son lives."96
Musculus does not condemn the questioning of the ruler regarding the hour of
recovery but rather praises it as a providential validation of the miracle's occur-
rence: "If the curiosity of the father had not investigated concerning the hour of
the healing, the power of Christ manifested in this boy might have been uncer-
tain."97 Cyril and Chrysostom argue similarly that the ruler's investigation served
to prove the miracle's occurrence.98 Only Augustine condemns the ruler's ques-
tioning as evidence of his unwillingness to believe. Like Thomas, the ruler demands
certain proof of the miraculous, and thus both men deserved Jesus' reprimand: "The
Lord accused him [Thomas] exactly as this royal official. To the latter he said,
'Unless you see signs and wonders, you do not believe.' But to the former he said,
'Because you have seen, you have believed.'"99 Musculus argues however that
Thomas's investigation, like the ruler's, served to make a miraculous event "more
manifest and more certain" (manifestior accentor). Such is the nature of God's truth,
according to Musculus, that the more it is investigated, the more evident it becomes.
Thus, Jesus did not attempt to persuade the ruler of the miracle's occurrence but
rather allowed him to experience the truth of the event itself.100

The Fruit of the Miracle

For Musculus and the Fathers, the obvious result of the miracle was an increase in
faith. Not only the ruler himself but also his whole household ultimately believed.
Musculus, like Chrysostom, argues that the ruler initially believed in Jesus "as in a
prophet and man of God" (tamquam prophetae ac viro dei). Having discovered the
power of Jesus' word, however, the ruler no longer believed in him as a prophet,
"but as the Christ, the son of God and the savior sent into the world." Therefore,
the boy's sickness and death ultimately served as the occasion for the salvation of
his father and household.101
Musculus and Chrysostom both analyze the mechanism by which the ruler and
his household believed. Both argue that the ruler and the servants each possessed
information that could not persuade in isolation, but that, taken together, proved
the occurrence of the miracle. Regarding the servants, Chrysostom states: "Though
they had not been present, nor had they heard Christ speak, nor did they know the
time, upon learning from their master that this was the time they held the evidence
of His power incontestable, and for this reason they themselves believed in Him."102
According to Musculus, without the testimony of his servants, the ruler could not
believe; without the ruler's own testimony, however, the servants would not have
come to faith. God in his wisdom ordered events in such a way that the ruler and
his servants would believe by discovering on their own the truth of the miracle.103
 46 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

CONCLUSION

Musculus presents a spirited case for utilizing the writings of the Church Fathers
in any attempt to explain the meaning of Scripture. The study of the Bible and the
study of the Fathers, he argues, properly go hand in hand. According to Musculus,
few scholars have surpassed the erudition and biblical scholarship expressed in the
patristic writings, and therefore this body of ancient literature represents an
essential resource for the responsible Christian scholar. Certainly, the views of the
Fathers do not represent the last word on any topic. A rejection of their authority,
however, does not mean we should close our ears. For Musculus, the Fathers de-
serve our attention not because they speak unanimously or with the voice of ulti-
mate authority but because of their love of God, sanctity of life, and dedication to
biblical scholarship.
Musculus demonstrated his own eagerness to learn from the Fathers by a life-
time of tireless patristic scholarship. Indeed, in this arena Musculus had few peers
among the Protestant reformers. He cites the Fathers throughout many of his theo-
logical works and felt prepared to battle one of the most distinguished Catholic
theologians of the early sixteenth century, Johann Cochlaeus, on the basis of the
patristic writings.
In his commentary on John, Musculus demonstrates a significant indebtedness
to patristic interpretations. His exegesis certainly does not support the caricature
of the Protestant scholar who, alone in his study with nothing but the Bible and
his own thoughts, pronounces the definitive interpretation, clear to anyone simi-
larly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Musculus not only explicitly cites the interpreta-
tions of the Fathers throughout his John commentary but also echoes patristic
interpretive ideas in places where he does not acknowledge borrowings. Thus, on
the surface Musculus appears to interpret the healing of the ruler's son indepen-
dently of patristic interpretations. But on a deeper level, a level that can only be
seen by a comparison of actual exegesis, Musculus shows a strong reliance on
patristic interpretive ideas, in particular the ideas of Chrysostom.
Chrysostom is known for his propensity to discover in the biblical text moral
maxims for the Christian life, a propensity that Musculus admires and emulates.
In many instances Musculus follows the general outline of Chrysostom's interpre-
tation but adds his own moral application. Thus, in his analysis of Jesus' motives
for returning to Cana, Musculus reiterates Chrysostom's idea: Jesus returned to
strengthen the faith of the people who witnessed the wedding miracle. But Musculus
uses the idea to add his own observation about human nature: because of the cor-
ruption of human nature, people easily lose the "beginnings of heavenly things."
In addressing the question of the ruler's identity, Musculus follows Chrysostom in
arguing that the royal designation is used loosely; the man is royal only insofar as
he serves royalty. Again, Musculus elaborates on this observation to make the prac-
tical suggestion that Christians should always hope for the conversion of their
 On the Healing of the Ruler's Son 47

rulers. In addressing the question of the ruler's motives, Musculus reiterates

Chrysostom's emphasis on the fatherly love expressed by the ruler. But Musculus
uses Chrysostom's idea as a springboard for an extended discussion of the nature
of parental love. Both Musculus and Chrysostom argue that the ruler was no less
sick than his son. For Chrysostom, he is sick in "his state of mind," while for
Musculus he suffers from the "sickness of unbelief." Again, this observation pro-
vides the occasion for an extended discussion by Musculus concerning the nature
of human reason, which so often stands in the way of faith.
These examples and others indicate a basic pattern in Musculus's interpretation
of the healing of the ruler's son: Musculus accepts and adapts the general lines of
Chrysostom's interpretation in order to discuss moral issues of practical impor-
tance to all Christians. Musculus's comments echo those of Cyril and Augustine
only in instances in which they agree with Chrysostom's exegesis, and in the case
of Augustine the points of agreement are infrequent. Certainly Musculus does not
reject Augustine in toto, for in his theological writings he cites and refers to Augus-
tine more than any other Father. Yet while Augustine may be the preeminent theo-
logian for Musculus, Chrysostom is the exegete par excellence.
The crucial point is to recognize that Musculus did not work in an exegetical
vacuum. He shows himself willing to learn from the masters. While Musculus's
hermeneutic assumes the sufficiency of Scripture—scriptura scripturae interpres—
he does not think interpreters should ignore the comments of others. At the same
time, Musculus's commentary is not a mere parroting of the views of others; he
does not simply produce a medieval catena of patristic opinions. As a sophisticated
commentator on Scripture, Musculus takes the middle road: he produces his own
understanding of the meaning of Scripture, an understanding that often develops
from the insights of others.
 THREE

Musculus and the Medieval Commentators

on the Feeding of the Five Thousand

The general relation of the Protestant reformers to medieval theologi-

cal and exegetical traditions is a question that modern scholarship has found dif-
ficult to answer. To a large extent, these difficulties arise from a basic impulse of
the Reformation itself, an impulse to criticize and judge the past. Often when the
Reformers discuss the past, they seem to reject their medieval ecclesiastical and theo-
logical heritage in toto. This rejection of the immediate past stems partly from the
influence of the Renaissance ideal expressed by the slogan "ad fontes!" The true
message of the gospel, they claim, can be uncovered only by jettisoning the accu-
mulations of medieval theology and by returning to the pure biblical and patristic
sources. Partly, however, these negative statements concerning the past result from
the posturing that emerges in the context of heated debate. The Reformers deride
medieval theology because they hold it responsible for producing the worst errors
of Catholicism. Therefore, in order to evaluate the influence of medieval theology
and exegesis on the Reformers, the historian must cut through the posturing of
polemic; the purely negative statements, if read at face value, can blind the histo-
rian to the powerful and often positive influences of medieval thinking on the
Reformers.
Sweeping statements condemning medieval theology are certainly not lacking
in the works of Musculus. Yet a careful reading of his theology and exegesis be-
trays the influence of medieval theological methods and ideas. The main purpose
of this chapter is to characterize Musculus's exegesis vis-a-vis the medieval exegetical
tradition by comparing his comments on John 6:1-15 with a sample of medieval
interpretations of the pericope. I will show that by setting Musculus's comments
against a medieval context, we may gain insight into his exegesis, insight that no
other context can provide. I preface this detailed, narrowly focused comparative
study by addressing two main questions that are broader in scope. First, what was

48
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 49

Musculus's relationship to medieval theology in general? And second, what was

Musculus's attitude toward medieval methods of interpretation—that is, medieval
hermeneutics?

MUSCULUS AND MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY

The biographical sources are completely silent concerning the relationship of

Musculus to medieval theology. Since he was not educated in a university, it is
impossible to point to a particular medieval curriculum that may have exerted
influence on his theological development and understanding. However, a reading
of Musculus's theological magnum opus, the Loci communes sacrae theologiae,
shows clearly that he was familiar with many of the primary works of medieval
theology. While Musculus usually uses these sources negatively—that is, as a foil
for presenting his own positions—he nevertheless demonstrates that he is not will-
ing to ignore medieval theology altogether.
Musculus frequently betrays his impatience with scholastic theology in general.
He refers with disdain to the endless disputations and dialectics of the scholastic
theologians.1 His references to scholastic theology are often prefaced with the words
"the scholastics say" (scholastici dicunt), giving the impression that Musculus has
a generalized and vague understanding of medieval scholastic theology.2 However,
in certain places Musculus demonstrates a more sophisticated familiarity with the
different scholastic schools and with the questions disputed among them. Thus, at
one point he offers a long list of questions that, he argues, are disputed among the
Thomists, Scotists, Occamists, and Albertists.3 In another place he presents an
extended summary of the principal theological questions raised by the Scotists
concerning the incarnation of the Word.4 Although Musculus characterizes these
questions as "the useless and curious subtleties of the Scholastics and Sophists,"
he demonstrates a basic understanding of the important issues in medieval
scholasticism.5
In addition to his general references to scholastic positions, Musculus also cites
specific medieval authorities in the Loci communes. Most of his citations are from
three authors: Peter Lombard, Gabriel Biel, and Bernard of Clairvaux. Like Luther
and Calvin, Musculus shows a genuine affection for the works of Bernard. In all
ten references, Musculus approves of the ideas expressed by the Cistercian abbot.6
Musculus's limited use of Biel, however, is entirely negative; in the context of his
attack on the Mass, he cites Biel's Canonis misse expositio ten times in order to
demonstrate the errors of scholastic theology.7 In a similar fashion, Musculus also
cites Lombard's Sententiae in IV libris distinctae throughout the Loci communes in
order to distinguish his own views.8
Musculus's use of Lombard, however, often has more than a simply negative
function. Frequently, the topics of scholastic theology treated in Lombard's Sen-
 50 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

fences determine the topics, or loci, of Musculus's systematic theology. In certain

places, therefore, Musculus's work resembles a standard literary genre of scholas-
tic theology—namely, a commentary on Lombard's Sentences. Examples of Lom-
bard's influence can be seen in Musculus's treatment of the following topics: "Quae
sint partes poenitentiae"; "De meritis erga Deum"; "An non culpa tantum, sed et
poena remittatur"; "An post mortem quoque remittantur peccata"; "An voluntatis
Dei quaerenda sit causa"; "An voluntas Dei impediri possit"; "Quae sint divinae
dilectionis species"; and "De eo quod scholastici dicunt nescire hominem utrum
amore vel odio dignus sit."9 All of these topics are typically medieval, are culled
from Lombard's Sentences and are thoroughly discussed by Musculus. Under these
topic headings, Musculus frequently describes the scholastic solutions as expressed
in Lombard and then proceeds to dismantle them, offering his own contrasting
views and occasionally using the standard scholastic format of dividing each topic
into a quaestio, objectio, and responsio.10 However, Musculus occasionally finds
Lombard's discussion helpful in a positive sense for framing his own views. For
example, in his treatment of God's will, Musculus cites with approval Lombard's
assertion that the biblical expressions concerning the will of God maybe grouped
into two categories: expressions that describe what God's will is in itself, or strictly
speaking (proprie), and expressions that describe God's will figuratively (secundum
figuram).11 Similarly, in his discussion of penance, Musculus adapts the three parts
outlined by Lombard—namely, compunction of the heart (compunctio cordis),
confession of the mouth (confessio oris), and works of satisfaction (satisfactionis
opera)—in order to express his own three moments: sorrow of the heart (dolor
cordis), changing of the mind (mutatio mentis), and conversion to God (conversio
ad deum).12 Lombard's Sentences is thus an important source for Musculus, not
only as a foil but also as a guide to appropriate topics of discussion and to impor-
tant distinctions within those topics.

MUSCULUS AND MEDIEVAL HERMENEUTICS

In determining Musculus's attitude toward medieval methods of biblical interpre-

tation, we are limited to the few remarks that he makes in the course of his biblical
commentaries. Musculus never produced a systematic discussion of his own
hermeneutical principles, and even in his long section on the Bible in the Loci com-
munes, he does not discuss the rules or methods for discerning the true meaning
of Scripture. However, by examining his occasional statements concerning the use
of allegory and the spiritual level of interpretation, we can achieve at least a rudi-
mentary understanding of his attitude toward medieval hermeneutics.
The most characteristic feature of medieval exegesis is the attempt to explain
the Bible according to different levels of meaning. The assumption of a multiplic-
ity of senses is based on the medieval (and patristic) understanding of the nature
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 51

of the Bible. As an inspired book, the Bible expresses the words and will of God
and thus must consistently edify the Christian reader. Scriptural passages that
appear unedifying on the surface must have a higher, spiritual meaning than the
meaning expressed by the mere words. Even when the literal meaning is inoffensive,
the exegete may appropriately search for the spiritual or allegorical meanings of a
text because the Bible, as a book authored by God, is dense in layers of signification.
Medieval hermeneutical theory usually divides the spiritual meaning of the Bible
into three main levels: the allegorical, the tropological, and the anagogical; each of
these spiritual senses corresponds to a theological virtue. The allegorical meaning,
corresponding to faith, shows what one should believe; the tropological meaning,
corresponding to love, shows the moral principles that should guide one's life; and
the anagogical meaning, corresponding to hope, shows the future or heavenly reali-
ties that the believer anxiously awaits. Medieval exegetes utilize, define, and name
these spiritual layers differently, and they express differing views concerning the
importance of the spiritual meaning versus the literal meaning. Yet all agree that
the exegete may legitimately understand certain passages to express spiritual truths
that lie hidden under the words of the Bible.
Like many Protestant reformers, Musculus is clearly troubled by what he con-
siders the excesses associated with the spiritual interpretation of Scripture. In his
comments on Paul's allegory in Galatians 4:24, Musculus argues that one cannot
defend allegorical exegesis on the basis of Paul's example: "that absurd eagerness
for allegorizing" (praeposterum illud allegorizandi studium) has no defense in an
appeal to Paul's interpretation of the Old Testament.13 Similarly, in his Isaiah com-
mentary, Musculus condemns other expositions he has read in which, "by a con-
tempt for the historical sense, all things are carried directly to the mysteries of the
kingdom of Christ."14 Although the intentions of these commentators are laud-
able, their method is faulty:
Their zeal, although hardly reproachable in itself, nevertheless pours out much dark-
ness on the historical simplicity, and opens the doors for transforming the meaning
of the Scriptures into a thousand forms in accordance with the cleverness of anybody's
intelligence, which to wise persons seems to be more a game than the proper and
sincere exposition of the Scriptures. They err especially in the fact that they suppose
that by this method the mysteries of Christ the Savior are explained, and his king-
dom is illustrated. Thus while they subtly transform everything, they render suspect
all exposition of the Scriptures.15
Musculus clearly does not reject allegorical interpretation altogether, since he
offers allegories in his own exegesis. However, allegorical interpretations should
always be circumscribed by a primary devotion to the historical or literal sense.
Allegorization is permissible, he argues, only when the historical sense itself clearly
suggests the propriety of such an interpretation. Those who readily convert every-
thing into allegories may be condemned because they do so "without the leading
of history" (sine ductu historiae).16 The interpreter must always cautiously consider
 52 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

whether the biblical text itself demands a spiritual reading: "One should not lightly
flee to allegories in explaining the Scriptures... unless evident necessity should
compel it."17
Unfortunately, Musculus does not clearly express what criteria should be used
to determine this "evident necessity." However, he hints at these criteria in his
explanation of the meaning of John 5:39: "You search the Scriptures, because you
think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of me."
Certain parts of Scripture, Musculus argues, require a special "searching" (scrutatio)
such as that mentioned by Jesus. This searching takes place "whenever the very
words of Scripture are inspected more deeply beyond the sense of the letter, so that
the sense of the spirit may be drawn out, a thing which should be done in parables,
allegories, metaphors, and mystical figures."18 Here, Musculus argues that a spiri-
tual interpretation is appropriate in places where the literal meaning of a text, by
its grammar and context, shows itself in fact to be a spiritual meaning. Yet in addi-
tion to these places, Musculus argues that there are "some things in the Scriptures
that require a special searching of three kinds." The first kind of searching is a
christological reading of the Scriptures: one should examine a biblical text more
deeply in order to see how it relates to and reveals Christ. Musculus's second method
of searching corresponds to the medieval tropological interpretation of the Bible.
Its purpose is "that we might be established in zeal of piety and that we might be
prepared for the good works which God has prepared so that we might walk in
them." The third searching, corresponding to anagogical interpretation, is the type
of exposition mentioned in Romans 15:4—namely, an exposition that nurtures
hope.19
In his commentaries, Musculus utilizes primarily the moral or tropological
method of spiritual exegesis. He suggests, in fact, that the ultimate goal of the com-
mentator should be to expose the moral applications suggested by the biblical text.20
By the structure of his commentaries, Musculus also highlights the tropological
reading of the Bible; to each section of textual "explanatio," he appends a section
usually entitled "observatio" or "notanda," in which he discusses the moral max-
ims that may be derived from the text.21 Although Musculus occasionally intro-
duces allegorical or anagogical interpretations, his commentaries are dominated
by tropological exposition. The interpreter, he argues, must expose this level of
meaning because many people who read the Bible "will cling to the shell of it and
will not be able to reach the sweetness of the kernel."22

THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND (jN 6:1-15)

In order to provide a medieval context for Musculus's interpretation of the fourth

gospel, we must select appropriate medieval exegesis for comparison, a selection
made difficult by the large number of medieval John commentaries. Even if we limit
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 53

ourselves to the commentaries that were available to Musculus in printed editions,

we find at least fifteen possible candidates for comparison.23 As indicated by the
number of printed editions, two commentaries were very popular in the late fif-
teenth and early sixteenth centuries: the "postils" of the Franciscan Nicholas of Lyra
(d. 1349) and the "enarrationes" of the Bulgarian archbishop Theophylact (ca.
1050-1108).24 These two commentators are an obvious choice for this study for
an even more important reason: they represent the only medieval commentators
on John whom Musculus actually cites in the course of his own commentary.25 In
addition to these two, I have chosen the commentaries of the Dominicans Tho-
mas Aquinas (1225-1274) and Hugh of St. Cher (ca. 1195-1263), who, judging by
the number of printed editions, followed only Lyra and Theophylact in popular-
ity.26 I have also chosen the commentary of the Carthusian doctor ecstaticus, Denis
of Leeuwen (1402/3-1471), which was reissued during the time Musculus was
working on his John commentary.27 Finally, in order to include early medieval
exegesis, I have chosen the commentary of the Benedictine monk, Rupert of Deutz
(ca. 1075-1129), and the Glossa ordinaria, which was compiled in the early twelfth
century at the cathedral school in Laon.28
This comparative study will take place on two basic levels. First, I compare the
literal exegesis of Musculus and the medieval commentators on four basic segments
of the miracle story. Second, I compare the way these commentators interpret the
story for its spiritual significance on the three main levels defined by medieval
hermeneutics: tropology, allegory, and anagogy. The sheer length of Musculus's
comments precludes an exhaustive treatment of his exegesis. Stretching to nearly
thirty densely printed folio pages, his interpretation of these fifteen verses dwarfs
even the most garrulous of the medieval commentators. Therefore I have high-
lighted the parts of his exegesis that provide the best points of comparison with
the medieval interpretations.

The Literal Interpretation

The Setting (Jn 6:l-5a)

John's account of the miracle begins with Jesus crossing the Sea of Galilee some-
time around the Passover celebration. Followed by a large number of people who
have seen previous signs, Jesus climbs a mountain, where he sits with his disciples.
From this vantage point, Jesus notices the crowd of followers who approach.
The primary exegetical problem in John's account of the setting of the miracle
is its chronology. For Musculus and for certain medieval commentators, the prob-
lem emerges with the first two words of the narrative: "post haec" (after these
things). In the previous chapter, Jesus is in Jerusalem during a "feast of the Jews,"
traditionally understood as Pentecost, and yet the miracle of the feeding of the five
thousands takes place around the time of the Passover. Therefore, a considerable
 54 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

amount of time seems to have elapsed between chapters 5 and 6. The phrase "post
haec," however, suggests a smooth chronological transition between the events of
the two chapters. In traditional exegesis, the problem is compounded by the at-
tempt to harmonize the chronology of the miracle with the synoptic gospels.
While many medieval commentators are uninterested in the chronological prob-
lems presented by John's account, Rupert of Deutz and Hugh of St. Cher attempt
to resolve these difficulties. Rupert suggests that one must read the words "post
haec abiit" (after these things he departed) not as a prepositional phrase but rather
as an adverbial construction: "post abiit" (later he departed). Clearly, he argues,
Jesus could not have crossed the lake from Jerusalem, where the events of chapter
5 take place. Furthermore, since the Passover is "at hand," nearly a year has elapsed
since Jesus was in Jerusalem. To discover what Jesus did in the course of that year,
Rupert argues that one must consult the other gospels, in particular the gospel of
Matthew.29
While Hugh is familiar with the type of solution offered by Rupert, he thinks
the chronological difficulty is better solved by an understanding of the miracle of
the feeding as a "recapitulation" (recapitulatio). He argues that the healing of the
paralytic in chapter 5, which took place during Pentecost, must have followed the
miracle of the healing in chapter 6, which took place during the time of the Pass-
over. Therefore, according to Hugh, John has interrupted the chronological se-
quence of events in his gospel in order to recapitulate the story of the feeding of
the five thousand.30
In his discussion of the chronological problem, Musculus makes no use of Hugh's
solution. His comments, however, closely resemble the remarks of Rupert. It is not
necessary, he argues, to understand the miracle of the feeding to have occurred
immediately after the events of the preceding chapter. Musculus accepts the tradi-
tional exegetical assumption that the paralytic was healed during the feast of Pen-
tecost. Therefore, like Rupert, he argues that "approximately the space of a year
came in between." The activities of Jesus during that year are passed over by John
but are related by the other evangelists. Thus, for Musculus the phrase "post haec"
is intended to remind the reader not of the events of the preceding chapter but of
the events that John has omitted and that are related in the synoptic gospels. It is
impossible to read the transition between chapters 5 and 6 as a continuous narra-
tive, "unless you are willing to take away the authority of truth from the other
evangelists."31
Musculus continually refers to the other gospels in his exposition of the feeding
miracle in order not only to resolve the different accounts but also to provide
information and details in his exposition of John's narrative. Thus, in his analysis
of Jesus' reasons for crossing the lake, Musculus argues that the evidence from the
other gospels demonstrates that several different factors motivated Jesus to make
the journey. Musculus's discussion of this traditional exegetical topic closely cor-
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 55

responds to previous medieval exposition, especially the comments of Hugh and

Denis, who, like Musculus, present multiple explanations of Jesus' motives.
For Musculus, the first motive behind Jesus' retreat was the need to withdraw
from the savagery of Herod, who had just executed John the Baptist. This explana-
tion, which is also offered by Rupert, Hugh, and Denis, emerges from Matthew's
account, in which Jesus hears of John's execution and immediately retires to a de-
serted place (Mt 14:13).32 Second, from Mark's gospel (6:31), Musculus argues that
Jesus also crossed the lake in order to provide a time of rest and quiet for his dis-
ciples, who were weary from their efforts in preaching the gospel throughout Gali-
lee. Among the medieval expositors, only Denis joins Musculus in assigning this
Markan motive to Jesus' retreat.33 Third, Musculus argues that Jesus crossed the lake
in order to avoid the Passover feast in Jerusalem. Here, Musculus cites the com-
ments of Cyril of Alexandria, who argues that Jesus did not want to provoke the
Jews in Jerusalem before the time of his passion. Denis and Lyra also argue that Jesus
was avoiding the Jewish leaders in order to forestall his own death. Thomas and
Hugh, basing their remarks on the comments of Chrysostom, argue in a similar vein
that Jesus was attempting to appease the Jews after infuriating them with his harsh
words. Similarly, Theophylact states that Jesus, by withdrawing, was "soothing"
their anger.34 Musculus's fourth and final explanation of Jesus'
motives is without medieval counterpart. He argues that Jesus crossed the lake in
order to provide the occasion for the future miracle. Musculus emphasizes that the
miracle of the feeding did not take place by happenstance. Rather, everything that
Jesus did "was carried out by a certain fixed and determined superintendence."35
By assigning multiple causes to Jesus' retreat, Musculus engages in a typically
medieval exegetical approach. John's narrative offers no explicit explanation of the
reasons for Jesus' crossing of the lake. But by consulting the other gospels, the exe-
getical tradition, and his own theological presuppositions, Musculus provides the
reader with a detailed analysis of the various factors that prompted Jesus to cross
the Sea of Galilee.
A similar approach is at work in Musculus's analysis of the motives that prompted
the multitude of people to follow Jesus. Here, however, John's gospel indicates the
reason: they followed Jesus "because they were seeing the signs which he was per-
forming on those who were sick" (Jn 6:2). Although the text seems to suggest a
single motivating factor, Musculus follows a general impulse in the medieval com-
mentary tradition to assign various motives to the people who were following Jesus.
For Musculus and the medieval commentators, the signs motivated people in dif-
ferent ways to follow Jesus. That is to say, the fact that they all followed because of
the signs does not indicate unanimity of purpose. In fact, Rupert argues that some
of the people did not follow because of the signs. Otherwise, how would one under-
stand Jesus' statement: "You seek me, not because you saw signs" (Jn 6:26)? There-
fore, Rupert states that the multitude of people followed him "with various dispo-
 56 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

sitions" (diversa mente).36 Theophylact concedes that they followed because of the
signs, but he argues that "the better" are those who follow Jesus on
account of his teaching. Similarly, Thomas states that the "less perfect and less
perceptive" followed because of seeing the miracles, while the "better disposed"
followed Jesus because of his teaching.37
Musculus argues that some of the people were indeed following in order to hear
Jesus' teaching. These people were affected by the signs, but in a particular way:
they saw the signs, concluded that Jesus was sent from God, and therefore followed
him in order to hear divine instruction. A second group of people, according to
Musculus, were motivated by base curiosity. They saw the signs and followed in
order "to observe and hear unusual and new things" (res insolentes ac novas spectare
audire). Finally, some people saw the signs and followed Jesus in order to obtain
bodily healing, either for themselves or for loved ones. Thus, Musculus argues, the
disposition of those who followed Jesus was "varied" (varius), even though they
all followed because of the signs.38
In dividing the multitude of people into three main groups, Musculus may be
following the lead of Lyra, who offers precisely the same three divisions: those
wanting healing, those desiring instruction, and the curious who simply want to
see something new.39 Hugh and Denis also mention these three groups but add
two others: some, such as the Pharisees, followed in order to trap Jesus in his words,
and others followed in order to be fed (bodily) by Jesus. Denis adds one further
motivating factor: "Because the Lord Jesus was also very handsome according to
the body and very eloquent. .. it is very likely that many were following him being
delighted by his appearance and eloquence."40 By dividing the crowd into various
groups of people motivated by different factors, Denis, Hugh, and Lyra exhibit a
typically medieval approach. Although it is impossible to prove their influence on
Musculus's interpretation, it is important to note that his commentary exhibits not
only the same medieval divisio method of exegesis but also the same exegetical ideas.
Further evidence that Musculus is influenced by Lyra emerges from his discus-
sion of the quality of the signs Jesus was performing. John's gospel states that the
people followed because of the signs Jesus was doing "on those who were sick" (Jn
6:2). This description prompts Lyra to discuss the special quality of Jesus' signs
compared to spectacles produced by magic. Lyra concedes that "some curious and
useless things are indeed produced well by the magical arts, as for example that
statues speak and similar such things." However, only the kind of signs that Jesus
performed, healings that led people back to God, were produced by divine power.41
Like Lyra, Musculus states that John specifies the kind of signs Jesus was per-
forming in order to distinguish them from useless counterfeits. According to
Musculus, if one observes in signs nothing but "unusualness and novelty of things"
(insolentiam ac rerum novitatem), then one may easily be deceived by the signs of
false prophets. It is necessary, he argues, to employ sound judgment in order to
determine "what kind of signs may be appropriate to mockers and scoffers and what
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 57

kind may be appropriate to the savior sent from God." The signs of Jesus, he
argues, presented "a certain external and visible exemplar of heavenly grace and
salvation." They were not done simply in order to produce astonishment but rather
to heal the sick and to bring glory to God.42
The signs of unclean spirits bear an entirely different stamp, according to
Musculus. They serve curiosity and produce amazement but are ultimately unprof-
itable. In contrast to the authentic signs done by God's power, these counterfeit
signs are (like Lyra's talking statues) laughable, a point Musculus drives home with
his discussion of the signs attributed to Muhammad. While Jesus healed the sick,
cast out demons, and raised the dead, Muhammad "understood the howling of a
wolf, heard a shoulder of a sheep on a table telling him that he should not eat it
because it contained poison, and. .. split the globe of the moon and then repaired
it." The signs of Muhammad and other false prophets are obvious, according to
Musculus, because they serve no higher purpose; they simply provoke wonder and
astonishment.43
When Musculus discusses the quality of Jesus' signs, he reiterates a traditional
exegetical observation. Yet he does not simply parrot the views of previous exposi-
tors but rather expands and elaborates the topic in order to give his own distinc-
tive analysis. Similarly, in his discussion of the mountain, Musculus is not plow-
ing new exegetical ground. Yet his comments, while assuming the context of
previous exposition, offer their own unique insights when seen in that context.
For most medieval commentators, Jesus' ascension of the mountain is signifi-
cant primarily on an allegorical or mystical level of interpretation. As will be later
shown, this level of interpretation also plays an important part in Musculus's own
interpretation of the mountain. Literally, however, the mountain is interpreted by
medieval commentators as a place suitable for teaching (Lyra, Theophylact, and
Denis) or for rest and refreshment (Thomas).44 While John's gospel simply states
that Jesus sat on the mountain with his disciples, the medieval commentators
assume that Jesus must have been teaching them, as was his custom. Theophylact
states that Jesus wanted to communicate certain mystical teachings to his disciples.
Therefore, he argues, it was suitable for Jesus to seek a place free from noise and
activity.45
According to Musculus, Jesus' main purpose in ascending the mountain was to
provide a place of rest and quiet for his disciples. For this purpose, a mountain
was well-suited, since it offered shady places against the heat of the hot desert sun.
In fact, Musculus argues that Jesus knew of certain hidden caves that would ide-
ally provide his disciples with rest and refreshment. In his wisdom, Jesus foresaw
that the desert plains were entirely unsuited to this purpose; if they had settled there,
they would have been far too conspicuous and the multitude would have converged
on them from every direction. Therefore, Musculus states, Jesus headed for "the
recesses of this mountain" (montis huius recessus).46
While he concedes that John does not indicate what Jesus and the disciples were
 58 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

doing on the mountain, Musculus believes that their activity can be inferred from
John's use of the word "sitting." This word, he argues, signifies rest, and therefore
one must assume that Jesus was providing "refreshing nourishment" (alimonia
refocillans) to the disciples. Musculus cites Mark 6:31 to demonstrate that the dis-
ciples were in need of bodily nourishment: "For there were many who were com-
ing and going and they did not even have time for eating." Therefore, "if he led
them out into the desert so that they might rest and acquire food, who can doubt
that they were eating food on the mountain?" Musculus also assumes that Jesus
was providing spiritual nourishment for the disciples—that is, "he was renewing
their minds and forming them for the future labors of the kingdom of God." While
he concedes that gospel text does not explicitly indicate that Jesus was teaching
the disciples, Musculus argues that "it is presumed from the nature of Christ, who,
according to his custom, always instructed them in the knowledge of the kingdom
of God."47
Although Musculus treats the topic of the mountain much more thoroughly than
most medieval commentators, his comments demonstrate how the observations
and questions of medieval exegesis often dictate the basic course of his own inter-
pretation. Similarly, in his discussion of Jesus' apparent avoidance of the Passover
celebration, Musculus assumes and expands upon a traditional medieval exegeti-
cal topic. Since Jesus is on a remote mountain during the time of the Passover, he
seems to violate the law that prescribes attendance of all men in Jerusalem during
the celebration. A standard component of the medieval exegetical tradition is the
attempt to explain Jesus' violation of the law.
Nearly every medieval commentator solves this problem in the manner expressed
succinctly by Denis: "For just as he often observed legal things, in having to show
himself a true man under the law, so sometimes he disregarded it, showing himself
to be true God and legislator above the law."48 In addition to this solution,
Theophylact, Thomas, and Hugh add a further explanation: Jesus was showing by
his avoidance of the Passover that the ceremonies of the law were about to end.49
Lyra contributes a third solution to the problem, arguing that Jesus was legally
excused from Passover attendance since the Jews were seeking to kill him.50
Musculus, like the medieval interpreters, argues that Jesus did not entirely dis-
regard the precepts of the law. Jesus had already gone to Jerusalem many times "lest
he should appear to despise the law of God" (ne videretur legem dei contemnere).
In an argument similar to Lyra's, Musculus states that it was proper on this occa-
sion for Jesus to stay away from Jerusalem since the Jewish leaders now wanted to
kill him. Jesus did not want to provoke his enemies before the proper time. For
Musculus, however, the more troubling question is one that is absent from the
medieval commentaries. Why, he asks, did Jesus not encourage the following multi-
tude to return to Jerusalem in order to fulfill their obedience to the law? To this
question, Musculus offers two solutions. First, since John states clearly that the
Passover was "at hand," it is possible that enough time remained for the people to
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 59

return to Jerusalem for the Passover feast. After the miracle, Jesus may indeed have
encouraged them to go. Second, Musculus argues that it would have been improper
for Christ, who was the goal and fulfillment of the law, to send the people back to
the shadowy figures of the law. The people were in fact fulfilling the true intention
of the law by following Jesus: "In what way were they acting against the law of God
and not rather fulfilling it, who, having left behind that shadowy and figurative
Passover, were following Christ the true Passover?"51

The Dialogue between Jesus, Philip, and Andrew (Jn 6:5b-9)

According to John's narrative, after Jesus sees the approaching multitude he "tests"
his disciple Philip by asking him: "Where are we to buy bread, that these may eat?"
Philip answers that even a large sum of money (two hundred denarii) could not
provide enough food to satisfy such a huge crowd. Another disciple, Andrew, then
intrudes upon the dialogue with the observation that a certain boy is in possession
of five barley loaves and two fish. Yet such meager provisions, Andrew notes, hardly
amount to anything for such a large number of people.
The literal interpretation of this dialogue in medieval exegesis may be distilled
into its response to two central questions: First, what does it mean for Jesus to "test"
someone, and why does he single out Philip for this particular test? And second,
what do the statements of Philip and Andrew indicate about their respective dis-
positions? These same questions are assumed by Musculus in his discussion of the
dialogue between Jesus and the disciples. However, Musculus expands and devel-
ops both the questions and the answers of medieval exegesis in order to address
the themes and issues that are of particular importance to him.
The medieval interpreters agree that Jesus does not test Philip in order to learn
something. Indeed, John himself states plainly that Jesus "knew what he was in-
tending to do" (verse 6). Since any limitation of Jesus' knowledge is excluded a
priori by the medieval commentators, they assume that the testing of Philip is
not for Jesus' benefit but rather for the benefit of others. Thus, in medieval exege-
sis the test has two primary purposes. First, medieval commentators (Rupert,
Theophylact, Hugh, Thomas, Denis) argue that the test was a pedagogical device
used by Jesus in order to instruct Philip and the other disciples.52 Rupert states that
Jesus was acting just as a benevolent teacher who sometimes questions a pupil, not
because the teacher doubts the pupil's ignorance but because he wants to capture
the attention of the pupil, who will then learn more effectively.53 Some medieval
commentators (Theophylact, Hugh, Thomas, Denis) argue that Jesus singled out
Philip for the test because he was more in need of instruction than the other dis-
ciples. Philip's ignorance is demonstrated, according to these interpreters, by his
request of Jesus in John 14:8: "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."54
Denis, however, suggests that Jesus also tested Philip because of a special love and
friendship that existed between the two.55 The second purpose of the test in medi-
 60 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

eval exegesis is Jesus' desire to intensify the impact on the disciples and crowd of
the impending miracle. The response of Philip and Andrew has the effect of pub-
licizing the lack of any human means to supply the needed victuals. Therefore, Jesus'
miracle would, according to Theophylact, Hugh, and Lyra, appear all the more
evident and memorable.56
Like the medieval commentators, Musculus is quick to assert that Jesus' test of
Philip was not for his own benefit since it would be impious to suggest his igno-
rance of future contingencies. In Musculus's interpretation, the test was for the
benefit of others, serving both to instruct the disciples and to publish the impend-
ing miracle. Although Musculus presents the same two purposes of the test that
are found in medieval exegesis, he raises more questions, gives more observations,
and offers a more detailed analysis than is found in most medieval commentaries.
In his discussion of the pedagogical purpose of Jesus' test, Musculus explains,
unlike the medieval commentators, why the instruction was needed. The disciples,
he argues, were suffering with the "sickness of unbelief" (morbum diffidentiae). By
his test Jesus was exposing this sickness and thereby preparing their minds for the
future miracle. In addition, the disciples needed to recognize that the situation was
quite beyond their ability. Philip, Musculus argues, was no more unbelieving than
any of the other disciples. He was simply "appointed by the Lord" (ordinatum a
domino) to serve as the conduit of Jesus' instruction to all of the disciples: "It must
not be supposed that by that testing he had consideration only of Philip. In the
one, he tested all, in the one he exercised the souls of all for the future miracle." In
fact, says Musculus, Jesus was employing a clever pedagogical device in directing
his words to Philip. Instead of directly putting them all to shame, he "corrects what
had to be corrected silently in their souls."57
Like the medieval commentators, Musculus argues that Jesus tested the disciples
so that the ensuing miracle would be more evident both to the disciples and to the
multitude of followers. By eliciting the responses of Philip and Andrew, Jesus in
effect publicizes the fact that the disciples are not equipped to feed the crowd. Jesus
therefore dispels any suspicions of trickery concerning the impending miracle. By
testing the disciples Jesus also reveals, according to Musculus, a pattern of how God
deals with his people. God often intensifies periods of trials and testing in order to
highlight the glory of divine liberation and salvation. The servitude of the Israel-
ites was intensified in Egypt before they were divinely rescued. Similarly, Jesus tested
his disciples so that his miraculous assistance "might be imprinted on their souls"
(animis illorum infigeretur). 58
For Musculus the responses of Philip and Andrew have both a negative and a
positive function, corresponding to the two purposes of the test. Negatively, their
responses reveal the unbelief of the disciples, while positively they serve to mag-
nify appreciation for Jesus' miracle. In their negative function, Musculus argues
that no distinction should be made between the responses of Philip and Andrew;
both are spoken in unbelief. In this argument Musculus opposes the medieval
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 61

commentators who argue (following Chrysostom) that Andrew demonstrates more

faith than Philip. For these commentators, Philip exhibits no understanding or
anticipation of a miraculous remedy. Andrew, on the other hand, remembers the
miracle performed by Elisha in which twenty barley loaves were multiplied to feed
a hundred people (2 Kgs 4:42-44). While Andrew suspects that Jesus might per-
form a similar miracle and thus exhibits more faith than Philip, he errs in assum-
ing the necessity of a ratio similar to Elisha's—namely, twenty loaves per hundred
people.59
Musculus flatly rejects this distinction of the responses of Philip and Andrew.
He argues that all of the disciples heard Philip's response, and yet none of them
stepped forward to remind him of Jesus' power. Therefore, Andrew's statement
expresses no more faith than does Philip's. Neither Philip, Andrew, nor any of the
other disciples recognized and believed that Jesus could remedy the situation by
the power of his word alone. Musculus also argues that no distinction can be made
between Philip and Andrew on the basis of the fact that Andrew is identified as
"one of his disciples" while Philip is not identified as such. However, Musculus is
so uneasy about this possible distinction that he emends the Greek text by adding
the word The text of verse 8, he argues, should actually read as such:
This reading would implicitly include Philip
as a disciple by designating Andrew as "yet another one of his disciples." Musculus
makes this textual emendation not on the basis of known variant readings but sim-
ply on his assumption that the word may have been omitted "through the sleepi-
ness of copyists" (per librariorum somnolentiam). But according to Musculus one
cannot exclude Philip from the company of disciples, even on the basis of the
unemended text, just as one cannot exclude Peter on the basis of Mark 16:7: "Go,
tell his disciples and Peter."60
For Musculus the responses of Philip and Andrew function positively to estab-
lish the unambiguous occurrence of a miracle. Philip declares that they do not have
enough money to remedy the situation, and Andrew declares that they do not have
enough food. Therefore when Jesus provides the needed victuals, no one could
doubt how it happened. The unambiguous character of the miracle is strength-
ened by noting that Andrew speaks "through diminution" (per diminutionem) when
describing the boy s fish: ("and two little fish"). According to
Musculus, John the Evangelist purposely uses this expression "lest we should think
that these fish were huge, of the kind that are often caught in the sea."61
For Musculus, the responses of the disciples are important for the knowledge
and illumination of Jesus' miracle primarily because they exhibit the judgment of
reason. Here, Musculus engages in an extended discourse on the role of human
reason that is quite unlike anything found in the medieval commentaries. With-
out the judgment of reason, Musculus argues, the works of God would not be seen
for what they truly are. In the case of this miracle, human reason needed to judge
that five thousand people could not possibly be fed with two hundred denarii, much
 62 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

less with five loaves. Only when reason makes such a judgment can one be led to a
true knowledge of divine power. Therefore, by testing the disciples, Jesus was elic-
iting the judgment of human reason in order to lead them to faith: "And for this
reason the miracles were displayed, so that with human reason being led into be-
wilderment and wonder, he might make a place for the knowledge of divine power
and faith."62 Musculus gives an extended review of biblical figures who, faced with
the works of God, judged such works to be utterly impossible. In his review, Philip
and Andrew find themselves in the distinguished company of Sarah, Moses, Zach-
arias, and the Virgin Mary, who all make proper use of their reason in order to
advance in faith. Musculus concludes, therefore, that the judgment of reason "is
not extinguished in the believing, but remains unshaken, and is used for this pur-
pose, that it might serve the admiration of the works of God."63

The Miracle (Jn 6:10-13)

On the literal level of interpretation, John's description of the miracle raises few
exegetical difficulties. Having given instructions for the people to recline on the
ground, Jesus offers a prayer of thanksgiving and distributes the bread and fish to
the people. When everyone is sated, the disciples obey Jesus' order to gather up all
of the leftover pieces, which fill twelve baskets. For the medieval commentators
and for Musculus, this description of the miracle has its primary significance in
what it represents allegorically or spiritually and in what it teaches morally or
tropologically. In the literal exposition of the miracle, there are essentially four
topics of exegetical discussion. First, why does John mention only men in his num-
bering of the crowd? Second, why does Jesus give thanks for the food? Third, does
Jesus himself distribute the food, or does he commission the disciples to distribute
it? And fourth, what is the purpose and significance of the leftovers?
The medieval commentators who deal with the first question (Theophylact,
Thomas, Lyra, Denis) argue unanimously that John does not exclude women and
children from the scene of the miracle. Denis even suggests that the number of
women and children probably exceeded the number of men. In numbering the
multitude as five thousand men, John is following the Hebrew custom of taking a
census by the number of men who are at least twenty years old (Nm 1:3).64 In
addition to this argument, Thomas suggests that only the men are mentioned "be-
cause only men can be completely instructed."65 Like the medieval commentators,
Musculus argues that women and children participated in eating the food that Jesus
miraculously multiplied. Their presence is undeniable since Matthew specifically
mentions them (Mt 14:21). The numbering of five thousand men, Musculus ex-
plains, is simply due to Jewish custom.66
For Musculus and the medieval commentators, Jesus' offering of thanksgiving
has its obvious tropological application. The prayer, however, troubles medieval
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 63

exegetes because it seems to suggest that Jesus was in need of divine assistance. Thus,
Hugh asks why Jesus prayed on this occasion when he did not pray before even
greater miracles, such as when he calmed the sea and raised the dead. Summariz-
ing the comments of Chrysostom, Hugh argues that Jesus did not need external
divine assistance to perform miracles. Since he performed other miracles without
praying, he obviously had the authority and power to accomplish them. There-
fore, when Jesus prayed before performing a miracle, he did so in order to instruct
his audience that he was not in opposition to God.67 Thomas and Theophylact also
argue that Jesus was not praying for his own sake but in order to show the people
that he had come according to the will of God. Jesus performed greater miracles
without praying, notes Theophylact, when there was no crowd of observers need-
ing instruction.68 According to Lyra, Jesus sometimes performed miracles by a
simple command in order to demonstrate his own power and authority. But some-
times he prayed in order to show that he was not accomplishing his miracles by
the demonic magical arts.69
For Musculus, Jesus' prayer is troubling, not because it suggests that Jesus was
interceding for divine assistance but rather because it suggests that he did not pos-
sess all things equally with the Father. Therefore Musculus frames his question
differently than the medieval commentators: How was it fitting, he asks, for Jesus
to give thanks to the Father, "since all things are equally his and the Father's, and
he is of the same power and honor with the Father?" The solution to this question,
according to Musculus, lies not in understanding the prayer as a pedagogical
medium but rather in properly distinguishing the two natures of Christ: "I respond:
if you consider only the divine nature in Christ, you will not discover by what rea-
son it was fitting for Christ to give thanks to the Father."70 But if one considers the
human nature in Christ, argues Musculus, his giving of thanks appears appropri-
ate. By a syllogistic form of reasoning, Musculus demonstrates his point in the
following manner. As a man, Jesus was subject to temptations. Since he was sub-
ject to temptations, it was appropriate for him to seek assistance from God through
prayer. If it was appropriate to seek assistance through prayer, it was obviously fit-
ting for him to return thanks for the assistance he received. Musculus offers an
extended discussion of the proper understanding of the two natures of Christ and
closes his argument with a long quotation from Augustine's treatment of the same
topic in the Enchiridion ad Laurentium.71
The third exegetical topic in the medieval commentaries centers on the ques-
tion of how Jesus distributes the food to the crowd. In the synoptic gospels, Jesus
gives the food to the disciples, who then distribute it to the reclining multitude.
Yet in John's account, no mention is made of the disciples' role in the distribu-
tion; Jesus appears to act independently in passing out the victuals. The medieval
interpreters smooth this discrepancy simply by reading John's account in the light
of the synoptic accounts. John has merely omitted a detail that is furnished by the
 64 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. According to Thomas, Jesus maybe credited
with distributing the food, even though he accomplishes it through others: "It says
here that he distributed it because in a way he himself does what he does by means
of others."72 For Theophylact, however, no discrepancy exists between John's and
the synoptics' accounts because his version of John's gospel contains a variant read-
ing of verse 11, which harmonizes the Johannine account with the other gospels.73
Because Musculus utilizes the same reading of verse 11 as Theophylact, he is not
faced with the problem of harmonization that confronts the medieval interpreters
using the Vulgate. Musculus follows the lead not only of Theophylact but also of
Erasmus, who uses the variant reading in his translation of the New Testament and
who justifies this reading in his Annotationes.74
The fourth topic in the literal exposition of the miracle concerns the purpose
and significance of the twelve baskets of leftover food. The overwhelming abun-
dance of leftover food invites the suspicion of extravagance on Jesus' part. Against
this suspicion, Theophylact, Hugh, and Thomas state that the excess was not a
gaudy, ostentatious display of power. Rather, they argue that Jesus supplied the
abundant amount in order to confirm the reality of the miracle. The existence of
visible and tangible leftover food would destroy any suspicion of mass delusion on
the part of the crowd; the people had really been sated and had not just imagined
it.75 Second, Rupert and Denis argue that the excess food was produced for feed-
ing the poor at a later time.76 In a similar vein, Lyra notes that in carrying the ex-
cess food to those who had not been present, the disciples were also able to publi-
cize effectively the miracle that had taken place.77 Third, Jesus produced the
excess food especially for the sake of the disciples, whose faith needed strengthen-
ing. Theophylact, Hugh, Thomas, and Lyra argue that twelve baskets of food were
gathered not by chance but by divine arrangement. The truth of the miracle has a
powerful impact on the mind of each disciple because each carries the evidence of
the miracle in his own hands. It was important for the future teachers of the whole
world to have the miracle impressed upon their memories. Hugh notes that Jesus
himself confirms this purpose of the leftover food in Matthew 16:9 when he re-
minds the disciples of the baskets they carried.78
In his discussion of the leftover food, Musculus essentially reiterates the first and
third purposes discussed by the medieval commentators. The excess food, he
argues, served first to illustrate in a conspicuous manner the truth of the miracle
to all who had eaten. Second, "by divine arrangement" (divina dispositione) each
disciple carries his own basket of food so that each disciple would see with his own
eyes and carry with his own hands "the most clear evidence of the displayed miracle"
(apertissimum aediti miraculi testimonium). If the crowd had eaten all of the food,
the miracle would have been easily forgotten. Therefore, in order to strengthen their
faith and to place the miracle firmly in their memories, Jesus arranges for each
disciple to carry a basket of the miraculous food.79
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 65

The Effects of the Miracle (]n 6:14-15)

In John's narrative, the miracle of the feeding produces two primary effects, each
of which generates significant discussion by medieval commentators. First, the
people proclaim Jesus to be "truly the prophet who is to come into the world."
Second, the people intend to force Jesus to be their king, an intention Jesus thwarts
by withdrawing once again to the mountain. Medieval exegetes raise several ques-
tions in their interpretation of these effects of the miracle. Does the proclamation
of Jesus as the prophet constitute a true confession of faith? In what sense may Jesus
rightly be called a prophet? What were the people's motives in the attempt to
establish Jesus' kingship? Finally, why does Jesus avoid the proclamation of his king-
ship by slipping away to the mountain? Does he deny that he is their rightful king?
These same questions are raised by Musculus and provide the framework for his
exposition of the miracle's effects.
The proclamation of Jesus as a prophet is analyzed differently in medieval ex-
egesis. At one extreme, the Gloss argues that this confession was entirely inappro-
priate. The people should have confessed him to be God, but because of the weak-
ness of their faith, they merely confer a prophetic dignity on Jesus.80 On the other
hand, Lyra argues that the confession was completely worthy of Jesus; the people
were confessing him to be the true Christ. They were not putting Jesus on an equal
footing with the other prophets but were recognizing the fulfillment of the proph-
ecy in Deuteronomy 18:18: "I will raise up a prophet for them." The people under-
stood that only this prophet had come into the world for their salvation.81 Simi-
larly, Hugh, Thomas, and Denis argue that the people were conferring a unique
prophetic dignity on Jesus, recognizing him to be the special prophet foretold in
Deuteronomy 18. According to Denis, they were not confessing Jesus to be simply
a prophet but "that highest Prophet" (summum ilium Prophetam), concerning
whom Moses prophesied.82
Thomas, however, expresses indecision concerning the value of the people's
proclamation. On the one hand, he argues that "these people seem to realize that
Christ was a superior proph et"; on the other hand, he states that they did not have
perfect faith because "they believed that Jesus was only a prophet, while he was
also lord of the prophets." For Thomas, the application of the prophetic dignity to
Christ is problematic from an epistemological standpoint. A prophet is so desig-
nated because of a special cognitive power in which "sensible species could be
formed in the imagination ... to present, future, or hidden events." Only in this
type of cognition, which Thomas calls "sense knowledge," does Jesus have a kind
of knowledge that may be termed prophetic. Regarding the other types of cogni-
tion—namely, "intellectual knowledge" and "divine knowledge"—Jesus shares
nothing in common with the prophets.83 Denis repeats much of Thomas's episte-
mological discussion and concludes that Jesus may be designated a prophet only
 66 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

in a limited sense: "Although truly the intellectual knowledge of Christ was per-
fect, and not strictly speaking prophetic, yet according to the notion of imagina-
tive powers, he had conformity with the prophets, because sensible forms were able
to be formed in the imagination of the soul of Christ, through which hidden and
future things were being represented to his soul." Only in this imaginative capac-
ity of the mind does Jesus share something in common with the other prophets.
But unlike the other prophets, Jesus does not comprehend notions imperfectly but
was, according to Denis, "the most excellent comprehensor" (excellentissimus
comprehensor).84
Like most of the medieval commentators, Musculus commends the proclama-
tion of the people as a proper confession of faith. They did not think Jesus was a
prophet like any other but the special prophet whom Moses predicted. Because of
the frequent public readings of Moses, these people were familiar with the proph-
ecy in Deuteronomy 18. Therefore, according to Musculus "they are not at all
deceived because they believe Jesus to be this prophet, concerning whom Moses
made the prediction." These people err only in the fact that "they were not yet
rightly understanding his majesty."85
Like Thomas and Denis, Musculus expresses uneasiness concerning the prophetic
role of Jesus. However, his uneasiness arises not from the implied cognitive limi-
tations of Jesus but rather because the prophetic distinction seems to add fuel to
the fire of the Jewish and Islamic polemics against Christianity. The Jews, accord-
ing to Musculus, argue that the prophets Elijah and Elisha performed miraculous
signs similar to those of Jesus, and yet these prophets are not worshiped or given
divine honor. The Turks, he argues, believe that Jesus was merely a messenger and
prophet of God and therefore should not be worshiped as God. Musculus concedes
that if no greater honor applied to Jesus other than the prophetic distinction, he
should not be worshiped. But the designation of Jesus as prophet is only one of
many honorific titles given to Jesus in the Bible. Therefore, his prophetic dignity
should never be isolated from his other roles:

In diverse respects the same Christ is a prophet and lord of prophets, a king, a priest,
a shepherd, a teacher, a servant, a lord, a man, God, flesh, Word, son of God, an
apostle, etc. He is not denied therefore to be the lord of prophets, if at times he is
called a prophet, just as he is not denied to be the son of God when he is called a
servant, minister, apostle, and priest, nor is he denied to be God when he is called
man and the son of man. In these titles no one will err except those who do not
understand the two natures in Christ and the matter of the dispensation which is
undertaken.86

In order to show that Jesus is both a prophet and also greater than a prophet,
Musculus interrupts his commentary with an extended comparison of Jesus and
Moses. He divides his discussion into two sections with the titles "Christ Similar
to Moses" (Christus Mosi Similis) and "Christ Higher than Moses" (Christus Mose
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 67

Sublimior). In addition, Musculus devotes considerable space to a polemic against

Islam. All of history, he argues, is divided into two testaments or dispensations,
each with a primary prophet and mediator—namely, Moses and Jesus. Since Christ
was not only a prophet but the very son of God, it is absurd, according to Musculus,
to propose the notion of a third testament with Muhammad as its mediator.87
The second effect of the miracle—the attempt of the people to make Jesus their
king—receives less attention by medieval commentators than the proclamation of
Jesus as prophet. Some medieval exegetes even pass over this effect in silence, finding
little that needs elucidation. Of the commentators utilized in this study, only Tho-
mas and Lyra analyze the topic in any detail. Both Thomas and Lyra affirm that
the people rightly understood Jesus to be the true king prophesied in the Bible,
but they did not understand the true nature of his kingdom. This misunderstand-
ing, Thomas argues, was a manifestation of their carnality, which blinded them to
the true spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom. They merely wanted a ruler who would
"provide them with temporal things." According to both Thomas and Lyra, Jesus
withdrew from the people in order to show that his kingdom could only be mani-
fested at the opportune time. Lyra also adds, following Chrysostom, that Jesus
withdrew in order to give his followers an example of fleeing earthly honors.88
In his interpretation, Musculus basically repeats the same observations that are
sounded by Thomas and Lyra. The Jews, Musculus argues, wanted an earthly king-
dom that would enable them to throw off the yoke of servitude imposed by the
Romans. They knew from the many biblical prophecies that the Messiah would
establish a kingdom, and having confessed Jesus to be the Christ, they hoped to
force him to reestablish the kingdom of Israel. Their attempt, Musculus argues, is
an example of the carnal nature of human beings, which neglects the spiritual sal-
vation of the inner person and seeks an earthly salvation of the outer person. Hav-
ing confessed Jesus to be the Christ, they should have pleaded to hear his teaching
concerning the kingdom instead of aspiring to yet another earthly kingdom. Jesus
withdrew from the people, not to deny his true kingship but rather to show that
his kingdom is spiritual, not worldly. Like Lyra, Musculus also notes Chrysostom's
argument that Jesus was giving an example of refusing worldly honors.89

The Spiritual Interpretation

In medieval exegesis of John 6:1-15, one finds an extraordinary wealth of spiritual
interpretations. According to Denis, other expositors have written so much alle-
gorically on this pericope that he finds it difficult to add something new. But since
Scripture is a "bottomless pit and an inexhaustible sea" (infinita abyssus atque
inexhausibile pelagus), he confidently asserts his ability to contribute something
useful.90 Like his medieval predecessors, Musculus also sees multiple layers of spiri-
tual signification in the miracle story. Not only does he present moral observations,
a standard component of all of his exegesis, but he also presents anagogical and
 68 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

allegorical interpretations. Yet in many ways Musculus's exegesis appears unique

in the area of spiritual interpretation. Certainly there are similarities to medieval
exegesis, but Musculus forges new paths and abandons old and well-trodden ones
in his effort to discover the spiritual depths of the story.

Tropology

Musculus's preoccupation with the moral or tropological significance of Scripture

dominates his interpretation of the feeding miracle. Nearly every phrase of the story
suggests to Musculus an important moral truth. Even the most seemingly incon-
sequential detail may serve as the springboard for a tropological discussion, yet three
topics receive extended treatment by Musculus in his exposition of the moral sig-
nificance of the story. He discusses first what the story teaches about wealth and
its dangers; second, he offers a long treatment on the subject of thankfulness; and
third, he uncovers the story's implied warning against wastefulness. In all three of
these areas, one finds the seeds of Musculus's observations in medieval commen-
taries. But none of the medieval commentators treats these subjects as extensively
as Musculus.
On the subject of wealth, the medieval commentators express surprisingly little
interest. Thomas notes that the story teaches the poverty of Christ, "for he did not
even have two hundred denarii."91 But beyond this comment, Thomas adds noth-
ing on the subject of wealth. Denis exhorts his readers to see the kind of food Jesus
and his disciples were accustomed to eating. The simplicity of their meal is an
implied condemnation of "our delicacies, gluttony, and carnality."92 Similarly,
Hugh notes that John expresses the small quantity and the rough quality (barley)
of the bread "for our instruction" (ad instructionem nostram). Meals, he argues,
should serve utility, not the pleasures of the flesh.93 Beyond these comments of
Thomas, Denis, and Hugh, nothing is found in the medieval commentaries in-
cluded in this study.
For Musculus, the mention of the two hundred denarii occasions an extended
discourse on the subject of wealth. He is not certain whether or not Jesus and the
disciples actually had the mentioned sum of money. They may have possessed that
amount, or it may simply be a hypothetical sum mentioned by Philip. But the
important point for Musculus is the moral truth implied by the mentioning of such
a sum—namely, that "huge amounts of money and heaps of wealth do not satisfy
the souls of mortals."94 Wealthy people, he argues, are obsessed with acquiring
things that do not offer true satiety. They already have what they need for living,
and yet they think they do not have enough. "True satiety of souls" (vera sacietas
animorum) is found among those people who are content with the things that "are
necessities of nature" (necessaria sunt naturae). The true irony, according to Mus-
culus, is that the wealthy are always troubled and anxious in their efforts to ac-
quire more wealth, while those who are content with a small amount of things enjoy
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 69

"tranquillity of life" (tranquilitas vitae). Similarly, "the stomach accustomed to a

modicum of food, namely, the necessary amount, is easily sated and produces less
troubles, but the stomach given to luxury demands much and is not quiet unless
obtaining the usual abundance."95
The fish and barley bread demonstrate, according to Musculus, "how accessible,
common, and frugal the way of life of the lord and disciples was." While the priests,
scribes, and Pharisees "were being sumptuously delighted" (opime delicarentur) in
Jerusalem, Jesus was content with a simple meal in the desert. However, Jesus did
not demand a superstitious austerity of life, and for this reason, he includes fish in
the meal, which contributes a pleasant flavor to the bread. Those people who con-
stantly demand fasting and impose dietary laws are the very ones who normally
feast gluttonously. Jesus, however, teaches the middle way between gluttonous
devotion to luxurious gastronomy and superstitious devotion to excessive frugality.96
For Musculus, just as by the bread and fish Jesus teaches moderation and tem-
perance of life, by his prayer of thanksgiving he shows the proper disposition he
expects of his followers. Once again, in his discussion of thankfulness, Musculus
goes far beyond the remarks of medieval commentators, who see the prayer sim-
ply as an instruction to begin meals with thanksgiving.97 Certainly, Musculus sees
the prayer as a model for Christians to follow when beginning a meal. Yet Musculus
is more interested in discussing the giving of thanks as a general disposition in the
life of the Christian.
Musculus begins his discourse on thankfulness with a definition. The giving of
thanks always includes two indispensable elements: the "acknowledgment of a
received benefit" (accepti beneficii agnitio) and the "praising of the benefactor"
(benefactoris depraedicatio). A genuine and sincere giving of thanks may take place
only when both parts are present, "so that neither an acknowledgment of a benefit
without praise and blessing of God, nor a blessing of God without an acknowledg-
ment of a benefit, constitutes the giving of thanks."98
Having defined thankfulness, Musculus discusses four attitudes that conflict with
a genuinely thankful disposition. First, he treats the attitude of forgetfulness, an
attitude that nurtures ingratitude. Many people are too absorbed in the present
and never reflect upon the past; they therefore forget the benefits they have received.
True gratitude requires an exercise of remembrance. The importance of memory
in the giving of thanks explains why Jesus established the sacrament of the table.
When the benefit of his death is continually renewed in the act of remembering,
an attitude of thankfulness is produced. Second, Musculus treats the attitude of
greed, which is incompatible with genuine gratitude. How can those people offer
thanks to God, he asks, who are always desiring more? They are not considerate or
thankful for what they already have but are constantly complaining about what
they lack. Jesus only had five loaves and two fish with which to feed the multitude,
and yet he does not despise the meager amount but rather praises the providence
and goodness of the Father. The third attitude that hinders gratitude is envy. Those
 70 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

who are jealous of the benefits of others cannot be truly grateful. How is it possible
that one should praise the generosity and goodness of God and also envy the greater
fortune of others? True thankfulness cannot coexist with envy. Fourth, those who
abuse the gifts of God in no way express thankfulness for what they have received.
The person who "changes benefits into evil deeds" (beneficia in maleficia mutat)
heaps abuse on the very name of God."
Musculus ends his discourse on thankfulness with a discussion of the proper
repayment of gratitude. True gratitude must always be expressed in one of two ways.
First, according to the "law of repayment in kind" (lex talionis) one may repay
gratitude by returning to the benefactor something similar to the benefit initially
received. If someone is able to express gratitude in this way and yet does not, that
person may be rightfully judged ungrateful. Second, one may repay gratitude by
expressing thankfulness with words. The words must express both an acknowledg-
ment of the received benefit and a praise of the benefactor. If a person is unable to
express gratitude with repayment in kind, then that person must use this second
method of expressing thankfulness. Because of the infinite riches of God, the sec-
ond mode of repaying gratitude always governs the human response of thankful-
ness to God.100
For Musculus an attitude of thankfulness is closely related to an attitude of faith-
ful stewardship of the gifts received from God. Jesus himself encourages this stew-
ardship when he orders the disciples to collect all of the leftover food. Among the
medieval commentators, Rupert, Hugh, and Denis briefly note that Jesus intended
to teach that earthly bread should not be wasted but should be preserved and used
for good.101 Musculus argues the same point but once again stresses the general
attitude or disposition that the collection of the leftovers implies. It was not neces-
sary to save the leftover food for a future use since Jesus could certainly produce
miraculous food at any time. However, he wanted to teach that where an abun-
dance of the gifts of God is found, one must guard against the tendency to despise,
squander, or waste those gifts.102

Anagogy
Musculus devotes an entire section of his comments to the exposition of the ana-
gogical significance of the feeding miracle, a section that begins with the title, "con-
cerning the anagogical meaning of this story" (de anagogico historiae huius sensu).
This type of spiritual interpretation is necessary, he argues, because of Jesus' dis-
course that follows the miracle (Jn 6:26-58). Since Jesus declares himself to be the
true bread of life sent down from heaven, the miracle must have been done "for
the sake of a superior signification" (significandi potions gratia). Through the
miracle, Jesus wanted "to carry up" (subvehere) our minds from a consideration of
earthly food to a consideration of heavenly food. Indeed, Jesus performed all of
his miracles for a higher purpose—namely, to declare himself the physician and
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 71

savior of souls, not just of bodies. Accordingly, Musculus argues that one must
consider "how by that miraculous food, as if in a certain painting, a banquet of
spiritual and heavenly food may be depicted, in which not bodies, but souls are
fed with not temporary, but eternal food."103
For Musculus a proper appreciation and interpretation of the "painting" neces-
sitate a correct understanding of its features. He therefore offers a menu of sym-
bolic correspondences that form the basis of his anagogical interpretation. Christ
himself is both the heavenly banquet giver and the heavenly food. But the food
also represents for Musculus Christ's Word, the gospel of the Kingdom. The dis-
ciples, as the stewards of the banquet, represent the ministers of the Word, and the
multitude represents all believers and disciples who partake of this heavenly food.
The refreshment and satiety of the multitude represent the peace of conscience given
to those who hear the Word.104
Although Musculus specifically terms his interpretation anagogical, in many ways
his exposition is simply allegorical. The anagogical significance is limited to the
correspondence between the earthly banquet and the heavenly banquet. But hav-
ing pushed the symbolism heavenward, Musculus pulls it back to earth. The drama
of the heavenly banquet takes place on earth whenever the gospel is preached and
received by human minds. Musculus's anagogical interpretation centers therefore
not so much on the future or heavenly realities suggested by the miracle but rather
on the correspondence between the earthly feast and the spiritual feast—namely,
the ministry of the Word. It is not surprising, therefore, that much of what Mus-
culus purports to say anagogically conforms to what medieval commentators say
allegorically.
In medieval exegesis, the bread is often interpreted as a symbol of divine teach-
ing. Rupert argues that the bread has a twofold significance: the eucharistic bread
and the teachings of God. The bread represents for Theophylact "the words of
mysteries" and for Denis "salutary teaching'
(salutaris doctrina).105 In the interpretations of the Gloss, Rupert, and Thomas,
the five loaves represent more particularly the Mosaic law, found in the five books
of Moses.106
The commentators who identify the loaves as symbols of the Mosaic law inter-
pret the details of the miracle story in conformity with that basic identification.
Accordingly, the boy symbolizes Moses, the lawgiver, or he symbolizes the Jewish
people, who carry the Law but do not understand it. Jesus accepts the bread from
the boy because he does not abolish the ancient Scriptures but explains and fulfills
them. The bread is barley because the spiritual, life-giving kernel of the Old Testa-
ment—namely, the spiritual meaning—is tightly covered by the chaff of the literal
meaning. The two fish, because they contribute a pleasant flavor to the bread, rep-
resent the Prophets and the Psalms, which moderate the harshness of the Law.
The basic identification of the loaves and fish as symbols of the Scriptures does
not, however, exhaust the allegorical possibilities suggested by these symbols.
 72 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

Medieval commentators delight in the symbolism of numerical quantities, and thus

one finds a rich variety of interpretations regarding the five loaves and two fish.
Hugh mentions the identification of the five loaves with the five books of Moses
but simply refers the reader to the Gloss, where "the mystery is plain" (mysterium
planum est).107 Other mysteries clearly hold more interest for Hugh. Thus, he
argues that the five loaves represent the five wounds of Christ. The barley signifies
both the severity of Jesus' torment and the sorrow of mind that should accompany
pious meditation on his passion. The fish are added to the bread to signify the con-
solation that is added to sorrow.108 Yet Hugh does not stop here but goes on at
great length to develop various interpretive ideas for the spiritual meaning of the
loaves and fish. For Hugh, practically all of the essentials of the Christian life are
contained within these symbols. His exposition uncovers the vast edifying poten-
tial of the symbols, without a narrow allegiance to the literal meaning of the text.
This broadness of scope is also seen in the allegorical interpretation of Denis, who
interprets the five loaves as: 1) the Godhead, which is apprehended in contempla-
tion; 2) the body of the Savior, hidden under sacramental forms; 3) the canonical
Scriptures of both testaments; 4) the grace that makes pleasing (gratia gratum
faciens); and 5) the promise of future goods. The two fish represent the "active
experience of divine sweetness" (actualis experientia divinae dulcedinis) and the
"absorption, release, or salutary defection of the mind into God" (absorptio, resolutio
seu salutaris illa defectio mentis in Deo).109
For Musculus, neither the number nor quality of the bread and fish hold any
significance for his anagogical interpretation. Number allegory plays no role what-
soever in his exegesis of the story. The bread represents the Word of God because
Jesus so identifies it. Yet having accepted this symbolization, Musculus wants to
circumscribe it by the events related in the story of the miracle. The spiritual mean-
ing must be tightly bound to the literal meaning of the text. Therefore, Musculus
uses the main elements of the story—the diffident responses of the disciples, the
reclining multitude, the distribution of the food, the satiety of the crowd, and the
abundant leftovers—as guideposts for his discussion of the ministry of the Word.
Furthermore, Musculus pushes all of his anagogical interpretation in a tropological
direction. The story, in its spiritual depiction of the ministry of the Word, con-
tains important moral truths pertaining to that ministry.
Thus, the responses of Philip and Andrew represent a common temptation
"which frequently appears with ministers of the Word and stewards of heavenly
food." Faced with so many people who are hungering and thirsting for the Word
of God, preachers often despair. They err by employing their reason rather than
faith in Christ. They themselves calculate how much "heavenly teaching" (coelestis
doctrinae) is necessary for establishing true piety and thereby judge themselves
unequal to the task.110 Hugh and Rupert also interpret the disciples' response as
an image of the thought processes of the preacher, but they characterize these
thoughts differently than Musculus. For Hugh, Andrew's response—"What are
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 73

these for so many people?"—represents the preacher's temptation to abandon the

simple gospel of the crucified Christ for subtleties. Or, he argues, it may represent
the preacher's proper recognition that the efficacy of the preached word depends
upon the addition of grace.111 According to Rupert, Andrew's response represents
the preacher's recognition that the Old Testament must be interpreted spiritually,
for "those Scriptures are not very great according to the literal sense."112
But for Musculus, the image represented by the response of the disciples is im-
portant because of the lesson it teaches. The preacher who doubts the effective-
ness of his preaching should remember this story, for "the image of the present
miracle, when faithfully considered, will beautifully heal this temptation." The story
shows that when the minister faithfully dispenses the Word, God will attend to the
problem of sufficiency. The primary moral lesson therefore is the lesson of obedi-
ence. Neither the disciples nor the crowd knew what would happen, and yet both
obeyed Jesus' command. Similarly, Musculus argues, when the disciples were com-
manded to go into the whole world and preach the gospel, they obeyed even though
they were ignorant of the effect of their preaching.113
While the disciples represent the ministers of the Word, the crowd, according
to Musculus, represents the souls of those who feast on the spiritual food dispensed
by the minister. Once again, Musculus develops both an anagogical image and a
moral truth in his interpretation of the reclining of the multitude, an interpreta-
tion not found in the medieval commentaries. The reclining of bodies, he argues,
represents the reclining of souls, which must cast aside worldly affairs in order to
focus completely on the heavenly food of the gospel. Therefore, on the Lord's day
it is necessary to put aside "secular business" (negotium seculare) because the spiri-
tual meal of the gospel "does not fatten busied and bustling souls, but those re-
clining and resting."114 For medieval commentators, the primary significance of
the reclining multitude is not in the act of reclining itself but rather in the grass
upon which they rest. Since grass is a symbol for flesh (Is 40:6, "All flesh is grass"),
the reclining symbolizes a people who were resting in fleshly things and who were
wise according to the flesh (Gloss, Rupert, Thomas, Hugh, Denis).115 According
to Rupert and Hugh, Jesus orders the people to recline on the grass because he wants
them to suppress their sensual desires. For Hugh, his order is a rebuke of those
who attend services of worship not to hear the Word but rather that they might
see, desire, and speak with women.116 The grass, however, reminds Musculus not
of Isaiah 40:6 but of Psalm 23:2, which he translates as: "He makes me lie down in
grassy places" (in locis herbidis accumbere mefacit). Thus, for Musculus, the mys-
tery represented by the grass has nothing to do with suppressing the flesh but rather
the comfort and rest that accompany the spiritual banqueting on the Word.117
Seen against the medieval exegetical context, Musculus's anagogical interpreta-
tion of the distribution of the food is unique. The details of the story, he argues,
represent a pattern by which the gospel is presented to the world: "Also in this matter
an anagogical meaning is not lacking, that the Lord took these loaves in his hands,
 74 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

gave thanks, broke and distributed them to the disciples, and through the disciples
to the crowd. By this image the ministry of the Word was delineated." Jesus first
preached the gospel of the Kingdom himself, and in so doing, he sanctified it.
Having sanctified it, he then delivered the Word to the disciples, who in turn dis-
tributed it to the world.118 We find a similar medieval interpretation in the com-
ments of Rupert, who argues that Jesus first takes the bread and then distributes it
to the disciples in order to signify the transmission of spiritual teaching. Jesus first
explained the spiritual interpretation of the Bible to the apostles, who then hand
down this mystical understanding of the Scriptures to their successors.119
For Musculus, however, the disciples symbolize anagogically all of the future
ministers of the Church. As such, the distribution of the food through the disciples
signifies three important anagogical truths, each of which carries a moral lesson.
First, although Jesus did not need to use bread or the disciples to satiate the crowd's
hunger, he chose to use these media. Even today, Musculus argues, Jesus "is able
abundantly to instruct and feed the minds of mortals without the Word and with-
out ministers, but yet he uses both the Word and ministers."120 Therefore, we are
taught to reject the claims of the "fanatics" (phanatid homines) who reject the
ministry of the Word and "attribute everything to an internal revelation" (internae
revelationi tribuunt omnia). Second, Musculus emphasizes that the disciples dis-
tribute only what they receive from the hands of Jesus. They do not add anything
of their own in their distribution to the crowd. The minister is thereby taught never
to introduce any teaching other than that which was delivered by Christ. Third, it
is significant, Musculus argues, that the disciples do not assume the disposition of
lords or masters of the hungering crowd. Rather, they assume the posture of humble
servants, ministering to the needs of the people. Their humility is an implicit re-
buke of those ministers of the gospel who, "having repudiated the humility of
ministering, seize for themselves the dignity of mastery and lordship, just as true
antichrists."121
Musculus's anagogical interpretation of the satiety of the multitude is also with-
out counterpart in the medieval commentaries. In fact, the phrase "now when they
were filled" (Jn 6:12) occasions no spiritual interpretation at all in the medieval
commentaries used in this study. But for Musculus, the phrase indicates the spiri-
tual satiety of believers hungering for the Word. This spiritual hunger, he argues,
cannot be satisfied by any substitutes for the Word: "Neither philosophy nor the
law were able to remove the hunger of minds, but rather they increased it. In truth
only the banquet giver, Christ himself, may restore, sate, and pacify the minds of
believers with the food of his Word."122 Nevertheless, just as the stomach when sick
craves no food and thus feigns fullness, so also there is a false satiety of the soul,
which Musculus describes as the "absurd unconcern of the conscience, either from
impiety or from false confidence in one's own merits or the merits of others, or
from a belief in God's mercy without true repentance and renovation of the mind."
True satiety of the soul, on the other hand, comes "from a suitable refection" (ex
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 75

iusta refectione)—namely, faith in the Word—and this satiety "renders consciences

truly peaceful" (conscientias verepacatas reddit).123
The leftover pieces of food signify, according to Musculus, the paradoxical and
mysterious character of the partaking of the Word of God. Unlike normal food,
which disappears when eaten, heavenly food increases when spiritually consumed.
When the Word is faithfully imparted and received with thanksgiving, not only
will believers be satisfied, but also they will have an abundance of leftovers with
which to feed the spiritual hunger of others. For Musculus the leftovers also sig-
nify an important moral lesson and warning. When the Word of God abounds, he
argues, there is a dangerous tendency to take that abundance for granted. Jesus
orders the leftovers to be gathered up in order to warn his followers to guard against
this danger. Just as the Israelites were nauseated by the manna that God mercifully
and copiously supplied, so also "a loathing of heavenly food and a certain irrever-
ence toward the plenty and abundance of the Word of Christ may sneak up on the
satisfied."124
The leftovers also signify for Musculus the imperfect understanding of the teach-
ing of Christ. Here, Musculus echoes the interpretations of medieval commenta-
tors (Gloss, Theophylact, Denis) who repeat Augustine's understanding of the left-
over food as a symbol of the mysteries of the faith, mysteries the people do not
understand.125 Musculus, however, stresses the implied moral lesson: if something
in the Word is not understood, "it should not be trampled upon contemptuously
nor mangled by an eagerness for quarreling, but it should be replaced intact and
unimpaired into the storehouse of the Holy Spirit, to be kept for future use."126 If
the leftover bread of the Eucharist is treated reverently and stored for future use,
how much more, Musculus asks, should one maintain an attitude of reverence and
respect for those parts of the Word of God which are not immediately compre-
hended? What is not understood should be returned "to the apostolic storehouse"
(promptuario apostolico) until the Holy Spirit illuminates its meaning.127

Allegory
In the course of his commentary on the feeding miracle, Musculus offers only one
explicit allegorical interpretation. The ascension of the mountain by Jesus, he
argues, is a beautiful representation of the kingdom of God, for "the kingdom of
God in this world is a mountain in the desert" (regnum dei in hoc mundo mons est
in deserto). For Musculus, this allegorical interpretation is justified because Jesus
himself compares the Church to a city placed on a mountain (Mt 5:14). Just as Jesus
sits on the literal mountain with his disciples, so also "he sits with his people, whom
he chose and transported from the base and low desert of this world to the lofti-
ness of true faith, piety, and heavenly conversation."128
Various allegorical interpretations of Jesus' ascension of the mountain are ex-
pressed in the medieval commentaries, but none of these correspond exactly to
 76 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

the allegory given by Musculus. For Rupert, Thomas, and Denis, the crossing of
the sea and the ascension of the mountain are interpreted as an allegorical drama
of the events in salvation history. Jesus migrates from the Jews to the Gentiles by
crossing the sea of his passion, and he climbs the mountain to signify his glorifica-
tion and ascension into heaven.129 For Thomas and Denis, however, the ascension
of the mountain may also represent other things. Thomas argues that Jesus leads
the disciples to the top of the mountain "to show that full satisfaction and the per-
fection of justice are found in spiritual realities."130 Denis claims that Jesus ascended
the mountain "so that the place might correspond to the one placed" (ut locus
correspondent locate}. For "Christ indeed maybe called a mountain on account of
the excellence of his most holy life, the prominence of his miracles, the height of
his contemplation, and the incomparable loftiness of his love and all his virtues."
Therefore, Denis argues, "the mountain ascends the mountain" (mons ascendit in
montem) in order to teach believers to reject "carnal things" (carnalia) and to seek
"heavenly and divine things" (coelestia ac divina).131
Although Musculus's allegory does not correspond to any of the medieval inter-
pretations, his moral interpretation of the allegory is similar to the one expressed by
Denis. Musculus argues that Jesus, by ascending the mountain of the kingdom of
God, shows the believer where to find true spiritual rest. Christians "should neither
sit nor live in the vanities of this world, but on the mountain of the kingdom of God,
where Christ sits."132 Like Denis, Musculus quotes both Colossians 3:2 and Philippians
3:20 to show that believers should "seek the things that are above" (quae sursum sunt
quaerite) since their "conversation is in heaven" (conversatio in cadis est). For Mus-
culus, the primary significance of the allegory is the implicit moral exhortation to
make the kingdom of God the ultimate goal in life. Certainly, the limitations of worldly
existence preclude an immediate and complete dwelling in God's kingdom. But in
following Jesus up the mountain, believers initiate the process of migrating from the
world to their true heavenly home. That process, Musculus argues, "which com-
mences in this life will acquire its fullness and perfection in the future life, when having
been delivered from this valley of miseries and from all of the troubles of this life by
the benefit and intervention of death, we will have migrated to the heavens, where
we will sit and find rest with Christ forever."133

CONCLUSION

Based on this comparative exegetical study, we can characterize Musculus's inter-

pretation of John 6:1-15 in the following ways. First, there are a great number of
similarities between the comments of Musculus and medieval commentators,
especially inthe area of literal exegesis. Musculus never directly cites medieval com-
mentators in the course of his interpretation of the pericope. Yet the large number
of parallels in interpretation suggests very strongly that a positive relation existed
 On the Feeding of the Five Thousand 77

between Musculus and the medieval exegetical tradition. In the absence of direct
citations, however, it is simply impossible to prove his dependence on any of the
commentators we have examined. One further caveat also dampens the possible
significance of parallels in interpretation: the similarities may actually be due to
the common dependence of the medieval interpreters and Musculus on the exe-
gesis of the Fathers.
Second, the fact that Musculus makes use of medieval methods of spiritual ex-
egesis is in itself significant. Although he criticizes and warns of the abuses and
excesses associated with medieval allegorization, he demonstrates that he is unwill-
ing to abandon this type of interpretation altogether. Indeed, in his comments he
makes use of all three modes of spiritual exegesis: allegory, tropology, and anagogy.
However, his utilization of two of these modes, allegory and anagogy, is bound by
his criterion of "evident necessity." The importance of this criterion can be seen by
comparing Musculus's comments on the feeding of the five thousand and the wed-
ding at Cana. Both stories contain symbolism that maybe pushed in an anagogical
direction. Indeed, the story of the wedding feast at Cana seems to cry out even more
for anagogical interpretation as an earthly depiction of the heavenly wedding feast
than does the story of the feeding. Yet Musculus makes no effort to draw out the
anagogical significance of the Cana narrative. For Musculus such an interpretation
of the story is not evidently necessary because Jesus himself does not suggest it.
However, the feeding miracle, being conjoined with a theological discourse con-
cerning the true heavenly bread, suggests the propriety of a spiritual interpretation
to Musculus. Similarly, his allegorical interpretation of the mountain is justified,
he argues, because Jesus himself compares the Church to a city placed on a hill.
Third, although Musculus makes use of medieval methods of spiritual interpre-
tation, his exegesis actually shows its greatest independence from the medieval
tradition in this area. Number allegory, although a standard component of medi-
eval spiritual exegesis, plays no role in Musculus's interpretation. Neither the six
stone jars at the wedding at Cana nor the five loaves and two fish of the feeding
miracle have any spiritual significance for him. The most striking characteristic of
Musculus's spiritual exegesis is his devotion to the moral or tropological level of
interpretation. He emphasizes this mode of interpretation more than any of the
medieval commentators, plumbing the depths of the moral significance of the story.
Indeed, Musculus finds rules for conduct in nearly every detail of the pericope.
Often, when the story suggests a moral lesson of particular importance, he does
not hesitate to interrupt his running commentary to insert extended moral dis-
cussions. Even when Musculus interprets the story allegorically or anagogically,
his primary devotion to moral exegesis is evident. Allegory and anagogy simply
allow him to develop a new set of symbols that are then interpreted for their moral
significance. Thus, a certain pragmatic impulse inspires Musculus's work as a com-
mentator on John: a desire to make the gospel relevant as a moral guidebook to
every believer.
 FOUR

Musculus and the Humanists

on the Miracle at Sea

I have already noted characteristics of Musculus's training and scholar-

ship that would lead us to suspect a strong humanist influence in his work as a com-
mentator. His education at the Latin school of Selestat, his training in Hebrew under
Capito and in Greek under Betuleius, and his work as a translator of the classics all
point to a man eager to drink at the fountains of humanist learning. Even a casual
glance through the pages of his John commentary would seem to confirm this sus-
picion: quotations of Greek text and of classical authors, pagan and Christian, are
sprinkled liberally throughout the work.1
In this chapter I will investigate in detail the influence of humanist biblical schol-
arship on Musculus's John commentary. First, I focus specifically on his use of the
tools and methods of biblical humanism, as represented by the work of Desiderius
Erasmus (ca. 1466-1536). Second, I examine the influence of humanist exegesis
on Musculus's commentary by comparing his interpretation of John 6:16-26 to
the interpretations of Erasmus and Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (Jacques Lefevre
d'Etaples, ca. 1455-1536).2

M U S C U L U S AND THE B I B L I C A L S C H O L A R S H I P OF ERASMUS

The world of sixteenth-century humanist biblical scholarship is dominated by the

figure of Desiderius Erasmus. In his use of critical philology to study the Bible,
Erasmus became the greatest representative of the ideal of Christian humanism:
the renewal of the Church based on a rediscovery of Scripture by returning to the
ancient sources. His contribution to biblical studies maybe classified into four main
areas. First, in his Novum Instrumentum omne, published in 1516 by Froben's press,
Erasmus offered the public the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament.3

78
 On the Miracle at Sea 79

This work, which Erasmus reworked for four further editions (1519, 1522, 1527,
1535), was of enormous benefit to the growing number of biblical scholars who
had learned Greek. For the first time, these scholars could base their exegesis, if
they so chose, on the veritas graeca. Second, Erasmus composed a new Latin trans-
lation of the New Testament, which he published in 1519 to accompany the sec-
ond edition of his Greek New Testament. His translation scandalized many; after
all, for a thousand years the Church had based its doctrine and exegesis on the
wording of the Vulgate. Yet for many commentators, both Protestant and Catho-
lic, the new translation provided fresh insight into the meaning of Scripture. Third,
Erasmus combined his skills as a textual critic, translator, and interpreter in pro-
ducing his Annotationes in Novum Testamentum* First published in 1516 as an
appendix to his Novum Instrumentum, and reworked and enlarged for each of the
four succeeding editions, these "little notes" (annotationculae), as Erasmus called
them, had enormous impact on sixteenth-century biblical scholarship. Working
chapter by chapter through the New Testament, Erasmus quotes selected phrases
from the Vulgate in order to discuss matters of textual criticism, such as corrupted
passages in the Latin and variant readings in the Greek; matters of translation, such
as the proper understanding of Greek idioms and syntax; and matters of interpre-
tation, particularly in passages that had troubled patristic and medieval theologians.
Finally, from 1517 to 1524, Erasmus produced paraphrases of every New Testa-
ment book, with the exception of Revelation.5 The paraphrases were immensely
popular among both scholars and the general public. By 1530 all of the paraphrases
were available in German, by 1543 in French, and by 1549 in English. These inter-
pretive works succeeded in propagating to a wide audience the Erasmian under-
standing of the essence of the gospel, an understanding Erasmus termed philosophia
Christi.
In three of these four areas of Erasmus's biblical scholarship, we find a definite
influence on Musculus's commentary on John. In the course of his commentary,
Musculus explicitly mentions and uses Erasmus's Latin translation, Annotationes,
and Paraphrasis inIoannem. He also uses a Greek text when commenting on John,
but whether he uses one of Erasmus's texts or another is difficult to determine with
certainty.6 It is significant, however, that Musculus demonstrates a consistent
awareness of the underlying Greek as he works his way through John. My purpose
here is to examine how and to what extent Musculus makes use of Erasmus's Anno-
tationes and translation of John. I defer until later an examination of the influence
of Erasmus's Paraphrasis on Musculus's commentary.
In his commentary, Musculus presents the reader with an entire text of John's
gospel. His method is to quote several sentences of text (normally three to five
verses), make a few general remarks about the passage, and then quote the text
once again phrase by phrase, offering detailed comments after each lemma. A
comparison of Musculus's text with Erasmus's translation shows clearly that
Musculus does not offer a completely new translation of the gospel. He is quite
 80 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

content to make Erasmus's translation the basic text for his exegesis. Certainly
there are disagreements, and occasionally Musculus voices his polite but firm
disapproval of Erasmus's rendering of a word or phrase. But in general Musculus
favors the Erasmus translation as a better reflection of the Greek than the Vulgate
translation.7
What then are the criteria Musculus employs to correct Erasmus's translation?
This question is difficult to answer since Musculus himself rarely explains his
divergences from Erasmus. An analysis of the places where Musculus differs in his
rendering of the text reveals no definite pattern. Occasionally Musculus prefers the
Vulgate reading to Erasmus, sometimes he offers a translation different from both
the Vulgate and Erasmus, and at other times he gives a differing translation even
when the Vulgate and Erasmus agree.
Many of Musculus's changes of Erasmus's text are so minor as to suggest that
they are not deliberate alterations at all. For example, the phrase
occurs many times in John's gospel. When it occurs, Musculus often trans-
lates the phrase in nomine meo while Erasmus translates it with the simple case con-
struction nomine meo. Yet in other places Musculus adopts the case construction
where Erasmus utilizes the prepositional phrase. Both Latin renderings are per-
fectly acceptable, and the difference is so minor that Latin ears would scarcely take
notice.8 The same reasoning maybe applied to the phrase in John 4:23,
which Erasmus translates spiritu ac veritate and Musculus translates
in spiritu et veritate. Similarly, Erasmus renders at John
11:48 as credent ei, whereas Musculus writes credent in eum. Yet at John 19:41
Musculus prefers the case construction eo loco for a phrase Erasmus
translates in eo loco. Because of their inconsistent nature, these minor alterations
defy easy characterization on grammatical or stylistic grounds. At best one can only
say that Musculus, if he actually intended to deviate from Erasmus's text, made
these changes on a subjective basis; he chose the Latin construction that sounded
best to his ears.
Many of Musculus's alterations, however, are stylistic decisions clearly based on
analysis of Greek grammar and sentence structure. Usually Musculus draws no
attention to these changes; he tacitly introduces his corrections without indicat-
ing the issue at stake. But if we analyze his changes, it is possible to discern ex post
facto the probable reasons that motivated Musculus to part from Erasmus. Al-
though his stylistic changes have a grammatical basis, they may often be reduced
to a matter of personal preference. Since certain Greek constructions can be ren-
dered by several different Latin constructions, Musculus had to decide which alter-
native represented the most elegant Latin without sacrificing fidelity to the Greek.
For example, Musculus occasionally departs from Erasmus's text in places where
the Greek introduces an indirect statement with Such statements may be trans-
lated into Latin by a subordinate clause introduced by quod (or quia, as in the
Vulgate) or by indirect speech utilizing a subject accusative plus infinitive construe-
 On the Miracle at Sea 81

tion. John 11:24 presents the Latin translator with just such a choice and is trans-
lated by the Vulgate, Erasmus, and Musculus as follows:
Vulg.: Scio quia resurget in resurrectione in novissimo die.
DE: Scio quod resurget in resurrectione in novissimo die.
WM: Scio eum resurrecturum esse in novissimo die.

Although both the Vulgate and Erasmus render the clause with a subordi-
nate clause introduced by a conjunction, Musculus prefers the accusative plus
infinitive construction, utilizing the active periphrastic to convey the future sense
of the verb. Musculus's translation mirrors the structure of the Greek less precisely
than the quod clause of Erasmus, but it conveys the meaning of the Greek in more
elegant Latin.
A different type of stylistic disagreement occurs in Musculus's translation of the
genitive absolute of John 20:26: Both Erasmus and the
Vulgate use the parallel grammatical construction in Latin, the ablative absolute,
to translate the phrase asjanuis clausis (with/although the doors having been closed).
Musculus, however, in addition to using a different word for door (foris), chooses
to use a cum clause to express the genitive absolute: cum fores essent clausae (al-
though the doors were closed). The change is subtle, for both the ablative absolute
and cum clauses allow for a range of possible meanings. The absolute construction
may express time, manner, means, cause, condition, concession, purpose, or de-
scription. Cum clauses are less versatile, expressing either time, cause, or conces-
sion. The effect of Musculus's choice is to make the concessive force ("although")
of the phrase more explicit than the absolute construction of both the Greek and
Latin.
To a certain degree, the above examples may give a misleading impression of
Musculus's work as a translator because they suggest his willingness to depart from
a strictly literal translation to convey the meaning of the Greek. Therefore, it is
important to note that Musculus frequently shows his unwillingness to sacrifice
fidelity to the Greek at the altar of elegant Latin. His departures from Erasmus's
translation are often precisely at those points where he judges Erasmus to have
strayed too far from the Greek. For example, Erasmus translates John 7:17,
as "si quis voluerit voluntati eius obtemperare"
(if anyone is willing to submit to his will). Musculus, however, departs from Eras-
mus at this point and gives the Vulgate rendering: "si quis voluerit voluntatem eius
facere" (if anyone is willing to do his will). Erasmus's phrase, voluntati obtemperare,
expresses the meaning of the Greek words perhaps more elegantly than Musculus's
voluntatem facere, but the latter expression is perfectly understandable Latin and
literally reflects the Greek words Similarly, Musculus prefers
the Vulgate rendering of John 8:44, "et desideria patris vestri vultis facere" (and
you want to do the desires of your father), to the translation of Erasmus, "et desi-
deriis patris vestri vultis obsequi" (and you want to comply with the desires of your
 82 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

father). Once again, Musculus follows the Vulgate in a literal translation of

(to do the desires) even though the effect is more wooden than
Erasmus's rendering.
However, Musculus does not consistently favor a slavishly literal translation of
the Greek; in fact, he usually adopts, without modification, the freer rendering of
Erasmus in places where the Vulgate version is awkwardly literal. Like Erasmus, he
recognizes that a literal translation has the potential to obscure the meaning of the
Greek, especially in the area of Greek idiom. Yet, more frequently than Erasmus,
he opts for a literal Latin translation when it does not violate or confuse the mean-
ing of the Greek. In Musculus's view, a translation that too quickly abandons the
effort to mirror Greek syntax may lose a particular nuance of meaning suggested
by the Greek.
At John 6:39 Musculus levels precisely this criticism against Erasmus's transla-
tion. The Greek, the Vulgate, and the translation of Erasmus, each of which Muscu-
lus quotes, read as follows:

Gk.:
Vulg.: Ut omne quod dedit mihi, non perdam ex eo . ..
(So that everything which he gave me, I do not lose from it. . .)
DE: Ne quid perdam ex omnibus quae dedit mihi. . .
(Lest I lose something from all which he gave me .. .)

According to Musculus, Erasmus violates the original meaning of the Greek in

his effort to compose elegant Latin; Erasmus shows himself "more concerned with
the structure of Latin discourse than with expressing the mind of the Lord's words."9
Musculus argues that the Greek words have a "certain emphasis" (emphasim
quandam) that is retained in the awkward, though literal, translation of the Vulgate.
Christ was not simply claiming that he would lose none of the elect but also that
he would lose no part—body or soul—of the elect. Musculus thus understands the
statement as a subtle affirmation of the bodily resurrection: Christ claims here to
be the savior "not only of souls but also of bodies, so that not even the bodies of
the elect, although swallowed by death and committed to dust, indeed, having been
converted into dust, should perish."10 This understanding of the verse, Musculus
notes, is adequately expressed in Erasmus's Paraphrases but not in Erasmus's trans-
lation. Therefore Musculus argues that "it is better that we should read simply as
the words are in the Vulgate edition."11 Although it is difficult to see how Erasmus's
translation fails in the way suggested by Musculus, the motivation behind the criti-
cism is clear. Musculus wants a Latin translation that retains the precise force of
meaning conveyed by the Greek.
Not all of Musculus's changes of Erasmus's text hinge purely on the issue of style
or of a literal versus lucid translation, for occasionally he corrects Erasmus on finer
points of grammar. For example, at John 8:14 both Erasmus and the Vulgate trans-
late: "quia scio unde veni et quo vado, vos autem nescitis unde venio et quo vado"
 On the Miracle at Sea 83

(because I know whence I have come and where I am going, but you do not know
whence I have come and where I am going). In his translation, Musculus simply
shifts all of the verbs into the subjunctive mood:'"quia scio unde venerim, et quo
vadam, vos autem nescitis unde venerim, et quo vadam." The Vulgate and Erasmus,
in fact, translate the Greek literally by keeping the verbs in the indicative mood.
But the result is a violation of one of the finer points of Latin grammar, which,
unlike Greek, requires the subjunctive in an indirect question. Erasmus himself had
made it a point to criticize the Vulgate on this very issue. As he points out, it is
better in such places to depart from a literal translation in order to compose good
Latin.12
Conditional sentences are another area in which Musculus corrects points of
grammar in Erasmus's translation. At John 15:19, for example, the Greek reads:
Here, the verbs in the protasis
and apodosis are in the imperfect indicative, indicating a present contrary-to-fact
condition. To transfer this condition into Latin necessitates a switch of mood to
the subjunctive; the imperfect tense, however, should be retained to indicate present
time. But Erasmus translates the sentence as a mixed condition, putting the protasis
in the pluperfect subjunctive and the apodosis in the imperfect subjunctive: "Si de
mundo fuissetis, mundus quod suum est, diligeret" (If you had been of the world,
the world would love that which is its own). Musculus departs from Erasmus's
translation at this point and gives the Vulgate version, which correctly places both
clauses in the imperfect subjunctive: "Si de mundo essetis, mundus ... diligeret"
(If you were of this world, the world would love). Again, at John 11:32 both Erasmus
and the Vulgate translate a past contrary-to-fact condition,
as a mixed condition, using the pluperfect sub-
junctive in the first clause and the imperfect subjunctive in the second: "Domine,
si fuisses hic, non esset mortuus frater meus" (Lord, if you had been here, my
brother would not be dead). Musculus spots the error, demonstrating his constant
attention to the underlying Greek, and gives a reading that uses the pluperfect
subjunctive in both clauses: "Domine, si fuisses hie, non fuisset mortuus frater
meus" (Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died).
At John 10:10 Musculus offers a grammatical discussion that is interesting be-
cause it is one of the few places where he lowers the veil of anonymity and expressly
informs the reader of the reasons for his translation. The Greek sentence and the
translations of the Vulgate, Erasmus, and Musculus are as follows:

Gk.:
Vulg. & DE: Ego veni ut vitam habeant, & abundantius habeant.
WM: Ego veni ut vitam habeant, & abundantiam habeant.

In his comments Musculus notes that "both the old and the recent translator
[i.e., the Vulgate and Erasmus] render [the phrase] 'and that they might have more
abundantly'" ( vetus recens interpres reddidit, abundantius habeant). He then
 84 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

proceeds to show that Augustine, Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and "recent

authorities" (recentiores) also base their exegesis on an understanding of the phrase
as an adverbial construction. Yet in spite of this formidable exegetical consensus,
Musculus offers a differing translation based on his analysis of the Greek:
I prejudge no one, but I simply say how it appears to me. Since the Lord's words do
not have that is, more abundantly, but simply a word that
signifies abundance, wealth, and affluence, I think the Lord was speaking about wealth
of a general kind and the abundance of heavenly grace and blessing, which believers
in him have together with one life, so that not only does he promise life to believers
in him, but also that true happiness and superabundance of every good that accom-
panies true life in the kingdom of God; just as if he should say in German: ich aber
bin komen dafi sie leben und alles ubrig gnug habend.13

Musculus defends his translation not only grammatically but also exegetically.
The expositors who utilize the Vulgate rendering are "twisted" (torquentur) in their
attempts to make subtle exegetical distinctions between "having life" and "having
life more abundantly." Yet a proper understanding of the Greek, according to
Musculus, will make such attempts unnecessary. If the word is under-
stood nominally rather than adverbially, it becomes clear, he argues, that Jesus was
not making a subtle scholastic distinction but rather was speaking "simply and
commonly" (simpliciter ac populariter).14
Several of Musculus's divergences from Erasmus's text involve the simple choice
of a different Latin word to express the meaning of a Greek word. These changes
are often of minor importance, indicating nothing more than the personal prefer-
ence of the translator for one synonym over another. Thus, at John 5:14 the Vulgate,
Erasmus, and Musculus each offer differing translations of the Greek expression

Vulg.: Iam noli peccare.

(Do not sin anymore.)
DE: Ne posthac pecces.
(Do not sin hereafter.)
WM: Ne pecces amplius.
(Do not sin any further.)

Here, Musculus follows Erasmus in changing the simple imperative of the

Vulgate into a jussive subjunctive, but he utilizes a different adverb and word order
than Erasmus. The change has little, if any, effect on the meaning of the phrase
itself. Similarly, at John 6:27 we find three different translations for the word

Vulg.: Hunc enim Pater signavit deus.

DE: Hunc enim Pater consignavit deus.
WM: Hunc enim Pater obsignavit deus.
 On the Miracle at Sea 85

Again, Musculus's choice of the verb obsignare does not alter the meaning of
the phrase in any significant way. While this verb has a narrower range of mean-
ings than the Vulgate's signare and Erasmus's consignare, all three verbs express the
basic meaning "to seal." Musculus may have had something in mind that directed
his choice of verb, but since he makes no comment on his choice, we can only
speculate.
At John 10:16, however, Musculus introduces a similar subtle change in trans-
lation, which he explains to the reader. In Erasmus and the Vulgate, the verse reads:
"Et alias oves habeo, quae non sunt ex hoc ovili: illas quoque oportet me adducere"
(And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must also draw them together).
Musculus's translation makes only one alteration by substituting the verb ducere
for the adducere of Erasmus and the Vulgate. Once again, he defends his choice on
both grammatical and exegetical grounds. The Greek verb, he points out, is not
but rathei which he asserts should be trans-
lated by the Latin verb ducere (to lead), not adducere (to draw together). He also
argues that the meaning of the verse is better conveyed by ducere since the verb is
more general and comprises in itself all kinds of leading that Christ, the good pas-
tor, employs. Christ not only draws his sheep together (adducere) but also leads
themoutto pasture (educere) and back to the sheepfold (reducere).15Here Musculus
shows himself an observant student of language and indicates that his changes of
Erasmus's text, even seemingly minor ones, are rooted in a careful consideration
of the grammar and meaning of the underlying Greek.
Because the meaning of the Greek is an important criterion for Musculus's trans-
lation, he often shows himself unwilling to follow Erasmus's translation in places
where he thinks Erasmus has made the meaning of the Greek clearer than it really
is. Thus, at John 3:17-19, Erasmus translates: "Non enim misit deus filium in
mundum, ut condemnetmundum, sed ut servetur mundus per eum. Qui credit in
eum, non condemnatur. Qui vero non credit iam condemnatus est, quia non credidit
in nomen unigeniti filii dei. Haec est autem condemnatio" (my emphasis). Musculus
precisely follows this translation, except where Erasmus renders the Greek
as condemnere/condemnatio. In these places Musculus prefers the Vulgate's
choice of judicere/judicium, a translation based on the broadest sense of the Greek
words. Erasmus chooses the more particular word "condemn" because he believes
the context suggests the propriety of the word. Believers may be judged, but they
will be acquitted—that is, they will not be condemned. Erasmus likely has John
9:39 in mind, where Jesus says that he came into the world for the very purpose of
judgment. In his own comments, Musculus shows that he understands the verses
just as Erasmus does: judgment really means condemnation.16 However, for
Musculus, the place to explain the specific meaning of the Greek is not at the level
of translation but at the level of exegesis.
A similar force operates in Musculus's translation of the phrase
(Jn 6:66), which the Vulgate translates ex hoc (because of/from this) and which
 86 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

Erasmus translates ex eo tempore (from that time). In his Annotationes Erasmus

defends his translation as the proper reading of a Greek temporal idiom. Musculus,
however, translates the phrase ex eo, demonstrating his unwillingness to clarify the
ambiguity of the phrase by introducing the word tempore, a word that does not
occur in the Greek. In his comments Musculus reveals that he agrees with Erasmus's
understanding of the phrase; the words, he argues, have a "temporal connotation"
(temporis connotations).17Yet for Musculus it is the work of the commentator, not
of the translator, to elucidate the meaning of the phrase.
In the matter of word selection, the most striking difference between Musculus
and Erasmus concerns the translation of in the first chapter of John's gos-
pel. Much of the theological uproar that greeted Erasmus's translation of the New
Testament was precipitated by his abandonment of the Vulgate's verbum (word),
in favor of sermo (speech/discourse) at John 1:1 and 1:14.18 The controversy was
so fierce that Erasmus significantly expanded his defense of this translation in each
of the succeeding editions of his Annotationes. Even the Protestant theologians
disagreed in their estimation of the new reading. Zwingli and Calvin strongly sup-
ported Erasmus, while Bucer, who used Erasmus's translation for his own John
commentary, nevertheless flatly rejected sermo in favor of the traditional wording.
Musculus, perhaps influenced by the judgment of Bucer, his former teacher, also
translates as verbum. Although the reasons for Musculus's choice are not
fully explained in his commentary, it is clear that his choice is not based on a firm
rejection of Erasmus's translation. Musculus mentions in a parenthetical remark
that Erasmus renders as sermo, and he proceeds to argue that the word may
in fact be rendered by several Latin terms, such as ratio and sapientia, as well as by
verbum and sermo.
The only statement Musculus makes against Erasmus's use of sermo is based not
on the theological or linguistic inadequacy of the term but rather on the resulting
ambiguity of the demonstrative pronoun hicat John 1:2. In order to make his rea-
soning clear, it is necessary to present the versions of Erasmus and the Vulgate for
John 1:1-2:
Vulg.: In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud deum, et deus erat verbum. Hoc
erat in principio apud deum.
DE: In principio erat sermo, et sermo erat apud deum, et deus erat ille sermo. Hic
erat in principio apud deum. [My emphasis]

Since sermo and deus are both masculine, Musculus argues that the masculine
demonstrative hic in Erasmus's version has an unclear antecedent. This ambiguity
may be avoided, he argues, if the Vulgate reading is retained since the neuter pro-
noun hoc can only refer to the neuter verbum. Musculus writes:
The version of Erasmus, which has "hic erat in principio apud deum," is ambiguous
since the demonstrative "hic" is able to be expounded both of God and his word, and
may be understood both that God was in the beginning with God, and that speech was
 On the Miracle at Sea 87

in the beginning with God. But I pointed out above that the Evangelist with singular
care does not say "and God was with God," but "and the word was with God." Accord-
ingly, I prefer to read according to the old version: "In principio erat verbum .. ."19
Although Musculus once again shows himself attentive to the fine points of Latin
grammar in his decisions as a translator, his argument here is unconvincing.
Erasmus's translation is, in fact, no more ambiguous than the original Greek where
the masculine demonstrative also may refer to either both of
which are masculine in gender.
In his alterations of Erasmus's translation, Musculus is attentive not only to the
Greek and the Vulgate but also to the linguistic aids in Erasmus's Annotationes. In
his glosses of Greek words and phrases in the Annotationes, Erasmus usually offers
several possible Latin equivalents. Musculus frequently chooses one of these glosses
instead of the term that appears in Erasmus's translation. For example, at John
10:24, Musculus appears to offer a translation independent of Erasmus and the
Vulgate:
Vulg.: Si tu es Christus, die nobis palam.
DE: Si tu es Christus, dic nobis ingenue.
WM: Si tu es Christus, dic nobis libere.
Yet the term chosen by Musculus is suggested by Erasmus in the Annotationes
in his discussion of the word a term he glosses "libere sive ingenue." A
similar example occurs at John 4:6:
Vulg.:Iesus ... sedebat sic supra fontem.
DE: Iesus . .. sedebat sic super fontem.
WM: lesus . . . sedebat sic ad fontem.
In the Annotationes, Erasmus argues for the superiority of super to supra but
suggests additionally that ad fontem is "better than supra fontem" (melius quam
supra fontem). Although Musculus does not identify the Annotationes as the source
for these changes, the number of examples precisely like the two above strongly
suggests that Musculus corrects the Erasmian translation by Erasmus himself.20
In the course of his commentary, Musculus makes frequent use of the Annota-
tiones, sometimes acknowledging his dependence and sometimes not. Occasion-
ally, he does not bother to repeat Erasmus's arguments but simply directs the
reader to the Annotationes as a source of useful information on a particular word
or phrase.21 In places where he actually summarizes information gleaned from
the Annotationes, his borrowings maybe classified into four main areas. First, he
uses the Annotationes as a lexicographical source to explain the precise meaning
of Greek words. Second, he draws upon Erasmus's linguistic expertise in the
explanation of Greek syntax and grammar. Third, he finds the Annotationes a
valuable aid in the explanation of textual problems. And finally, Musculus occa-
sionally uses the Annotationes as a source for patristic exegesis, especially in places
 88 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

where Erasmus neatly summarizes the contrasting views of the Fathers on cer-
tain problematic passages.
The very fact that Musculus includes lexicographical discussions of the Greek
in his commentary shows the influence of humanist biblical studies on his method
of interpreting John. Although some of his technical linguistic arguments are not
based directly on the work of Erasmus, his method of glossing Greek words and
expressions with several Latin counterparts owes its inspiration to humanist ideals
of biblical scholarship.22 Usually, however, when Musculus cites the Greek, he cites
and discusses precisely those words or expressions that Erasmus highlights in the
Annotationes. At John 8:7, for example, Musculus gives Erasmus's definition of the
word a definition he finds useful for exegetical purposes.23 But more
frequently, Musculus summarizes lexicographical information from the Annota-
tiones without acknowledging his borrowings. Thus, at John 14:16 he repeats
Erasmus's argument that means advocatus as well as consolator,24 Simi-
larly, at John 3:3 and 3:7, Musculus shows his dependence on Erasmus's explana-
tion of the meaning of the word Erasmus argues that the word may be
understood as a temporal adverb meaning ab integro (anew) or iterum (again) or
as a spatial adverb meaning superne sive de supernis (from above). Musculus states
that the word may mean "vel iterum, vel ab integro, vel e supernis" and proceeds
to explain the exegetical implications of each possibility.
In addition to simple lexicography, Musculus uses the Annotationes to identify
phrases that pose grammatical and syntactical problems. For example, at John 1:14
Erasmus alerts his readers to a difficulty in the sentence: "et vidimus gloriam eius,
gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis." The problem, he notes,
is associated with the word plenum, which has no obvious antecedent. Since the
Greek word is indeclinable, the Latin translator must make a grammatical
and interpretive decision. Erasmus concedes that most interpreters have under-
stood the word to apply to Christ; plenum in this case would modify verbum. Yet
Erasmus is not satisfied with this solution becauseplenum is separated from verbum
by so many words that it "coheres rather awkwardly" (duriuscule cohaeret). He
argues that the word coheres better with what immediately follows—namely, John
the Baptist. Therefore, Erasmus proposes the reading: "Plenus gratia et veritate
Ioannes testificatur de illo" (Full of grace and truth, John bore witness concerning
him). Musculus agrees with Erasmus's assessment of the problem but is reluctant
to endorse his solution:
It is certainly rather awkward that he does not say "plenam" so that it might refer to
"gloriam," or "pleni" so that it might refer to "unigeniti," but "plenum." As if all these
things—"and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only-begotten of the Father"—
are inserted as a parenthesis, so that Erasmus, by no means without cause, suspects
these words to relate to those things which follow concerning John. But let us follow
the received reading so that we may understand the Evangelist here to speak not of
John, but of Christ.25
 On the Miracle at Sea 89

At John 8:25, however, Musculus enthusiastically endorses a grammatical argu-

ment of Erasmus. The word Erasmus notes, should not be understood
nominally as in the Vulgate translation: "Principium qui et loquor vobis" (the
beginning, which I also speak to you). Rather, the word should be understood
adverbially asprimo orprincipio (at/in the beginning). Furthermore, Erasmus argues
that the adverb need not be understood temporally but rather in the sense of primo
loco (in the first place). This sense of the word is expressed in Erasmus's transla-
tion of 1519: "In primis quod et loquor vobis" (primarily what I also say to you).
Musculus translates the sentence in the same way and defends the translation in
terms suggested by Erasmus's Annotationes: "That which Erasmus ren-
ders 'in primis,' signifies nothing else but 'chiefly,' or 'above all,' or 'in sum.'...
And therefore I judge that the Evangelist wanted to express this meaning of the
Lord's words by this formula. .. that is, 'I am this above all and in sum what I now
so often say myself to be.' If anyone should desire other things, let him read
Erasmus."26 Like Erasmus, Musculus recognizes that is a theologically charged
word in John's gospel and that many interpreters have understood John 8:25 as a
statement concerning the preexistent logos. But in this case, Musculus argues that
"it is not necessary to philosophize in a lofty manner" (necesse non sit sublimius
philosophari) since Jesus was speaking "in a very straightforward manner" (sim-
plicissime). Musculus defends this assertion with a linguistic argument based not
on the Annotationes but on his knowledge of Hebrew: "Without doubt the Lord
was speaking not in Greek, but either in Hebrew or Syriac, so that it is likely that
he said either which not only signifies 'in the beginning' so that it
must be related to the order and succession of things, but also signifies 'in sum'
and'head.'"27
This speculation concerning the Hebrew background of New Testament Greek
is a recurring theme throughout Musculus's John commentary. He suggests repeat-
edly that John's Greek presupposes or veils an underlying Hebraism.28 Strange
expressions and grammatical constructions often can be explained, Musculus
argues, by examining the particularities of Hebrew grammar and idiom that lie be-
hind the Greek. The Annotationes never provides the direct inspiration for these
arguments, for Erasmus examines Hebrew only when discussing the etymology of
loan-words or when comparing John's Old Testament quotations with the origi-
nal.29 Yet Musculus's study of latent Hebraisms certainly reflects the spirit of the
Annotationes in an area where he held a technical advantage over Erasmus, who
never mastered Hebrew.
For Musculus, the Annotationes was a rich source of information regarding tex-
tual problems, and he occasionally incorporates Erasmus's textual remarks in his
commentary. At John 8:3, for example, Musculus repeats Erasmus's explanation
that the story of the woman taken in adultery is not included in all manuscripts.
Like Erasmus, Musculus refers to Book 3 of Eusebius's Historia ecclesiastica to ex-
plain that the story was taken from the apocryphal Hebrews gospel. Although
 90 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

Musculus concedes that the story may not be original, he expresses little concern
over the matter: "We are not very worried here" (Nos hic non admodum anxii
sumus).
At John 19:13 Erasmus notes that the location of Pilate's court is wrongly termed
lithostratus by the Vulgate. The correct reading, he argues, is given in other Latin
manuscripts as lithostrotos. Musculus repeats this argument but adds his own ex-
planation for why the error occurred. The Vulgate translator, he argues, simply
"joined a Latin pronunciation to the Greek" (latinam vocem graecae coniunxit).
Musculus also repeats Erasmus's etymology of as "a place paved with
stones" (locus lapidibus stratus). A similar example occurs at John 1:28, where
Erasmus proposes on the basis of patristic evidence the reading Bethabam instead
of the Vulgate's Bethania.30 Musculus adopts the change for his own translation
and confidently asserts that the new reading has won the day: "The old translation
incorrectly has 'Bethania.' Although it is beginning to be corrected now, even by
those who reject Erasmus."31 Musculus admits that Bethabara occurs nowhere else
in the Bible, but he claims to have seen it in certain maps of the Holy Land. The
city is located, he argues, in the region where Joshua led the Israelites across the
Jordan, a fact that explains the meaning of Bethabara as "house of passage" (domus
transitus). Musculus argues, in opposition to Erasmus, that Jerome in fact supports
the reading Bethabara in the Loca Hebraica. Erasmus had criticized Jerome's term,
Bethaibam, but Musculus claims to have seen a copy of Jerome's work that has the
reading Bethbaara. This word, Musculus argues, is likely due to the error of a printer
"who by metathesis incorrectly rendered Bethbaara for Bethabara."32 It is also pos-
sible, he suggests, that "some sciolist" (sciolus quispiam) who did not understand
the significance of the meaning of Bethabara intentionally altered Jerome's word
in order to create a place name corresponding to John's baptismal activity; there-
fore the ignorant redactor changed Bethabara to Bethbaara, which means "house
of purification" (domus purificationis).
In the above examples, Musculus shows not only his dependence on Erasmus's
Annotationesbut also his familiarity with principles of textual criticism. Musculus
uses the data in the Annotationes as the basis for his own textual observations. A
further example of this is seen at John 12:38, where Erasmus notes that the word
dominein John's quotation of Isaiah 53:1—"Domine quis credidit auditui nostro"—
does not occur in the Hebrew. Erasmus argues that the addition of the word merely
indicates that John cites Isaiah from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew
Bible. Yet Erasmus notes that the quotation of Isaiah 6:10 at John 12:40 does not
reflect the wording of either the Septuagint or the Hebrew text. Musculus repeats
these observations concerning the two Isaiah quotations and contributes his own
discussion based on analysis of the Hebrew. The peculiar quotation of Isaiah 6:10
may be partially explained, Musculus argues, if John's IIebrew text was unpointed.
Regarding the quotation from Isaiah 53:1, Musculus proposes in fact a new read-
ing of the text. Since Isaiah was speaking in a prophetic voice, Musculus argues,
 On the Miracle at Sea 91

the verbs maybe translated with the future tense: "The speech of the prophet was
constructed here in the past tense, according to the custom of the Hebrew language,
yet it is able to be read in the future as 'who will believe the report,' that is, our
speech, 'and to whom will the arm of the Lord be revealed?' For the prophet was
speaking in that chapter about the passion and death of Christ.33
In addition to this interpretive argument, Musculus adds a textual-grammatical
analysis to change the text even further: "If you get rid of the points in the Hebrew,
you will be able to read both 'who will believe his report,' namely Christ's, and 'who
will believe our report.' For the article not only signifies us and ours, but also
him and his; and therefore the phrase is able to be read as 'our report' and,
if there is a dagesh in the letter nun, 'his report.'"34
The effect of Musculus's analysis is a new reading that makes the christological
force of the verse less ambiguous: "Who will believe his report, and to whom will
the arm of the Lord be revealed?" He does not argue that this reading of Isaiah 53:1
is John's text, for John clearly follows the Septuagint reading. Rather, by using tex-
tual analysis, Musculus argues for a reading that shouldhave been John's text, for
"the reading certainly would have squared very beautifully with the purpose of the
Evangelist."35 Yet having made this rather bold proposal, Musculus sounds a note
of caution since, as he admits, no other interpreter, including the Evangelist him-
self, has ever read the text as "his report." Although the new reading is edifying,
Musculus refuses to give it his full endorsement, "chiefly on account of the authority
of the gospel" (maxime propter autoritatem Evangelii).36 In his analysis of the the
text at John 12:40, Musculus goes far beyond the notes made by Erasmus, perhaps
even too far, as he himself suggests. Yet Musculus demonstrates not only his will-
ingness to appropriate basic data from the Annotationes but also his ability to use
methods of textual analysis to evaluate and build upon that data.
Much of the textual, lexicographical, and grammatical data in the Annotationes
is supplemented by Erasmus with testimonies from patristic literature. Addition-
ally, Erasmus uses the Fathers as exegetical guides in particularly knotty passages.
Musculus also consults the patristic writings throughout his John commentary,
usually for exegetical insights, but occasionally he gleans his information second-
hand; he borrows from or refers to summaries of patristic opinion located in the
Annotationes. Musculus acknowledges his dependence only in places where he does
not actually repeat the patristic data given by Erasmus; he simply refers the reader
to the Annotationes as a source of useful information. Thus, at John 7:1 Musculus
gives a textual variant from Chrysostom without further comment and simply di-
rects the reader to the Annotationes, where the variant reading is treated at length.37
Similarly, at John 14:1, Erasmus notes that the sentence
has four possible readings, depending on whether the verb
in each phrase is understood to be in the indicative or imperative mood. Erasmus
assigns the various readings to different Fathers and discusses the exegetical impli-
cations of each interpretation. Musculus also notes that the ambiguity of the Greek
 92 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

has raised interpretive problems that are treated by the Fathers, but he does not
present the patristic arguments. Rather, he abbreviates his discussion with a refer-
ence to the Annotationes: the words "are able to be read in four ways as has been
noted by Erasmus."38
When Musculus presents the actual substance of patristic opinion gleaned from
the Annotationes, he usually does so without acknowledgment. Thus, at John 13:5-6,
Musculus relates a disagreement between Chrysostom and Augustine concerning the
foot-washing scene. Chrysostom believes that Jesus first began to wash the feet of
Judas and then proceeded to Peter and the other disciples. Augustine, however, be-
lieves the text suggests that Jesus began the ceremony with Peter. Musculus almost
certainly takes this information from the Annotationes, where Erasmus summarizes
the disagreement between the two Fathers.39 In their assessment of the disagreement,
however, Erasmus and Musculus go their separate ways. Erasmus sides with Chryso-
stom: "The suspicion of Chrysostom is more pleasing to me [than Augustine's opin-
ion] " (Mihi tamen magis arridet Chrysostomi suspitio). But Musculus sides with Au-
gustine against Chrysostom: "Augustine refutes this opinion, and neither does it
[Chrysostom's opinion] seem likely to me" (Verum refutat hanc opinionem Augus-
tinus, nec mihi videtur probabilis). Once again, Musculus demonstrates his reliance
on the basic data in the Annotationes. But the fact that he presents this data, be it
patristic opinion, textual problems, or grammatical difficulties, does not mean that
Musculus uses or interprets it in the same way as Erasmus.
The foregoing catalog of borrowings firmly establishes Erasmus's Annotationes
and translation of John as important sources for Musculus's commentary. Yet in
these borrowings Musculus consistently shows himself to be more than a mere
epigone of Erasmus. He adopts Erasmus's translation as his basic text, but not
without important modifications and corrections. He reproduces linguistic and
textual data from Erasmus's Annotationes but often adds his own assessment of
that data. Yet the fact that Musculus includes problems of text, translation, and
grammar in the course of his commentary shows not only his indebtedness to
Erasmus but also his recognition of the new set of priorities for commentary-writing
that biblical humanism engendered.

THE M I R A C L E AT SEA (JN 6:16-26)

We have determined that Musculus uses the critical philological and textual tools
of humanism in the composition of his John commentary. We turn now to an
examination of his exegesis of John 6:16-26 in the context of humanist interpreta-
tions. There are two humanist commentaries on John that may serve as candidates
for this comparative study: the Paraphrasis in Evangelium secundumIoannem
of Erasmus, first published in 1523, and the Commentarii initiatorii in quatuor
Evangelia of Faber Stapulensis, which first appeared in 1522.
 On the Miracle at Sea 93

Erasmus's Paraphrasis does not share all of the characteristics of a traditional

biblical commentary. As a paraphrast, Erasmus does not attempt to solve all of the
exegetical problems in the text. Synoptic difficulties are rarely discussed, theologi-
cal discussions are kept to a minimum, and the opinions of previous commenta-
tors are never explicitly summarized. In short, Erasmus produces a fairly continu-
ous narrative that allows for few of the traditional interruptions in the exposition
of the text.40 Yet these differences alone do not distinguish the paraphrase and the
commentary as entirely distinct literary genres. Erasmus himself, in the preface to
his Paraphrasis in loannem, argues that "a paraphrase too is a kind of commen-
tary."41 Although a paraphrase has an expository function that is narrower in scope
than that of a commentary, it represents an important mode of explanation found
in many biblical commentaries. Musculus makes consistent use of paraphrase
throughout his John commentary, usually with the formulaic quasi dicere (as if to
say).42 He also frequently uses false paraphrase in order to make the positive mean-
ing of a statement more explicit: "Non dicit... sed dicit..." (He does not say...
but says ...). Furthermore, Erasmus's Paraphrasis often blurs the distinction be-
tween paraphrase and commentary by its occasional inclusion of allegories and
moral observations. Therefore, the Paraphrasis has an explanatory value that has
allowed it to enter the stream of Johannine exposition consulted by commenta-
tors on John.
Musculus indicates his familiarity with Erasmus's Paraphrasis inIoannem by two
explicit references, one expressing his agreement and the other his disagreement.43
Whether he utilized Faber's Commentarii is not clear. Although he never explicitly
mentions the work, there is at least one piece of evidence that suggests his acquain-
tance with it. At John 7:28 Musculus mentions the interpretation of recentiores who
interpret the words of Jesus—"Me nostis et unde sim nostis" (You know me and
you know where I come from)—as an ironical statement (verbaper ironiam dicta).
According to these interpreters, the statement actually means the opposite of what
it seems to affirm. This interpretation of 7:28 is first proposed by Faber in his
Commentarii, and the explanations of Musculus and Faber do indeed have a strong
verbal similarity:

FS: Ac si diceret: Dicitis quod me scitis, & unde sim: at neque me scitis, neque unde
sim scitis.
(As if he said: You say that you know me and where I am from, but you neither
know me nor do you know where I am from.)
WM: Quasi dicat, Nec me nostis, nec unde sim scitis.
(As if he says: You neither know me nor do you know where I am from.)44

Yet the fact that Musculus, unlike Faber, calls this interpretation "ironia" sug-
gests his reliance on another source—namely, either Melanchthon or Bucer. In his
comments on the verse, Melanchthon writes: "I do not think it is irony, but rather
45
a simple statement." Bucer, on the other hand, embraces the ironical interpreta-
 94 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

tion: "He answered them by irony, whereby he was indicating that they were de-
ceived and that they did not know what they were bragging about."46 Therefore,
when Musculus indicates that recentiores interpret the verse as ironical, he may mean
Faber or Bucer or both. While this example does not firmly establish Musculus's
dependence on Faber, it does suggest a ground for suspecting his acquaintance with
Faber's John commentary.

The Literal Interpretation

If we were to confine ourselves strictly to the areas of common interest in the in-
terpretations of Musculus, Erasmus, and Faber on the sea miracle (Jn 6:16-26),
our comparative study would be limited almost entirely to literal exegesis. Even at
this level of interpretation, thematic points of contact are surprisingly few in num-
ber. Yet interesting similarities and differences can be demonstrated in three gen-
eral areas of the literal exposition of the story.
First, problems of chronology and geography are treated by our three commen-
tators. If read superficially, the story seems to present no difficulties in this area.
The disciples, we are told, go down to the lake in the evening with the intention of
crossing to Capernaum. Jesus, who has withdrawn from the multitude eager to make
him king, is left alone in his mountain retreat. While the casual reader might find
these details clear enough, the commentator eager for precision will sniff out dis-
crepancies and expose ambiguities in the details of the story's setting. A critical and
contextual reading raises questions in need of interpretive solution.
Second, the purpose of Jesus' miracle is a common area of exegetical investiga-
tion. Walking on the water, Jesus approaches the frightened disciples, who are strug-
gling against a rough sea driven by a fierce wind. He calms the disciples' fear, and
the boat suddenly reaches its intended port. Our commentators want to know why
Jesus performed the miracle as he did. What point was he making? And who are
the real beneficiaries of the miracle?
Third, the three commentators discuss the role played by the multitude in John's
account of the miracle. Unable to find Jesus in the place where they had been miracu-
lously fed and puzzled by his absence since the disciples had left in the only available
boat, the multitude travel to Capernaum in hope of finding Jesus there. When they
find Jesus, they question him concerning the time of his arrival, a question that prompts
a sharp rebuke from Jesus. Certainly, this rebuke indicates that something was wrong
with the motives of the people. Therefore, Musculus, Erasmus, and Faber each ex-
plore the nature and cause of their faulty disposition. Was their attitude entirely rep-
rehensible? If so, in what way? If not, why does Jesus reprimand them so severely?

Chronological and Geographical Problems

The issue of chronology centers on the time of the disciples' departure. They go
down to the sea, according to the Vulgate, when "it was late" (sero factum est).
 On the Miracle at Sea 95

According to Erasmus, this temporal expression simply means the evening. The
disciples, he argues, were looking for Jesus on the mountain, but as night began to
fall, they gave up their search and prepared for the trip to Capernaum, being
unwilling to spend the night in the desert. By the time they were ready to begin
their journey, "it was already dark" (iam erant tenebrae).47
Faber, however, argues that when the disciples boarded their boat, it was not yet
evening, but "the day was turning toward evening" (dies vergebat in vesperam). The
Greek phrase he concedes, may be translated as in the Vulgate:
"Ut autem sero factum est" (now as it was late). But a better translation would be:
"ut autem sero fiebat" (now as it was becoming late). Although Faber concedes
that the Latin perfect tense corresponds to the Greek aorist, he argues for using
the imperfect tense strictly on the basis of exegetical necessity; the disciples could
not have departed in the evening since, according to Matthew and Mark's account,
Jesus dispatched them before nightfall. John himself implies that the multitude
watched the disciples depart (Jn 6:22), indicating good visibility. Therefore, the
use of the imperfect tense is entirely appropriate: "For an indefinite should some-
times be understood even when the imperfect is omitted, especially when the mat-
ter requires it, which seems to be the case here."48
Like Erasmus, Musculus argues that the disciples departed on their journey in
the evening. He repeats Erasmus's translation of John 6:16, a translation that makes
this point unambiguously: "at ubi iam vespera esset" (but when it was already
evening).49 Yet the matter does not end here because Musculus, like Faber, recog-
nizes that an evening departure seems to conflict with the synoptic account of the
story. However, Musculus and Faber see this tension differently. Faber believes that
evening indicates nightfall; since Matthew and Mark relate that Jesus dispatched
the disciples before he had even dismissed the multitude, and since John states that
the multitude watched the disciples depart, the time of their departure must have
been earlier than evening. Musculus, on the other hand, argues that the disciples
seem to have departed at a time later than evening since Matthew relates that the
evening was drawing near before Jesus had even fed the five thousand (Mt 14:15).
Musculus identifies the problem as follows: "If it was already evening, before he
was consulted about feeding those crowds, how is it that our [Evangelist] says here
that the disciples left to board the boat when evening came? For certainly it must
be believed that several hours were spent in feeding the crowds."50 The resolution
of this problem depends, Musculus argues, on a correct understanding of the term
"evening" (vespera), which "is not the space of just one hour but commonly in-
cludes all the time that is from three in the afternoon to night, up until dark."51
Therefore, the multitude was fed in the early part of the evening—namely, late
afternoon—and the disciples departed in the late part of the evening as nightfall
approached.
The geographical information in the story elicits little discussion in Erasmus's
paraphrase. The disciples, he argues, having been unable to find Jesus on the moun-
tain, simply decided to go to Capernaum because they knew Jesus had a residence
 96 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

(domicilium) there.52 For Faber and Musculus, however, the designation of Caper-
naum as the intended destination of the disciples is problematic. Once again, they
define the problem differently.
For Faber the difficulty arises from the Vulgate translation of verse 17: "Venerunt
trans mare in Capernaum" (They came across the sea to Capernaum). This trans-
lation, he argues, maybe misconstrued to suggest that the disciples completed the
action of crossing and arrived in Capernaum before their encounter with Jesus.
This interpretation must be rejected, for "it is unlikely that they were in Capernaum
and then returned to the sea, rowing again whence they came. For if they had been
across the sea, they would have waited there for the Lord."53 Therefore, Faber
offers a translation that makes the durative force of the verb less ambiguous: "Ibant
trans mare in Capharnaum" (They were going across the sea to Capernaum).
For Musculus, the problem lies in the apparent discrepancies between the geo-
graphical information given by John, Matthew, and Mark. John relates that the
disciples were headed toward Capernaum, but Mark says that Jesus ordered them
to go to Bethsaida. Furthermore, both Mark and Matthew state that the disciples
landed in Gennesaret. The exegetical challenge for Musculus is to harmonize this
information: "If you consider [the matter] carefully, there will be no discrepancy
here."54 The fact that the disciples landed in Gennesaret in no way conflicts with
John's account since Gennesaret is the name of the geographical district in which
Capernaum lies.55 But the fact that Jesus orders the disciples to Bethsaida, not
Capernaum, in Mark's gospel is not so easily explained. Musculus suggests that
the accounts maybe harmonized if Bethsaida is understood not as the final desti-
nation but rather as a transit point on the way to Capernaum. In ordering the dis-
ciples to Bethsaida, Jesus was simply giving navigational directions. He wanted the
disciples to travel toward Bethsaida and then to turn off from Bethsaida toward
the far shore where Capernaum was located. Why would Jesus make such a strange
command? Musculus confesses his ignorance: "Perhaps [the sea] was crossed more
advantageously that way, or perhaps because he intended something else in this
command, unknown to us."56

The Purpose of the Miracle

Regarding the purpose of Jesus' miracle, we find a greater degree of unanimity
between our three commentators. Each argues that Jesus performed the miracle in
order to demonstrate his lordship over nature. According to Faber, by walking on
the sea, by stilling the storm (as is clear from the synoptic accounts), and by trans-
ferring the boat suddenly to land, Jesus shows himself to be "lord of the earth, sea,
waves, and wind" (terrae, maris, fluctuum, ventorum dominum) ,57 Similarly,
Erasmus states that Jesus was "walking on the waves of the lake, just as if treading
upon solid ground in order to declare himself lord not only of the earth, but of all
elements."58 Musculus makes the same point: "That the Lord walked over that
 On the Miracle at Sea 97

stormy sea produces a declaration of his divine strength and power, which inani-
mate things not only recognize but are even compelled to revere, that they obey
him even against their own nature."59
Unlike Faber and Erasmus, however, Musculus emphasizes the divine economy
of the miracle that demonstrates in the best conceivable fashion the lordship of
Christ over nature. Jesus could have proceeded to the disciples in another man-
ner; but any other method would have diminished the force of the point he was
making. He could have flown through the air, untouched by the turbulent sea. He
could have parted the waters and walked on the dry bottom, untroubled by the
adverse wind. But Jesus preferred to walk on the surface of the tempestuous sea
directly into the rushing wind in order to demonstrate his lordship in a concrete
fashion. "What else do the winds and sea proclaim by this example but that this
Christ is the Son of God and their very creator?"60
Furthermore, Musculus argues that the ultimate purpose of the miracle is not
simply to demonstrate Jesus' lordship over nature. Rather, by showing his author-
ity over inanimate things, Jesus intends to reveal a fortiori his authority and lord-
ship over human beings.

A human being also has authority among human beings, but no mortal, however
powerful, will command the sea and wind except the one here, king and lord of all
things. Therefore, how much easier is it for Christ to command mortals, whom the
winds and sea very often overturn and destroy, since he imposes a bridle with such
ease on those wild elements, the subduers of mortals, and uses them according to
his will, even against their nature?61

Accordingly, Musculus argues that those who resist the rule of Christ act not only
impiously but also unnaturally, resisting the very course of nature.
For all three commentators, the miracle expresses a timeless truth in teaching
the lordship of Christ. This purpose of the miracle should be noted by any reader
of the story. Yet Erasmus and Musculus stress that on the literal level this didactic
purpose was aimed primarily at the disciples. Both emphasize the psychological
disposition of the disciples, whose flagging faith was the immediate cause of Jesus'
miracle.
According to Erasmus, the disciples "are tortured" (cruciarentur) by their long-
ing for Jesus. Terrified, they find themselves in the midst of a turbulent sea and,
what is worse, at night, a fact that only increases their horror. When the disciples
finally see Jesus, they are frightened out of their wits because they think him to be
a "nocturnal specter" (nocturnem spectrum). Yet the primary cause of their fear is
a "weak and vacillating trust" (imbecillis ac vacillans fiducia) that is exposed by the
storm. Therefore, Jesus not only calms the storm but also miraculously transfers
the boat to land in order to show the disciples that everything had taken place by
divine power. The perilous circumstances and the miracle itself were divinely ar-
ranged in order to address the matter of the disciples' faith. "By these proofs, this
 98 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

miracle was carefully imprinted on the souls of the disciples, whose faith had to be
formed and confirmed in every way."62
Musculus, even more than Erasmus, emphasizes the fear that consumes the dis-
ciples. Drawing upon the synoptic accounts and his own imagination, he enumer-
ates the circumstances that bring about a situation fraught with danger and terror.
First, the disciples are confronted by a fierce headwind that not only impedes their
progress but threatens to overturn the boat. Second, violent and huge waves gen-
erated by the wind threaten at any moment to bury the boat. Third, the disciples
find themselves in the middle of the sea, not along the coast. Fourth, the darkness
of the night, cutting off every view of the shore, doubles the horror. And finally,
the disciples encounter this situation alone, for Jesus is not yet present with them.
Because of their fragile disposition, they scream out in terror when Jesus finally
appears, thinking him to be a specter.63
Like Erasmus, Musculus argues that the disciples encounter this frightful situa-
tion not by chance but rather by providential arrangement. Jesus sends them on
the journey in order to prepare them for a miracle that is necessitated by the weak-
ness of their faith. The disciples had already seen many miracles, but they did not
have their intended effect. Indeed, having just witnessed the miraculous feeding
of five thousand people, the disciples were still cold to Jesus' power, as noted in
Mark 6:52: "For they did not understand concerning the bread. Indeed, their heart
was blinded." This obduracy, which does not go unnoticed by Jesus, is the primary
reason for the miracle at sea: "Therefore what else was there for the Lord to do but
by a special and effective miracle to banish this blindness of their hearts and to
impart an understanding of his power?"64 Certainly, the disciples do not entirely
lack faith, but their faith is not based on a proper estimation of who Jesus really is.
The miracles they had witnessed should have long since convinced them of Jesus'
divinity, but they continue to think of him in a worldly manner:

They believed him to be the Messiah promised in the prophets, and the son of David,
and they were hoping for him shortly to occupy the kingship of Israel. They followed
him in this faith; they were not even dreaming that he was the son of God.. . . There-
fore Christ performed that miracle, not only performed it, but also effected that the
disciples might grow in faith toward him and recognize him truly to be the son of
God and the lord of the winds and the sea and the entire universe.65

To sum up, we find a basic similarity between the interpretations of Musculus,

Erasmus, and Faber regarding the primary purpose of the sea miracle: the revela-
tion of Christ's lordship over nature. However, Musculus uniquely stresses that
the miracle demonstrates Christ's lordship over humankind. While Musculus and
Erasmus both emphasize the role of the disciples as the intended audience of the
miracle, Faber makes no mention of this seemingly obvious point. Musculus and
Erasmus both implicate the disciples' lack of faith as the immediate cause of the
miracle, but Musculus alone explains the nature of this deficiency: the disciples
simply do not understand who Jesus is.
 On the Miracle at Sea 99

The Role of the Multitude

Concerning the role of the multitude in the sea miracle, we find once again a gen-
eral similarity in the interpretations of Musculus, Erasmus, and Faber. Each argues
that the multitude searching for Jesus comes by degrees to a realization of the
miracle, and each accuses the multitude of an improper attitude in following Jesus.
This level of interpretive agreement, however, remains at such a basic level that it
is hardly notable; almost any commentator on the story would make these same
general arguments, which scarcely go beyond a recitation of the obvious. At a more
particular level, we find that the interpretations of the three commentators, al-
though by no means entirely contradictory, emphasize certain distinctive themes
in characterizing the disposition of the multitude.
All three commentators characterize the initial state of the multitude as one of
bewilderment. The people expect to find Jesus in the vicinity of where they had
been fed the previous day. They are amazed at his absence because they know that
the disciples had taken the only available boat. According to Erasmus and Faber,
the multitude initially has no inkling of a miracle; the people begin to suspect a
miracle only after they find Jesus in Capernaum. Faber writes that when they see
Jesus they finally realize that a miracle must have taken place because an overland
route would have taken too long and a sea route would have been impossible with-
out a boat. Filled with admiration, they ask Jesus when he arrived.66 According to
Erasmus, even after the people find Jesus in Capernaum, they still find it hard to
believe that a miracle has occurred. The joyful exuberance and loyalty expressed
by the people upon witnessing the miraculous feeding have been replaced by a
perverse cynicism: "But now that heat of the previous day has become cool."67 For
Erasmus, it is skepticism, not admiration, that characterizes their questioning of
Jesus. Musculus alone argues that the people suspect a miracle from the very be-
ginning. Even before setting out across the lake in search of Jesus, they sense that
Jesus must have transported himself by miraculous power. Therefore, they ques-
tion him in order to confirm their suspicion: "And having found [Jesus] when they
had arrived there, they questioned him, by which questioning they certainly signi-
fied their suspicion of a miracle that they conceived from their first conjectures."68
Although Erasmus, Faber, and Musculus differ regarding the precise moment
of the multitude's cognizance of the miracle, they agree that the multitude is gov-
erned by an improper attitude in following Jesus. This faulty disposition is made
obvious by the response of Jesus, who not only refuses to answer the people's ques-
tion but also chastises them with the stinging remark: "You seek me not because
you saw signs, but because you ate of the bread and were filled" (Jn 6:26, Vulg.).
Each of our commentators, however, characterizes both the response of Jesus and
the attitude of the multitude in different terms.
For Musculus, the fact that Jesus refuses to answer the question indicates that
the multitude is partially motivated by an empty curiosity concerning the spec-
tacular. They respond to the miracle as an audience to a magician's sleight of hand;
 100 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

they want to know how the trick was done. Jesus could have satisfied their curios-
ity and brought glory to himself if he had explained the miracle or directed them
to the disciples for eyewitness testimony concerning what had happened. Yet to
do so would have been to neglect the spiritual sickness that afflicted the multitude:
"In responding, he preferred, as was befitting him, to do what was more necessary
for the salvation of those people than to serve his own glory and their curiosity."69
Erasmus also states that Jesus was unwilling to serve his own glory by giving a
public explanation of the miracle. But this unwillingness, he argues, is motivated
solely by humility. Jesus in fact wants the people to learn about the miracle, but he
does not want "to make a boastful display of his power" (ostentare virtutem suam).
Therefore, he directs them to the disciples, who give eyewitness testimony concerning
everything that happened.70 Similarly, Faber argues that the people should not have
asked Jesus something that they could have learned "from others" (ab aim).71
Musculus, Erasmus, and Faber each argue that the multitude, because of its
defective disposition, deserved the severe rebuke from Jesus, but each commenta-
tor characterizes this disposition differently. For Faber, the people are rebuked
because they are motivated by an attitude of selfishness. They seek Jesus not be-
cause of who he is but because of what he can do for them. Having been sumptu-
ously fed in the desert, they seek him in order to procure further worldly benefits.
The multitude seeks Jesus, motivated solely by consideration of self: "And in this
manner they were considering themselves alone, and for the sake of themselves
alone they were doing everything."72 Although they had witnessed the miracle of
the feeding, they had failed to see its signifying intent. As a sign, the miracle should
have convinced them of Jesus' divine status and prompted them to follow "because
he was God" (quia deus esset).
According to Erasmus, the people are rebuked not for their selfishness but for
their stupidity. Enchanted by the food that Jesus had provided, they crassly assume
that bodily nourishment was the purpose of the miracle. The people completely
miss the miracle's pedagogical purpose: to lift their minds to a consideration of
Jesus' teaching, the true spiritual food that pertains to eternal salvation. Erasmus
writes: "By a severe scolding, he corrects the disposition of the multitude, not only
fickle but also stupid and certainly not worthy of gospel teaching. Because although
they had seen great miracles revealing divine power, nevertheless the satiety of the
one banquet stirred them more than the longing for eternal salvation."73 Accord-
ing to Erasmus, Jesus' miracles are never an end in themselves but always present
a sensible and bodily reflection of an insensible and spiritual reality. In essence,
the miracles are a condescension to human ignorance. Any teacher, Erasmus
argues, would prefer to have students able to move directly into the most advanced
areas of a particular discipline. Yet in reality every teacher must "shape and form
the rough intelligence with certain first principles until he has led it to an accurate
knowledge of the discipline, so that no longer will there be any need of those rudi-
ments."74 Jesus therefore rebukes the multitude, much as a teacher might rebuke a
student unable or unwilling to make progress beyond the introductory lessons.
 On the Miracle at Sea 101

Musculus's interpretation certainly does not conflict with those of Faber and
Erasmus, for he acknowledges the selfish concerns of the people and explicitly cen-
sures their "stupidity" (stupiditas). Yet for Musculus, selfishness and stupidity are
the secondary effects of a primary spiritual sickness, which he terms the "sickness
of the carnal soul" (morbum carnalis animi). The people appear to follow out of
religious devotion to Jesus, but in fact they are controlled and motivated by car-
nality: "They were carnal, controlled not by an eagerness for piety, but by an
eagerness for the stomach."75 Furthermore, the people are not even aware of their
own spiritual sickness; they honestly believe themselves pious seekers of Jesus.
Therefore, in responding, Jesus "reveals the latent sickness of the soul in those carnal
people and brings it out into the open." Jesus rebukes the multitude, not as a teacher
irritated by the slow progress of a dull student but as a physician confronted with
a sick patient feigning wellness and "presuming very much concerning a health he
does not have."76

The Spiritual Interpretation

As noted above, the topics of common concern in the interpretations of Musculus,
Faber, and Erasmus are limited almost entirely to the level of literal exegesis. While
Musculus expends a great deal of creative energy in explicating a wide range of
allegorical and moral meanings of the sea miracle, Faber and Erasmus all but
ignore the spiritual significance of the story. Therefore this study is not limited to
thematic points of contact in the interpretations of Musculus and the two human-
ists. To limit the study in this way would grossly misrepresent the situation, for in
comparing the spiritual interpretations of these commentators, the impressive fea-
ture is not the occasional similarity of argument but the striking contrast in the
quantity and scope of spiritual meanings. Furthermore, it is simply impossible to
appreciate Musculus's interpretation of the story without recounting the rich
mosaic of allegorical images and moral truths that he finds below the surface of
the literal meaning. Spiritual exegesis dominates his reading of the story, easily
accounting for two-thirds of all his comments. Therefore, I present here a sum-
mary of some of the major themes in Musculus's spiritual interpretation, includ-
ing those themes that correspond to ideas found in the commentaries of Faber and
Erasmus.
The storm, according to Musculus, has great instructive value as an image (imago)
of the moral maxim, "Hardship yields understanding" (Vexatio dat intellectum). God
frequently allows his people, represented by the disciples, to encounter satanic
opposition, represented by the storm, in order to promote their faith and under-
standing. For Musculus, each element of the storm—the darkness, the rough sea,
the wind, and the waves—represents a different facet of the satanic tyranny that
rages against the elect.
The darkness of the sea voyage represents the darkness of the soul that descends
upon those destitute of Christ. When Jesus finally appears to the disciples, it is still
 102 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

physically dark, but the darkness of their souls is lifted: "As indeed the presence of
the sun brings in day, and its absence night, so also the presence of Christ, who is
the true light, brings illumination of hearts, but his absence brings a darkening of
hearts."77 Erasmus, in one of his rare moments of allegorical speculation, offers a
similar argument. The fact that the disciples see Jesus approaching signifies the
spiritual illumination of those to whom Jesus is present: "But the love of the gos-
pel also has eyes in the dark, and there is no night where Jesus is present, nor is
there a deadly storm where he, who calms all things, is nearby."78 Here we have
Erasmus's sole allegorical observation regarding the sea voyage. Faber is even more
reticent, interpreting all the details of the storm, the voyage, and the miracle in a
strictly literal fashion. But for Musculus, the allegorical significance of the dark-
ness is only the beginning of an extended spiritual exposition.
Musculus argues that the stormy sea produces in general an image of the satanic
opposition facing those who preach the gospel. The sea, initially calm and tranquil,
becomes turbulent as soon as the disciples set sail at the command of Christ. Min-
isters of the Word should therefore expect immediate and ferocious opposition as
soon as they begin to preach, at Christ's command, the gospel of God's kingdom.
The wind and the waves represent more particularly, according to Musculus, the
nature of Satan's opposition to all Christians, especially to those entrusted with
the ministry of the Word.
The wind opposes the course of the disciples' voyage, just as the kingdom of Satan
perpetually opposes the course of the kingdom of God. Since wind is invisible, it
presents a fitting image of Satan's power. Wind also maybe compared to the Holy
Spirit, but that wind is of a different sort: it blows calmly and refreshes the earth,
unlike the satanic wind, which blows violently and threatens destruction. The hostile
wind opposes the disciples in the dark because Satan's rule "is in the darkness of
ignorance and all kinds of errors and lies." For this reason, Paul refers to the evil
spirits as the "rulers of darkness" (Eph 6:12) and to Satan's kingdom as the "power
of darkness" (Col 1:13). The fact that the wind not only opposes the course set
by the disciples but also whips the sea into an agitated state "teaches beautifully
whence the rousing and agitation of this age is, which arises at the preaching of the
truth." The disciples in their one little boat certainly do not cause this agitation,
for they would have preferred to sail peacefully on a calm sea. Similarly, those who
preach the gospel "do not rouse the world to dissension, which they prefer to exist
in peace ... but Satan, the prince of this world, is in an uproar in his kingdom,
being unable to endure the teaching of truth."79
Musculus also interprets the stormy sea as an image of worldly princes and
magistrates who oppose the proclamation of the gospel. The sea was not agitated
"just in any way" (utcunque), but "great mountains of waves" (magni fluctuum
monies) were towering over the disciples. The huge waves represent both the cru-
elty and arrogance of rulers who, swollen by a haughty spirit, rage from on high
against the humble teachings of Christ. These rulers appear to act of their own power
 On the Miracle at Sea 103

and authority, but in fact they are captives to Satan's tyranny. Their captivity is
represented by the stormy sea since the waves "did not rise up of their own
accord" (non suapte sponte exurgebant) but were driven and controlled by the fierce
wind. "Clearly," writes Musculus, "in this manner the tyrants of this world, raging
against the teaching of Christ, are to be compared. They are captives of Satan, sub-
ject to his blowings and impulses. They are not roused to raging of their own
accord, nor are they brought down to mildness of their own accord.... They do
not their own, but Satan's business."80 The captivity of these tyrants is such that
they rage not only against the teachings and teachers of Christ but also against each
other, just as the waves driven by the wind crash violently together. Such rulers are
more to be pitied than to be detested or feared for they harm themselves more than
they harm anyone else. Yet one should recognize that the cruel and haughty spirit
that controls the tyrants of the world also threatens to tyrannize pious souls. Con-
sequently, Musculus argues that the image of the waves carries an implicit moral
admonition:

Therefore, as often as we see, whether in ourselves or others, a swollen and raging

motion of the soul, just like the high and raging waves of the roused sea, let us recog-
nize this adversarial wind, by its impulse agitating, rousing, raising, and carrying off
calmness and humility of souls to ferocity, and let us beseech the Lord, who is able
to restrain the motion of both the sea and hearts, that in restraining this adversarial
wind, and with the storm having been calmed, he might restore tranquillity and sub-
mission of souls.81

Musculus consistently develops moral lessons from the images represented by

the sea miracle, attempting to demonstrate not only what the latent images repre-
sent but also what they teach. This moralizing tendency is seen especially in another
theme in Musculus's spiritual interpretation: the disciples as an image of followers
of Christ. The behavior and attitudes of the disciples function both positively and
negatively as moral exhortations and admonitions to Christians of all ages.
First of all, the disciples give an example of true obedience. As is clear from the
accounts of Matthew and Luke, the disciples did not set out on the voyage on their
own initiative but rather at Jesus' command. Although they were completely
ignorant of what would happen, they demanded no explanation for the command
nor did they hesitate; they simply obeyed. Musculus argues that their behavior
demonstrates the type of obedience required of all followers of Christ. Even if a
command seems puzzling or unrealistic, simple obedience is required, for "obedi-
ence alone preserves pious and faithful souls.. . even when they are quite unaware
of God's plans."82 Human reason has no right to issue demands of God, but all too
often it seeks to quench its own curiosity, resisting obedience until satisfied with
the reasonableness of divine counsel. But believers should simply and immediately
obey, just as the disciples did, in the confidence that God's providential care
directs everything both for their own good and for his own glory.
 104 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

The disciples also exemplify the type of irrational fear that continually plagues
Christians. They thought they were seeing a specter when Jesus first appeared, and
consequently, they were consumed by a groundless fear. Even if they had seen a
specter, there would have been nothing to fear since "a specter is certainly nothing
but an illusion and a false apparition, and for this reason, it is called in
Greek."83 Their fear presents an image of a common human malady that arises from
the deception of the human heart. According to Musculus, this deception mani-
fests itself in a complete disorientation of our fears. We fear things that are not truly
evil but are merely the "empty specters of evil things" (inania malorum spectra).
Yet in fleeing the things that threaten no real harm, we eagerly run after and em-
brace things that appear as "phantasms of good things" (bonorum phantasmata),
things that are truly evil and harmful. More saliently, Musculus writes: "Sickness
of the body, lack of worldly possessions, scorn in the world, and even death itself
are not truly evil but are the phantasms of evil things. Those who are frightened by
these, are frightened by empty specters. On the other hand, health of the body,
wealth, fame, a long life, etc., are not truly good but are the specters of good things.
Whoever is delighted by these, is delighted by specters."84 Therefore, for Musculus,
the image of the terrified disciples serves to warn us of the seduction of human
reason, which causes, even in followers of Christ, a disorientation of proper spiri-
tual values.
In his spiritual interpretation, Musculus develops another major theme concern-
ing the saving power of Jesus, who rescues all of his followers from the onslaughts
of Satan, just as he rescued the disciples from the storm. The image presented is
one of great consolation because the story shows that no matter what Satan attempts
to do against Christians, Jesus will not be hindered from bringing deliverance. But
the story presents much more than a general image of salvation, for each detail of
Jesus' behavior symbolizes in particular how Jesus saves those who endure distress
of the soul. Jesus sees the disciples from the shore; he delays the moment of libera-
tion; he speaks a word of comfort. Each of these elements in Jesus' rescue mission
has symbolic importance in Musculus's interpretation.
When Jesus stood on the shore and watched the troubled circumstances of the
disciples (as is related by Mark's gospel), he was sustaining them "by the power of
this looking" (virtute aspectus huius). Although the disciples had no idea that they
were being observed, they were in fact being protected from sinking by the "eyes
of his majesty" (oculos maiestatis suae). In the same way, Christians in the midst of
trials are protected from danger by the sustaining power of Christ. When believers
recognize the fact that Jesus, although absent in body, sees their distress in times
of trial, they will be comforted by this fact and will attempt all the more to resist
temptation.85
The fact that Jesus delays his rescue mission indicates, according to Musculus,
that God uses trials and tribulations in order to benefit the faithful. Jesus could
have come immediately to the disciples' aid, but he allowed them to struggle at the
 On the Miracle at Sea 105

oars for several hours. He wanted them to come to a recognition of the utter hope-
lessness of their situation because only then would they experience and understand
the power of salvation. Similarly, God allows the elect to endure testings for a time,
until by his providential wisdom he brings deliverance. If God were to rescue be-
lievers as soon as troubles first appeared, then he would manifest a love that is blind
(caecus amor). But God reveals a love (dilectio) that "is conjoined with wisdom and
prudence" (sapientem ac prudentiam habet adjunctam). Therefore, God always
perfectly times the testings and deliverance of the elect so that they will grow in
knowledge and faith.86
Finally, Musculus analyzes the act of deliverance itself. Jesus did not simply watch
the struggling disciples, nor did he delay forever, but eventually he came to their
aid. This fact presents a further image of consolation: "Not only does Christ know
and see our trials, and .. . conserve us lest we perish, but at an opportune time he
also runs and liberates with the highest consolation and grace those experiencing
troubles."87 For Musculus, the significant aspect of this act of deliverance lies in
the act of speech. Jesus did not simply appear to the disciples, but he calmed their
fear with the words: "It is I, do not fear" (Ego sum, nolite timere). As long as he was
silent, the disciples considered him a specter, an object of terror, but as soon as he
spoke, they recognized him to be their beloved teacher. For Musculus, this part of
the story signifies that Christ never presents himself to those laboring in the sea of
this world without his Word. Indeed, Christ did not appear in the world with bald
demonstrations of miraculous power, but he added the dispensation of his Word
in order to make himself known to mortal minds. The Church continues to present
Christ with the Word because the need for speech is written into the very fabric of
human psychology. Imagine, Musculus suggests, meeting a stranger in the middle
of the night during a solitary walk. If the stranger does not speak, neither giving
nor acknowledging a greeting, the encounter will produce fear. Or imagine a king
who never speaks to his subjects; will he not become an object of fear, a "terrible
specter" (formidabile spectrum)?. If the need for speech is so established in worldly
affairs, it is much more necessary in spiritual matters. Thus, when the sacraments
are presented without the Word, they become the objects of a superstitious fear;
"they strike fear and horror in the ignorant, although they were instituted not for
the purpose of frightening but for consoling and confirming." The true Christ is
found wherever his Word is proclaimed.88
Erasmus also sees a spiritual meaning in the act of deliverance, but unlike
Musculus, he does not argue that Jesus' speech is a symbol of the proclaimed Word.
By speaking to the disciples, Jesus simply showed them he was present and assuaged
their fear. Jesus' presence with the disciples signifies "that no fierce tempest of the
world should be feared by those to whom the Lord Jesus is present." While for
Musculus Jesus' words indicate where Jesus is to be found—namely, in the pro-
claimed Word—for Erasmus Jesus' words simply indicate that he is always present
to those "who, by a simple and firm trust, depend on him."89
 106 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

The final theme of major importance in Musculus's spiritual interpretation con-

cerns the allegorical significance of the disciples' boat. He argues that the boat that
transported Christ and the disciples presents a clear "type of the Church" (typus
ecclesiae). Musculus makes no claims to originality here, for he concedes that this
interpretation has been maintained "for a long time now" (iam olim).90 But the
longevity of the interpretation makes it no less compelling to Musculus, for the
boat has features that perfectly image the characteristics of the one true Church.

There is then one boat of Christ; his true Church is also one. Which one? Clearly the
one in which Christ is transported with his people, in which there are those who
comply with the Word of Christ and set sail at his command, in which Christ is
acknowledged as the true son of God and worshiped. The one that lacks Christ, the
Word, and the apostles, in which Christ is neither rightly known nor suitably wor-
shiped, ought not to be known by the name of the Church of Christ but ought to be
classed among mercenaries.91

Musculus characterizes the boats that transported the multitude as mercenary

because he believes they were piloted by sailors eager to make a quick profit in trans-
porting the people to Capernaum. Therefore, these boats present an image of the
multitudinous pseudo-churches that pretend to seek Christ but actually seek
worldly gain. The pseudo-churches are allied more with Satan than with Christ, a
fact that is demonstrated by the peaceful voyage of the boats to Capernaum. There
is no mention of a headwind, of waves, or of a storm of any kind; Satan offers no
opposition, causes no trouble. Therefore, Musculus concludes that the multitude
represents "an image of carnal Christians, for whom the prince of this world makes
no trouble."92 Christians of this kind seem to follow Christ in true devotion, but in
truth they are motivated by an eagerness for carnal pleasures and worldly things;
they seize upon the gospel of Christian liberty as an occasion for the liberty of the
flesh.
For Musculus, the pitiable disposition of these pseudo-Christians stands as a
warning to all true followers of Christ: the "sickness of the carnal soul" is an infec-
tious disease, threatening to kill sincere piety and genuine faith with its deadly
poison. There are people, Musculus believes, who think themselves "truly evan-
gelical" (vere evangelicum), who deserve, like the multitude, to be rebuked by Christ
for an allegiance to Christianity informed by a carnal disposition. The image of
the multitude thus serves as a reminder of the need for habitual introspection:
"Therefore let each one test oneself, by what disposition or to what end he hears
the Word and gospel of Christ."93
Like Musculus, Faber also develops a moral lesson from the faulty disposition
of the multitude. Motivated solely by selfish desires, they demonstrate an attitude
entirely inappropriate to true seekers of God. We are taught, Faber argues, that
God must be sought "on account of God himself and on account of nothing else"
(propter deum ipsum & propter nihil aliud).94 This moral observation is the only
 On the Miracle at Sea 107

point where Faber and Musculus offer a similar spiritual interpretation. Even more
striking, however, is the fact that this observation is the only place in Faber's entire
exposition of the sea miracle where he goes beyond a strictly literal interpretation.

CONCLUSION

We have seen that Musculus's John commentary owes a significant debt to the
humanist biblical scholarship of Erasmus. Musculus uses Erasmus's Latin transla-
tion as the basis for his exegesis, and he consults Erasmus's Annotationes for lin-
guistic, textual, and interpretive information. This study has also shown that
Musculus's dependence on the great Dutch humanist is much more extensive than
his occasional citations of Erasmus would suggest. When Musculus treats matters
such as the meaning of the Greek, problems of translation, or textual difficulties,
his discussion is almost always occasioned by the work of Erasmus.
Yet Musculus's dependence on Erasmus is not marked by a ready agreement with
all of Erasmus's conclusions. He appropriates Erasmus's scholarship as a critical
analyst, not as a deferential copyist. Therefore, the data in the Annotationes func-
tion positively to alert Musculus to problematic areas in the interpretation of John's
gospel. But Musculus frequently exercises his own independent skills in linguistic
and textual analysis to evaluate the data differently than Erasmus. Indeed, Musculus
could do so because he himself had mastered the technical and philological tools
of biblical humanism. Most important, Musculus embodied the humanist ideal
for the biblical scholar as a trium linguarum gnarus; he had mastered the three
sacred languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Therefore, while Musculus uses
Erasmus's Latin translation as the basis for his exegesis, he constantly evaluates and
sometimes corrects it by comparing it to the Vulgate and to the Greek. Musculus
corrects Erasmus not as a traditionalist responding to dangerous innovation but
as a scholar appropriating the basic tools and methods of humanism itself.
When we turn to Musculus's exegesis of the sea miracle, we find that his com-
mentary has little in common with the humanist commentaries of Erasmus and
Faber. Given Musculus's significant reliance on Erasmus's biblical scholarship, this
is certainly a striking fact. On the literal level of interpretation, there are a few
basic areas of agreement, but these areas are so general and commonplace that they
do not suggest an important link between Musculus and the humanist commen-
tary. On the spiritual level of interpretation, we find a vast disjuncture in the inter-
pretations of Musculus, Erasmus, and Faber. The abundance of moral observations
and allegorical images in Musculus's interpretation contrasts vividly with the
interpretations of the two humanists, who express little interest in this mode of
exegesis.
An important difference of purpose lies at the heart of this contrast in interpre-
tations. While Musculus agrees with the humanist emphasis on the need for lin-
 108 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

guistic and textual analysis in order to establish the literal interpretation of the
biblical text, he does not believe that this type of analysis constitutes the sum of
what it means to interpret the Bible. In writing his John commentary, Musculus is
not interested in producing an academic reference book devoid of theological con-
cerns and practical issues. Certainly, it is important to get the story straight, and
for this reason, Musculus employs sound scholarly methods to explicate the literal
historical sense. But Musculus is primarily interested in producing a work that will
edify faith and promote piety in his readers. Furthermore, he recognizes that his
commentary will be read by ministers eager for insights as they prepare their ser-
mons. Textual problems, etymologies, and grammatical analysis may be interest-
ing reading material to a group of biblical scholars, but they make for rather poor
sermon material. By offering a rich variety of allegorical and moral observations
on the sea miracle, Musculus's interpretation suggests various directions the min-
ister might take at the pulpit.
Read in the context of humanist biblical scholarship, Musculus's interpretation
of the sea miracle manifests features that are both old and new. His spiritual inter-
pretation is based on methods of exegesis developed in centuries past. Placed in a
medieval or patristic context, his allegorical images and moral observations would
appear much less novel than they do in a humanist context. But Musculus's com-
mentary brings together the tried and true spiritual methods of interpretation with
the new tools and methods developed by the biblical humanists.
 FIVE

Musculus and Sixteenth-Century

Catholic Commentators on the
Healing at the Pool ofBethesda

In this chapter we examine Musculus's exegesis in the context of com-

mentaries written by Roman Catholic contemporaries of Musculus. We focus here
on interpreters of John who—unlike the Catholic commentators treated in the
previous chapter—shared no sympathy for the Protestant cause or for humanist
methods of exegesis. The number of such commentators is surprisingly small. When
Musculus published his John commentary in 1545, he had been preceded in this
work by eight different Protestant commentators. Yet prior to 1545, only three
nonhumanist Catholic commentators authored works on John: John Major,
Antonius Broickwy von Konigstein, and Francis Titelmans.
In addition to these three relatively obscure figures, there is the John commen-
tary first published in 1530 by Tommaso de Vio (Cajetan, 1469—1534), master
general of the Dominican order, and arguably the most famous Catholic theolo-
gian of the early sixteenth century.1 Cajetan's commentary is not treated in this
comparative study because we are focusing here on Catholic interpretations of John
that reflect a different perspective than the Catholic humanist commentaries of the
previous chapter. Although Cajetan is not usually classified as a humanist, his bib-
lical studies in fact are based upon humanist methods of interpretation.2
The humanist character of Cajetan's biblical commentaries did not go unno-
ticed by his contemporaries. He was accused by the Sorbonne faculty of teaching
Erasmian and Lutheran ideas, and he was attacked by a fellow Dominican,
Ambrosius Catharinus (1484-1553), who published a stinging rebuttal of Cajetan's
exegesis.3 Although Cajetan defended himself against the charge of Protestant sym-
pathies, there is no escaping the decidedly humanist character of his commentaries.4
He believed that the Protestant heresies could be effectively battled only when
Catholic theology rooted itself firmly in the historical-grammatical meaning of
Scripture.

109
 110 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

Cajetan's John commentary is so literal in its interpretation that it would be of

little value even if we were to include it in this study. His comments rarely go be-
yond a terse rephrasing of the Evangelist's words. He does not raise theological
questions, and he rarely offers learned speculation even concerning the literal level
of meaning; spiritual interpretations are nonexistent. The commentaries of Major,
Broickwy, and Titelmans are quite another matter. These men shared not only a
hostility toward the Reformation but also a deep-rooted suspicion of the humanist
program of biblical scholarship. They believed that the humanists were danger-
ous, although perhaps unwitting, allies of the Reformation.

SIXTEENTH-CENTURY CATHOLIC COMMENTATORS ON JOHN

The commentaries of Major, Broickwy, and Titelmans have received very little study
by modern investigators. Indeed, little is known about the authors themselves, who
remain shadowy figures at best to most historians of the sixteenth century. There-
fore, before beginning a comparative exegetical study, I present here a brief intro-
duction of these figures, situating them historically and offering some general ob-
servations about the character of their works on John.
In 1529 the first nonhumanist Catholic John commentary appeared in print,
authored by John Major (1467-1550) as part of his exposition of the four gospels.
Judging by its printing history, the work was not a huge success.5 Major took up
his biblical studies relatively late in life after he had firmly established his reputa-
tion as a philosopher, theologian, and historian.6 A prolific writer on an impres-
sive range of subjects, he is best remembered for his Historia Majoris Britanniae,
his expositions of Aristotle's Logic and Ethics, and his commentary on Lombard's
Sentences.7 As a logician, Major made outstanding scholarly contributions, attract-
ing many gifted students from across Europe.8
Major was educated at Cambridge and at Paris, where he took his arts course at
the College de Sainte-Barbe. He studied theology and logic at the College de
Montaigu and graduated doctor of theology in 1505. He taught at Paris for nearly
thirteen years (at Montaigu, Navarre, and the Sorbonne), after which time he moved
to his native Scotland to teach at the University of Glasgow (1518-1523), and at
St. Andrews University (1523-1526). He reassumed his teaching post at Montaigu
in 1526, remaining four years before returning once again to Scotland, where he
spent the last twenty years of his life in relative obscurity.9
Despite the growing influence of humanism during Major's second tenure in
Paris, he remained to the end a loyal adherent to the old methods of theology. As
a thoroughly scholastic theologian, his writings especially show the influence of
Duns Scotus and William Ockham.10 Major cannot, however, be dismissed as a
reactionary or as a man with his head in the sand. He opposed the Protestant Ref-
ormation in no uncertain terms, but he recognized the need for reform and vigor-
 On the Healing at the Pool of Bethesda 111

ously advocated the conciliar theory.11 He defended the teaching of the Roman
Church against the Protestant assaults, but he himself challenged the Church's
teaching on sexuality.12 Yet many of his contemporaries derided Major as a man
hopelessly behind the times. His detractors accused him of being an obscurant, a
living relic of a discredited mode of learning.13
After Major's work on John, we have the commentary of Antonius Broickwy von
Konigstein (ca. 1475-1541), which was published in 1539 as part of his exposition
of the four gospels.14 Unlike Major's commentary, Broickwy's seems to have gen-
erated considerable interest; from 1539 to 1555, it was printed at least sixteen times.
Yet the man behind the commentary remains an extremely obscure figure, easily
the least known of the three Catholic commentators. Even concerning the basic
matter of his origins, one finds disagreement in the secondary literature: he has
been described variously as a Belgian, a Hollander, and a German.15
Although little is known about Broickwy's early years, Benjamin De Troeyer
demonstrates that his signature clearly makes him a German, a native of the Hessen
town of Konigstein-am-Taunus, situated on the outskirts of Frankfurt-am-Main.16
Concerning Broickwy's later years, more information is available. He was a mem-
ber of the Cologne Province of the Friars Minor and spent his adult life in and
around Cologne. Before 1529 he preached frequently in the Cologne cathedral and
was known for his sermons against Lutheranism. After 1529 he devoted himself to
his writings and served as Guardian of Franciscan houses in Bruhl (1529-1530),
Koblenz (1531-1537), andNijmegen (1539-1540).
Broickwy's primary vocation was to the pulpit, and his writings reflect this fact.
His books were intended primarily for fellow preachers in need of organizational
aids and material in the preparation of their sermons. His first and most popular
writing, an alphabetically organized concordance to the whole Bible, explicitly
reflects this objective.17 But Broickwy's biblical commentaries r.re no exception to
this purpose.18 To his John commentary, for example, he appended an index in
which the reader can locate sermon material organized according to the Church
calendar. His writings contain muted polemics against Protestant theology, yet these
arguments were not intended for the debate of the classroom but for the preacher
seeking to defend Catholic doctrine to the common flock of the local parish.
Finally, we have the John commentary of the Dutch Franciscan Francis Titelmans
(1502-1537), published posthumously in 1543 by his brother Pieter Titelmans.19
Although he died at a young age, Titelmans managed to author an extraordinary
number of works in philosophy, theology, and exegesis.20 Much of his exegetical
work is defined by an overarching concern to combat the biblical humanism of
Erasmus. Titelmans had been well prepared to debate Erasmus during his student
years at Louvain, where he came under the influence of Jacobus Latomus (ca.
1475-1544), who was known for his polemical writings against Protestant theol-
ogy and humanist biblical studies. Titelmans was a distinguished student at Louvain,
taking his bachelor of arts degree in 1521 as the first of 162 candidates. Soon there-
 112 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

after, he began studying theology while teaching philosophy in the arts faculty. In
1523 he entered the Observants' house of the Franciscans in Louvain, and by 1525
he was instructing his brother friars in philosophy and the Bible. Titelmans re-
mained in Louvain until 1535, when, attracted by the stricter rule of the newly
founded Capuchin order, he obtained a transfer and departed for Italy, teaching
theology at Milan and serving in a hospital for the incurably ill in Rome. His body
weakened by the rigors of ascetic ordeals, Titelmans died after a brief illness in 1537.
In his lectures on the Bible at Louvain, Titelmans made it a point of emphasis to
demonstrate the errors of the humanists, whose biblical studies, he believed, served
to arm the Protestant heretics with further ammunition in their attacks on Catho-
lic theology. During this period, Titelmans published his Collationes quinque super
epistolam ad Romanos, in which he presented himself in a dialogue with Lorenzo
Valla, Faber Stapulensis, and Erasmus.21 In the work Titelmans presents various
arguments of the humanists, excerpted from their writings, for emending the text
of Romans. Titelmans responds in each case with arguments for the superiority of
the traditional reading; the Vulgate, he believed, was a divinely inspired transla-
tion that should remain the basis for exegesis and doctrine.
Titelmans expresses his hostility to humanist biblical scholarship more openly
than either Major or Broickwy, but all three men share a cautious attitude toward
the humanist philological and textual approach to biblical scholarship. For these
scholars, to begin to question the trustworthiness of the Vulgate is to open the door
to a flood of uncertainties that can only threaten traditional teaching and piety.
Although Major, Broickwy, and Titelmans share this attitude, it would be a mis-
take to conclude that their commentaries share much in common. Indeed, both
in style and in polemical content, the John commentaries of these three men are
quite distinct.
Major's work on John is certainly the most polemical of the three Catholic com-
mentaries. His polemical purpose is clearly expressed in the title of the book:
Disquisitiones et disputationes contra haereticosplurimae. In the preface to the entire
work on the four gospels, dedicated to James Beaton, archbishop of St. Andrews,
Major explains the purposes of his commentaries. First, he intends to demonstrate
the harmony of all four gospels, as well as the inner consistency of each individual
gospel. Second, Major claims that he will uphold the "ancient translation" (anti-
quam tralationem) and Catholic traditions as handed down by the established
doctors of the Church. Third, Major names the opponents he intends to refute in
the course of his commentaries. He will expose the errors of Theophylact's gospel
interpretations, and he will uproot "the pestiferous tares of the Witcliffites, the
Hussites, and their followers, the Lutherans."22 Major has other opponents whom
he refuses to name because "Christians are instructed not to say racha to a brother"
(Christiani esse instituti, ne racha quidemfratri dicere). These unnamed opponents
are not heretics but men who have erred through "human accident" (humano casu).
In this last category of opponents, Major certainly has Erasmus in mind (as well as
 On the Healing at the Pool of Bethesda 113

others), for in the course of his John commentary, he opposes views expressed in
Erasmus's Annotationes.23
Major's commentary, however, is not dominated at every turn by polemical
concerns. In fact, he reserves most of his polemic remarks for an extended discus-
sion of transubstantiation at John 6:48-58, a defense of the adoration of the saints
at John 16:23, and a defense of auricular confession at John 20:23.24 For the most
part, Major concentrates on a positive presentation of the meaning of John's gos-
pel, using scholastic modes of exposition. The method of question and response
dominates his method of interpretation. He places objections or questions in the
mouth of the reader (e.g., quaeris, percontaris, fluctuas) and responds with syllo-
gisms or series of propositions. Frequently, he lists a whole series of difficulties to
which he responds in systematic scholastic fashion (adprimum, adsecundum, etc.).
The scholastic character of his commentary is also revealed by the types of ques-
tions he raises, questions that would occur only to a schoolman.25 Furthermore,
Major demonstrates his indebtedness to scholasticism by the authorities he cites:
Aristotle is quoted as frequently as Augustine.26
Unlike Major, Broickwy does not make refutation of Protestant teachings an
explicit purpose of his commentary on John. Certainly, there are places where one
senses an implicit polemical intent, as, for example, in his discussion of the doc-
trines of free will, transubstantiation, purgatory, and soul sleep.27 But for the most
part, Broickwy's commentary is surprisingly noncombative for a man who largely
made his living attacking Protestant errors from the pulpit. In no place does
Broickwy directly mention his Protestant opponents, nor does he ever refer to the
"heretics" or "false teachers."28 Similarly, Broickwy nowhere explicitly attacks
Erasmus or humanist biblical scholarship; in fact, he occasionally borrows infor-
mation from Erasmus's Annotationes.29 Broickwy, as De Troeyerhas noted, avoided
polemical outbursts and limited himself to a proclamation of Catholic doctrinal
positions.30
Broickwy's commentary on John is in large part a melange of scriptural and
patristic quotations. Indeed, if one were to excise these quotations, Broickwy's
commentary would be a very small book. As a commentary written by a preacher
for preachers, it is intended to show the interconnections between the words of
John's gospel and the rest of the Bible. A word or theme expressed by John often
triggers a whole stream of scriptural quotations that serve to explain John's mean-
ing. Frequently, Broickwy's quotations are the only commentary he presents on
passages from John. For passages presenting interpretive difficulties, Broickwy
prefers to expose the exegetical tradition, quoting the interpretations of August-
ine, Chrysostom, and Cyril.31 Thus Broickwy's commentary is a very traditional
sort of work, but it is traditional in a different sense than Major's scholastic com-
mentary. It does not reflect the speculative tradition of the academy but the prac-
tical spiritual reading of the monastery. Broickwy's commentary resembles, in fact,
the traditional monastic literary genre of the florilegium, in which choice biblical
 114 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

texts and dicta Patrum are assimilated into a single work.32 The text of John's gos-
pel remains the skeleton on which Broickwy hangs these florilegia, which provide
the preacher a wide selection of texts useful for meditation and sermonic exposition.
Titelmans's work on John is an entirely different sort of commentary, and it is
not accidental that he adopts the favorite modes of humanist exposition: paraphrase
and annotation. For each chapter of the gospel, he first provides a straightforward
paraphrastic commentary, followed by annotations on selected words and phrases
of the chapter. Although his paraphrase is remarkably free of polemical content,
his notes are frequently directed against the biblical studies of Erasmus. Citing
patristic authorities and his own gospel manuscripts, Titelmans attempts to prove
that many of Erasmus's textual emendations are simply unnecessary. The Vulgate
translation occas ally errs, he concedes, but only because of the carelessness of
scribes; the original translation produced by divine inspiration was free of error.
Furthermore, Titelmans argues against Erasmus that the errors that have accrued
over the centuries are few and of no interpretive consequence. Thus, in Titelmans's
work on John's gospel, we find an overriding polemical purpose that defines his
imitation of Erasmus's studies of the gospel: he uses paraphrase and annotation in
order to provide a Catholic antidote to the poisonous conclusions of humanist
biblical scholarship.

THE H E A L I N G AT THE POOL OF BETHESDA (JN 5:1-16)

The proper interpretation of John's gospel played an important part in the doctri-
nal disputes that divided Catholics and Protestants in the sixteenth century. The
correct understanding of the eucharist (Jn 6:48-58), the authority of tradition (Jn
16:12-15), and the Petrine foundation (Jn 21:15-17) were all matters that were
debated on the basis of Johannine proof texts. Yet it is not altogether clear how
Protestant and Catholic interpreters might differ on passages in John that appear
less pertinent to the disputed doctrinal issues that divided them.
The story of the healing at Bethesda is a good example of a text concerning which
it is difficult to predict how such interpreters might differ (or in fact agree). There
are no obvious doctrinal issues at stake in the story. Jesus approaches a man, sick
for thirty-eight years, who is reclining at a pool in Jerusalem renowned for its
occasional healing powers. Jesus asks the man whether he desires health and, after
patiently hearing the man bemoan his circumstances, orders him to rise, take up
his pallet, and walk. The man obeys Jesus and by so doing precipitates a contro-
versy with the Jews, who take offense at the man's violation of the law against carry-
ing burdens on the Sabbath. They demand to know who gave such a command,
but the healed man is utterly ignorant of Jesus' identity. Jesus later finds him in the
temple, confirms his health, and warns him against future sin. The healed man
 On the Healing at the Pool ofBethesda 115

immediately departs in search of the offended party in order to report that Jesus is
the one who had accomplished his miraculous healing.
Would a Catholic reading of this story differ significantly from that of a Reformer
such as Musculus? If so, how? Do the doctrinal differences of the sixteenth century
form a hermeneutical divide that dictates the approach a commentator will take
with a story such as the Bethesda healing narrative? Or are differences in interpre-
tation simply due to the individual exegetical preferences of each commentator?
These questions constitute the backdrop of this comparative study of the inter-
pretations of Musculus, Major, Broickwy, and Titelmans. We can safely place the
question of direct influence to one side, for there is no firm evidence that Musculus
was familiar with the commentaries of these men.

The Pool (Jn 5:1-4)

In his description of the pool, the Evangelist gives two names associated with the
place, the Greek term probatica and the Hebrew term Bethesda. Each of our com-
mentators discusses the meaning and significance of these terms in relation to the
function of the pool. Major, Broickwy, and Titelmans agree that the Greek term
generally means "of livestock" (apecudibus), more specifically, "of sheep" (a ovilis)
or "of cattle" (apecualis). The pool was given this name, according to Major, be-
cause it was not a "fish pond" (vivarium piscium) but "a kind of reservoir in which
sheep and cattle were washed.... Disemboweled sheep suitable for sacrifice were
cleansed there."33 Broickwy and Titelmans echo this explanation of the pool's
association with the sacrificial rites of the temple, an explanation that has its ulti-
mate source in Jerome's De locis hebraicis. This function of the pool also corresponds
to the Hebrew name of the pool, Bethesda, which Broickwy and Titelmans explain
to mean "house of sheep" (domumpecudum). 34
To this discussion of the pool's names and function Musculus adds a voice of
skepticism. He concedes that the Greek term signifies sheep but argues that this
definition alone does not explain the purpose of the pool. Sheep may have been
washed there, but it is also possible, he suggests, that in the vicinity of the pool
ther was a holding pen or a market place in which animals were sold. Musculus
mentions Jerome's argument concerning the liturgical function of the pool but casts
serious doubt on this explanation. How could the pool have served as a bathing
place if it was polluted by the blood and entrails of sacrificial victims? The ques-
tion, he asserts, must remain unanswered, for "in a matter so uncertain, it is not
agreeable to divine" (in re ita incerta, divinare non lubet). Similarly, Musculus
argues that the meaning of the Hebrew name is unclear. He claims that he has con-
sulted both ancient and recent authors on the question but has found no convinc-
ing explanation concerning the term. Furthermore, it is imprudent to offer a defi-
nition of the word when even the spelling of the word is uncertain, for it has been
 116 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

written variously as Betzaida, Bethseda, Bethesda, and Betheder. Therefore,

Musculus argues that meaning of the word must remain unknown until it is estab-
lished how the word was actually written in Hebrew. In sum, Musculus believes
that the traditional explanation of the pool's function asserts too much on the basis
of too little information. John's description of the pool does not permit any defi-
nite conclusions, except of the most general sort. "It is simpler," Musculus con-
cludes, "that we understand that the place was in Jerusalem, designated for keep-
ing, selling, or washing sheep, which on account of its use they called "35
For all of our commentators, the healing power of the pool is significant because
of what it symbolizes spiritually or typologically. Only Major and Musculus offer
any noteworthy discussion of the historical significance of the pool's healing power.
Major states that the only available information concerning this pool comes from
John's gospel; there is no mention of it in the Old Testament. Therefore John
appropriately describes the healing pool "because it is worthy of memory" (quia
est memoria dignum). The five porticos were constructed around the pool, he sug-
gests, to protect the sick from the elements and to provide ample space so that the
sick would not be in the way of those purifying sacrificial animals. Although John
mentions the presence only of the blind, lame, and withered, Major argues that
these three groups represent all who were diseased. The triple number is appropri-
ate because "they were being healed by the indivisible Trinity" (ab individua trinitate
sanabantur). The pool had no curative power in itself, nor did the angel who dis-
turbed the waters; the person who plunged first into the pool of seething water was
healed by God, who in his wisdom established this particular healing mechanism.
Here Major raises the sort of question that would occur only to a schoolman: What
would happen if two or more people threw themselves into the water at precisely
the same moment? Which person would receive the gift of health? Major responds
that a proper procedure had probably been established by the rulers of the syna-
gogue to avoid this possibility. Since it was well known that only one person could
be healed after each angelic disturbance, the rulers had established an order among
those waiting so that only one person would enter the pool at the appropriate
moment.36
Like Major, Musculus argues that the porticos were constructed for the benefit
of the sick lying around the pool. From these porches, the sick could descend by
steps into the pool. Those reclining at the pool were not limited to the three groups
explicitly mentioned by the Evangelist but included those who were afflicted by all
sorts of illnesses. Musculus also argues that the water had no natural curative pow-
ers, as found in pools fed by thermal springs, but was ordained by God's will alone
to confer its curative effect. Certainly the health that is provided by thermal baths
is also a gift of God, but the miracles associated with this pool have no natural cause.
Indeed, God could have conferred health without the external means of an angelic
disturbance of water, but by his sovereign will, he established this particular method
"so that there would be a greater sense of the miracle." The angel did not confer
 On the Healing at the Pool of Bethesda 117

health, nor did it descend of its own volition, but it was sent by God as a minister-
ing spirit. Here, Musculus seizes the opportunity to condemn "that inexcusable
idolatry of heavenly saints" (inexcusabilem illam coelendorum sanctorum idolatriam).
In numerous places in the Bible, God is seen to have used angels to minister to
mortals; but in no place is he seen to have used the ministry of dead saints. In the
time of the New Testament, God did not hand over the function of angelic minis-
try to dead saints; "that error," Musculus asserts, "is rightly rejected" (merito error
illerejiciatur).37
The fact that only one person could be healed after each angelic disturbance
is no indication of the weakness or imperfection of the miracle but suggests to
Musculus the ultimate purpose of the healing pool. God did not establish this
miraculous pool so much for the healing of sick bodies as for the demonstration of
his continuing providence for his people; his primary purpose was "more to cure
souls than bodies" (magis animos quam corpora curaret). Furthermore, by limiting
the gift of health to the first person to reach the pool, God intended to show that
his gifts are bestowed on those who eagerly and quickly embrace them; heavenly
gifts rarely come to the "hesitating, tardy, and slow" (haesitantibus, tardantibus, ac
pigris).38
As for the symbolic meaning of the pool, it is hardly surprising that many com-
mentators have traditionally argued for a baptismal analogy.39 For Titelmans and
Broickwy, this understanding of the healing pool is the primary area of exegetical
concern. Titelmans argues that God purposefully established the miraculous pool
in order to demonstrate to the Jews a "type" (typum) of Christian baptism, a sac-
rament soon to be established in the time of grace. The pool thus served as a divine
pedagogical device; by experiencing the healing powers of the bath, they were
"gradually" (paulatim) being prepared for receiving the spiritual healing of that
most sacred bath:

For having been taught by ancient experience that the water of the pool mixed with
the blood of ceremonial victims, by the working of an angel, cures of every infirmity
those who dip in it, they were being disposed to believe that in the baptismal bath,
by water mixed with the blood of that true sacrificial victim sacrificed for the salva-
tion of the whole world, by the working of the Holy Spirit, a full remission of all sins
is entirely conferred and perfect health is given to their souls.40

Offering this same motif, Broickwy uses the baptismal symbolism as the
hermeneutical key for unlocking the meaning of all of the features associated with
the healing pool. Thus, the angelic disturbance of the water is interpreted as the
joining of Word and element to form a sacrament. Just as the water of the pool
had no healing power in itself but only gained such power when it was moved by
an angel, "so also plain water is not effectual in us, but when it receives the grace of
the Spirit it washes away all sins."41 Similarly, Broickwy argues that salt, water,
plants, and grains have no inherent power to drive away demons but become
 118 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

effectual instruments in exorcisms by the presence of "the power of the divine

name" (virtus divini nominis). The five porticos represent the five wounds of Christ,
by whose passion the sickness of the soul is healed. Those who suffer with diseases
of the soul are represented by the sick reclining around the pool. Broickwy argues
that five different kinds of sinners are represented by John's description of the sick.
The languid represent those who sin through laziness and idleness, and the blind
are those who sin through ignorance. The lame are those who "do not have a firm
step" (non habentfirmum gressum) in doing good works, and the withered are those
who lack the fullness of charity in their works. Finally, the man who was sick for
thirty-eight years represents the kind of inveterate sinner who sins by long habit.42
Major also endorses the baptismal symbolism, but his interpretation follows a
different course than those of Titelmans and Broickwy. He does not stress the cor-
respondences between the healing pool and baptism as much as the dissimilari-
ties. The pool points to baptism but only by way of contrast. The pool, after all,
could heal only one person after each aquatic disturbance; those who were healed
in this pool therefore represent the Jewish nation, which was in bondage to the
Mosaic Law. By way of contrast, "the baptism of Christ rejects no one" (neminem
Christi baptismus rejicit). Furthermore, baptism is not limited in its power to cer-
tain appointed times, but "by night and day its remedy is at hand." The pool of
Bethesda and baptism, however, share one important characteristic in Major's
interpretation: neither heals by its own nature but only when divine power is con-
ferred upon the water.43
Musculus introduces the baptismal motif in his interpretation of the pool only
to stress one theme expressed by each of the Catholic commentators: neither the
water of the pool of Bethesda nor the water of baptism has any intrinsic magical
potency. "Who is so insane," Musculus asks, "to think that the element of water,
in which the body is dipped, is able by its own power to cleanse and renew the soul,
which it is unable to touch?"44 The gift of regeneration is dispensed, like the healings
at the pool of Bethesda, "with the external covering of water" (cum externo involucro
aquae), but the water has no "singular and unusual efficacy from nature" (ex natura
singularem & insolitam efficaciam). The gift of regeneration must never be ascribed
to any earthly element but to God alone, who, using the external means of water
and the Church, confers this gift "by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the elect" (per
spiritum sanctum in cordibus electorum) ,45

The Healing of the Man Sick Thirty-Eight Years (Jn 5:5-9a)

As a prelude to the miraculous healing, a brief dialogue takes place between Jesus
and the man that raises several interpretive questions. First, why does Jesus ask the
man whether he desires health? The question could almost be considered absurd,
as Musculus states: "For what sick man does not desire to be made well, especially
one afflicted by sickness for such a long time?"46 Assuming Jesus' omniscience, every
 On the Healing at the Pool ofBethesda 119

interpreter seeks to understand this question not as a factual inquiry but as a ques-
tion with some other purpose, a purpose unstated by the Evangelist but discern-
ible through interpretive speculation. The response of the sick man to Jesus' query
also raises important questions. He does not respond directly to the question but
relates the pitiable circumstances that have hindered him from approaching the
waters of the pool at the opportune moment. Is this response commendable or
otherwise? Is the man to be reproached as a complainer, or is there a way to read
his response in a more favorable light? In short, what does the response indicate
about the character of this sick man?
First of all, each of our commentators notes that Jesus was moved by compas-
sion for the sick man and singled him out upon his own initiative. Quoting Cyril,
Broickwy notes the "great mystery of mercy" (magnum misericordiae sacramentum)
in the fact that Jesus does not always wait for the prayers of the suffering before
coming to their aid. Jesus chose this man because, of all of the sick people lying
around the pool, he was "especially hopeless" (maxime deplorandum). Titelmans
argues that Jesus also chose this man in order to make the miracle more impres-
sive; "for that future miracle was so much more glorious, the more lamentable and
inveterate the sickness was."47
Musculus echoes these sentiments but argues that a more important purpose
lies behind Jesus' selection of the sick man. The healing of bodies was not the pri-
mary reason Jesus visited the pool, for he certainly could have healed all of the
people of their afflictions. But Jesus came into the world to heal souls, and for this
purpose, he chose one who was more unfortunate than the others. By healing this
man, he provided the occasion for the others to receive him "at the fountain of all
salvation" (adfontem omnis salutis).48 Furthermore, Musculus argues that it is not
proper to question why this man was elected while the others were not. Rather,
one should simply admire divine providence with reverence and fear of God. The
gift of health, according to Musculus, is always "administered by the free dispen-
sation of divine providence whether it occurs by a miracle or through the medici-
nal art."49
Concerning Jesus' question to the sick man, we find similar explanations in the
interpretations of Major and Broickwy; Titelmans does not address the matter.
According to Major, Jesus asked the question "in a friendly manner" (benigne),
knowing full well that there was nothing on earth the man desired more than a
restoration of health. But by asking the question, Jesus intended "to excite his pas-
sion" (utfervorem eius excitaret) to move him to a proper disposition for receiving
the miraculous healing. Broickwy similarly argues that Jesus knew the man's deep
desire for wellness but asked him the question in order to inflame this desire even
more. Jesus wanted the man to request assistance so that he would be prepared for
receiving grace.50 Musculus, however, explains the purpose of the question differ-
ently. Jesus was not trying to elicit any particular response from the man but was
simply expressing kindness by a polite form of address. By asking this rhetorical
 120 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

question, Jesus wanted to show his compassion and his willingness to help. This
manner of speaking, Musculus argues, is a common form of everyday parlance. If
we see a hungry man whom we desire to help, we might appropriately ask him if
he would like some food. "Speech of this kind smacks of a feeling of compassion,
born of an eager and singular consideration of someone's present misery."51
In his response, the sick man does not directly answer Jesus' question but re-
lates the particular misfortunes that have prevented him from attaining the ben-
efit of the pool's powers. Yet for each of our commentators, this response is en-
tirely commendable, revealing a man who exhibits remarkable patience. According
to Broickwy, the man could have understandably thought that he was being ridi-
culed by Jesus. He might have denounced Jesus as one making fun of his circum-
stances, or he might have cursed the day of his birth, but instead he answers "gen-
tly and calmly" (mansuete placide) even though he did not know who Jesus was.52
Titelmans also argues that the man should be praised for simply explaining his need
"with patience and modesty" (cum patientia vercundia). Most people in his con-
dition would respond by cursing themselves or others, but this man understands
Jesus' question for what it really was: an offer of assistance. Since Jesus spoke to
him "in such a friendly manner" (tam amice), and since he saw that Jesus was a
strong young man, he concluded that here, at last, was someone who could and
would help him to the pool. Therefore the sick man appropriately makes a tacit
request for help by reciting his misfortunes.53 Major argues that the sick man
exhibits "amazing patience" (inaudita patientia) because an impatient person des-
perately longing for health would have considered Jesus' question "inopportune"
(intempestivam). Those who are impatient merely increase their own pain and
suffering. They are "so broken by adversities" (ita adversis franguntur) that they
become enraged, giving themselves over to impieties and blasphemies. On the other
hand, those who bear their sufferings with patience diminish their own grief, for
"sickness is soothed by equanimity" (aequanimitate languor dilinitur). The sick man
of this story, representing the ideal patient sufferer, responds to Jesus "very calmly"
(placidissime) by indicating his desire to be helped into the pool. By responding in
this way, he made himself worthy of divine assistance, for "Jesus was not wont to
deny his aid to such so very mild."54
In his discussion of the sick man's response, Major introduces two other themes
that distinguish his interpretation from Broickwy's and Titelmans's. First, he notes
that the response indicates the mercilessness of the man's neighbors. The man lay
next to the pool for many years, yet no one ever offered him any assistance. Just as
the man is to be praised for his patience, so his neighbors are to be condemned for
their callousness. Second, Major states that the extraordinary patience of the sick
man raises an important theological question—namely, "whether the scourges
placed upon us, as nephritis, colitis, and others of that kind, are able to atone for
our failings."55 This question, Major argues, maybe answered by a logical progres-
sion through a series of five propositions: 1) an impatient act is sin; 2) a patient act
 On the Healing at the Pool ofBethesda 121

is morally good; 3) a patient act is meritorious; 4) patience is a great merit; 5) there-

fore, hardships that are patiently sustained "are able to atone" (sunt satisfactoriae)
and are expiative (expiativae) for our failings. Thus, for Major the sick man dem-
onstrates the proper and meritorious response to divinely inflicted punishment, a
response that is "reorientive of guilt" (culpae reordinativa).56
Not surprisingly, Musculus offers no argument for the meritorious disposition
of the suffering sick man, yet like all of the Catholic commentators, he praises the
man's patience. Since the man did not know who Jesus was, he must not be con-
demned for his response. When Jesus addressed him in such a friendly manner,
the man simply expressed his need, hoping that Jesus might help him to the pool.
This sick man, Musculus argues, demonstrates a remarkable "perseverance of hope"
(pertinacia spei). Although ill for so many years and lacking the means to acquire
the benefit of the pool, he nevertheless persevered in that place, hoping against hope
that he might somehow be healed. The man does not grumble about divine injus-
tice, nor does he blame anyone for his misfortunes. He represents, therefore, a
model of the proper attitude in those who suffer various ills. Yet, like Major,
Musculus also sees in the sick man's response an indictment of his neighbors, who
refused for so many years to offer any assistance. It is truly ironic, Musculus argues,
that mercilessness and inhumanity abounded in a city where the sacrificial wor-
ship of God was centered.57
Turning to the literal explanation of the miracle itself, we find identical inter-
pretations in the commentaries of Musculus and the three Catholic commenta-
tors. Jesus healed the man by three simple commands, which were intended as a
public confirmation of the miracle's occurrence. Jesus could, Musculus suggests,
have simply said "be healed," but instead "he prescribes for him certain and vis-
ible proofs of a true and indubitable health, which would be a public demonstra-
tion of divine power."58 By these proofs, any suspicion of a fake or imaginary heal-
ing would have been removed. Major, Broickwy, and Titelmans each give the same
explanation for the method Jesus used to heal the sick man.59
However, while our commentators are unanimous concerning the literal signifi-
cance of the miracle, they offer widely disparate interpretations concerning the
miracle's symbolism. Musculus offers an extensive exposition of the spiritual mean-
ing of the miracle quite unlike anything found in the Catholic commentators. In
fact, Major and Titelmans give a strictly literal explanation of the miracle, saying
nothing about what the miracle represents symbolically. Broickwy does not explic-
itly explain the spiritual meaning of the miracle, but his understanding of the sym-
bolism is discernible by examining the Scripture he quotes in explaining the mean-
ing of Jesus' commands. After the command "rise," Broickwy quotes Ephesians
5:14: "Rise, you who sleep, and arise from the dead and Christ will shine on you."
After the command "take your bed," Broickwy quotes Romans 6:19: "Just as you
presented your members to serve impurity and iniquity upon iniquity, so now
present your members to serve righteousness to sanctification." And after "walk,"
 122 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

he quotes Psalm 34:14: "Turn from evil and do good." These scriptural quotations
imply that Broickwy understands the miracle to symbolize the conversion of the
sinner, who rises from the deadness of sin (symbolized by the illness) carrying a
body (symbolized by the bed) for good works (symbolized by walking).60
While this symbolism is implicit and undeveloped in Broickwy's interpretation,
in Musculus's comments it emerges quite explicitly as the primary area of exegeti-
cal concern. The miracle, he argues, presents an image of the power of Christ's Word
"in healing the interior human being" (in sanando interiore homine), which when
sick can do nothing but sin but when cured can excel in true piety. Christ's Word
has a curative effect in the fact that it not only commands but also gives the will
and ability to comply with the command: "When it is said to our minds through
the spirit of Christ, 'love God,' we will love God; 'love neighbor,' we will love neigh-
bor; 'fear the Lord,' we will fear the Lord."61 But when these things are taught "by
a human voice" (humana voce), they are like a tale narrated to a deaf man. There-
fore, those who argue that the natural human being has the power to fulfill the
commands of God and that God never prescribes impossible commands sin against
the power and grace of Christ. The natural human being is a slave of sin and can-
not even recognize the things of God, let alone excel in performing the works of
God. But at the same time, Musculus argues that one must reject the argument of
those who claim that Christians are unable to resist sins, to love God, and to ad-
vance in piety:

If we have been cured from the sickness of the interior human being through the
power and spirit of Christ, it is not proper for us to say that we are taught things
impossible for us through the Word of Christ. And this sick man did not say, "You
command me to do what I am unable to fulfill," but immediately by the power of
Christ's Word the old man got up, took his pallet, and walked, that is, he obeyed the
Word of Christ and displayed things that as they are characteristics only of healthy
people, are thus impossible for paralytics.62

Christians who claim their inability to obey God simply show themselves not
yet healed by the power of Christ; they are still bound by the chains of sin. For "as
long as we are held in this corruption and servitude of sin, those things are impos-
sible for us that are divinely prescribed."63 But when Christ heals the sinner, he
destroys the bondage of habitual sin, providing liberty for true obedience.
For Musculus, the three commands issued by Jesus each represent different stages
in the process of conversion. "They beautifully present," he states, "an image of
the new human being" (Novi hominis imaginempulchrepraeferunt). The command
to rise corresponds to the act of repentance because those who are controlled by
sin are spiritually flat on their backs. Repentance is required in order to break the
bonds that fasten sinners to their beds, but this is not humanly possible: true
repentance is given only by the power of Christ's Word. The second command,
"take your pallet," is also "not without a mystery" (mysterio caret), for the pallet of
 On the Healing at the Pool ofBethesda 123

the soul, according to Musculus, is the body. When the sick man is healed, he does
not simply discard his pallet but carries it about freely by the power of health given
by Christ. In the same way, sinners who rise through repentance are not able im-
mediately to relinquish the body of sin to which they were formerly held captive.
They are no longer governed by the sinful dictates of the body but are able by the
power of Christ to control and guide it until the time comes for laying it aside.
Christians are called to pursue righteousness and to walk in newness of life. The
final command, therefore, symbolizes this active process of the Christian life: "It is
not enough to rise from sins through repentance and to carry around a body no
longer slavishly subject to the power of sin, but it is also required that we walk,
namely, that we undertake the journey to the heavenly homeland through zeal for
true piety and by a firm faith and love."64
Since the healing of the man represents an image of individual conversion, it is
fitting, Musculus argues, that this healing took place on the Sabbath. In the hearts
of the elect, a true Sabbath is established, which is foreshadowed by the Jewish
Sabbath day. The Jews were to rest from labor on this day in order to consecrate
their minds to God. Similarly, Christians are consecrated and sanctified by the work
of Christ, which is the work of the true Sabbath, and they in turn become "a sabbath
delightful to the Lord" (domino sabbatum delicatum). The healing of the man on
the Sabbath therefore represents the spiritual sabbath that the converted experi-
ence: they are freed from servile works and through faith are rendered "peaceful
and at rest in their consciences" (in conscientiispacat quieti).65
For Musculus, the healing of the man at Bethesda is useful not only as an image
of individual conversion and sanctification but also as an image of salvation his-
tory. The sick man therefore not only symbolizes the individual sinner but also
"produces an image of humankind, held back in servitude to sin, and the work of
Christ. .. expresses an image of human redemption."66 Musculus elaborates this
interpretation with a list of correspondences between the healing of the man and
the process of redemption set in motion by the Adamic fall of the human race. The
sick man, formerly healthy, was able and free to walk, but by abusing that liberty
for sinful purposes he was cut off from God and made a paralytic. With his former
liberty now lost, the man was able neither to rise nor even to do the things that
would allow him to recover health. In the same way, Musculus argues, the human
race was initially free to do good. Its liberty, intended for obedience to God, was
abused for sinning. Because of this abuse, the human race became a captive to sin
and lost its liberty to do good. Just as the paralytic lay captive for thirty-eight years,
cured by neither angelic nor human assistance but only by the arrival and power
of Christ, so also the human race was imprisoned by sin for many years, unable to
be set free until the advent of Christ on the day of Sabbath—namely, the time of
the New Testament. When the sick man was healed, he regained his former lib-
erty, the liberty that he lost through sin. Similarly, the human race recovered its
liberty to rise from sin and walk in obedience to God.67
 124 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

The Sabbath Controversy (Jn 5:9b-13)

In the aftermath of the miracle, the Jews, disturbed by an apparent violation of the
Sabbath, interview the healed man in order to ascertain the cause of the sacrilege.
Each of our commentators discusses the nature of the charge made against the man
and indirectly against Jesus. What motivates them to make the legal challenge? And
is there any truth in their accusation? Additionally, the commentators discuss the
nature of the healed man's response and the reasons for Jesus' disappearance from
the scene of controversy. Musculus and the Catholic interpreters offer similar lines
of interpretation in treating these matters. Only in the scope of interpretation may
we distinguish Musculus from his Catholic peers. Quite simply, Musculus has much
more to say on these topics. His interpretation is not only more elaborate, how-
ever, but frequently more practical; Musculus draws moral applications from this
part of the story that are absent in the Catholic commentaries.
Broickwy and Titelmans each accuse the Jews of a superstitious religiosity that
blinds them to matters of true spiritual importance. Titelmans states that the Jews
were "scrupulous in lesser things" (in rebus minimis scrupulosi) but were negligent
of the greater and principal matters pertaining to the law. They were, argues
Broickwy, carefully observing the temporary "carnal matters" (carnalia) of the law
but were neglecting the eternal matters of the law. They considered a violation of
the Sabbath rest an odious crime, but the defrauding of a neighbor on the Sabbath
they judged of no importance. Therefore, they did not ask the man who had made
him well but asked who had told him to carry his pallet. Major, without elabora-
tion, simply accuses the Jews of stubbornness. But for all three Catholic commen-
tators, the defective religious disposition of the Jews reveals the nature of their
accusation: it is a "false charge" (calumnia). Only Major, however, attempts to
explain how Jesus may be defended from their charge. The healing of the man "re-
dounded to divine glory" (in divinam gloriam redundabat) and therefore in no way
violated the Sabbath laws. Even if Jesus had violated a legal custom, he would be
free of blame, for "the Lord was not obliged to observe legal matters" (dominus
legalia observare non erat obnoxius).68
Musculus's comments agree at a basic level with the Catholic interpretations,
but they include a much more detailed discussion of what he terms "the supersti-
tious religion of the Sabbath" (superstitiosam sabbati religionem), a discussion that
leads to a more extensive legal defense of Jesus' behavior. First of all, Musculus
argues that since the Sabbath laws were based on divine mandate, one must recog-
nize the sacredness of this holy day. The Sabbath observance in itself must never
be condemned. Therefore, the fact that the Jews reminded the healed man of the
Sabbath, Musculus argues, "is without fault" (repraehensione caret). But while these
guardians of the Sabbath want to appear as zealous observers of its laws, they show
themselves ignorant of the true intent of the Sabbath religion, for it was not the
intention of the law to make an act done for the glory of God illicit. Therefore, the
 On the Healing at the Pool ofBethesda 125

Jews were wrong to accuse the man carrying his pallet of violating the Sabbath, for
Jesus ordered this act in order to prove the miracle and ultimately to bring glory to
God.
The true purpose of the Sabbath, Musculus argues, is discovered in the proper
relationship of the two principal elements in the Sabbath religion: "rest" (otium)
and "sacredness" (sanctimonia). God did not establish the sacredness of the Sab-
bath for the sake of rest but prescribed rest for the sake of sacredness. Yet the Jews
have in effect turned the true intention of the Sabbath on its head. Having neglected
the true purpose of the Sabbath, they considered bodily rest the ultimate goal of
Sabbath observance; but this understanding was "against the intention of God"
(contra mentem Dei), for bodily rest was simply a means to a greater end. Cessa-
tion "from the business of life" (ab negociis was "not in itself pleasing to
God" (per se non erat Deo gratum), nor did it constitute in itself the sacredness of
the Sabbath. Rather, the true sacredness of the Sabbath consisted in the sacredness
of souls—namely, when minds were established in faith, piety, and love.
Jesus' healing of the man at Bethesda, far from being a violation of the Sabbath,
was in fact "truly a work of the Sabbath" (vere sabbati opus). Although the Jews
want to appear as zealous defenders of God, they themselves are the real violators
of the Sabbath. If they were willing to consider the context of the man's pallet-
carrying, they would, or at least should, have glorified God and praised divine
power. But they refuse to consider any mitigating circumstances. They do not ask
the man, "Who made you well?," but only, "Who ordered you to take your pallet
and walk?" Seeking only evidence that would be useful for a malicious accusation
against Jesus, they ignore any information that would weaken their case.69 Further-
more, the Jews were not only "irreligious against God" (irreligiosi contra Deum)
but also "inhumane toward the healed paralytic" (inhumani erga sanatum para-
lyticum). At the very least, Musculus argues, they should have congratulated the
man on his restored health. Instead, by accusing him of violating the Sabbath, they
merely seek to burden his conscience.70
The response of the sick man to his accusers is interpreted as entirely commend-
able by each of our commentators. The healed man explains that he is simply fol-
lowing the command of his healer. When pressed to identify the man who had
commanded him to carry his pallet, he cannot respond; he is not only ignorant of
Jesus' identity but cannot even point him out, for Jesus has retreated from the scene.
According to Broickwy and Major, the man is to be admired for his open declara-
tion of the benefit he had received. The man, argues Broickwy, signified by his
response the conviction that a man who could heal by his word must have greater
authority than the Sabbath laws. Titelmans praises the man because he wants to
obey Jesus more than he wants to please the Jews. The man believed that his healer,
as a holy and divine man, would not have ordered him to carry his pallet if he had
judged it illegal and contrary to God's glory. After receiving such a wonderful ben-
efit from Jesus, it would have been a monstrous crime to refuse obedience.71
 126 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

In a similar fashion, Musculus argues that the man offered the best possible re-
sponse. The healed man does not enter into a theoretical disputation concerning
Sabbath observance or offer a lengthy defense of the legality of his action but sim-
ply refers his accusers to the authority of Jesus. He freely declares the restoration
of his health and claims his indebtedness to his healer. This response is all the more
admirable given the fact that the man does not even know who Jesus is. Although
ignorant of Jesus' identity, he knows that he has been healed by someone with an
authoritative word, and on this basis alone, he is willing to obey and defend Jesus
against his detractors.
For Musculus, however, the response of the healed man is to be not only praised
but also emulated. In typical fashion, Musculus shows the practical and moral
application of the man's response; and in this emphasis, Musculus's comments may
be distinguished from the Catholic interpretations. First, Christians should imi-
tate the healed man in declaring themselves beneficiaries of Christ. Those who have
received the benefit of salvation can have no less certain a sense of their spiritual
restoration than the healed man's sense of his bodily restoration. Second, not only
should Christians recognize and acknowledge the gift of salvation, but like the
healed man, they should immediately and constantly obey the Word of Christ. Some
will certainly oppose and take offense at this obedience. But to these opponents of
Christian obedience, the faithful should respond just as the healed man: "He who
healed me, indeed, he who redeemed me by his blood, he ordered me to do what
I do."72
Finally, each of our commentators attempts to explain Jesus' disappearance from
the scene of controversy. By withdrawing himself from the crowd, Jesus leaves the
man to his own devices in answering his accusers. Why did Jesus do this? Musculus
and the three Catholic commentators each offer two similar explanations. First,
they repeat Chrysostom's argument that Jesus left the scene because he did not want
to cause any further irritation of the malice and envy of the Jews. The sight of Jesus,
Major states, would have simply added fuel to the fire of their jealousy. Second,
each commentator argues that Jesus left the scene because he wanted to avoid the
appearance of seeking after glory and fame. According to Musculus, he was not
seeking "common applause" (vulgarem applausum) for himself but wanted the
miracle to stand by itself as a testimony to divine power. Each commentator claims
that by avoiding the crowd, Jesus gives an example to all Christians of fleeing glory.73

Jesus and the Healed Man in the Temple (Jn 5:14-15)

According to the gospel text, Jesus finds the healed man in the temple, where he
confirms his healing—"You have been made well"—and warns him against future
sin: "Sin no more lest something worse befall you."74 Although the text does not
indicate what the man was doing in the temple, each of our commentators argues
that he went there to offer thanks to God. Broickwy reveals the source of this inter-
 On the Healing at the Pool ofBethesda 127

pretation by his quotation of Chrysostom, who commends the man for his action.
He did not go to the market or give himself over to the pleasures of his newly healthy
body but went straight to the temple to express thanksgiving to God. Musculus
argues that since the man did not know the person who had healed him, he rightly
referred the benefit to God and went to the temple to make a votive offering.75
From a commentator's standpoint, however, the most interesting point in this
part of the story lies in Jesus' warning against further sin. The warning, after all,
implies that the initial cause of the man's sickness was sinful behavior. Major,
Broickwy, and Musculus each analyze this implication in the context of extended
theological discussions concerning the the relationship of sin and affliction.
Titelmans, by contrast, has little to say on this point, but he does argue that Jesus'
statement indicates that the man had been healed, not only of his bodily illness
but also of the "evils of the soul" (malis animi) that had caused the illness.76
The essential argument in the discussions of Major, Broickwy, and Musculus is
the same: Jesus' warning indicates that the man contracted his sickness as a divinely
inflicted punishment, but not all sins are punished in this way, nor are all sick-
nesses due to sin.77 This is obvious, according to Broickwy, because one sees so
many wicked people who live in sinful delights but who nevertheless enjoy a healthy
and prosperous life. Their health and prosperity should be no cause of envy be-
cause the Lord truly shows his favor on those whom he chastens and disciplines.
Broickwy argues that when God inflicts suffering upon his people, he does so not
for reasons of vengeance but for the purpose of admonition; sickness therefore can
have a corrective function. Many sicknesses, however, have nothing to do with sin
but have other causes. Some simply have a natural cause; that is to say, they arise
"from a natural defect" (ex naturali defectu). Others, like those of Job and Tobit,
are inflicted "for the sake of a testing" (obprobationem), and still others are inflicted
simply for the sake of God's glory, as was the case with the man born blind (Jn 9).78
Major also argues that the story of the man born blind proves that not every sick-
ness arises from the guilt of sin. Conversely, absence of sickness does not prove
absence of guilt, for even the most monstrous criminals sometimes enjoy bodily
health. But why, Major asks, does God allow Muslims and other infidels to enjoy a
long life when he so shortens the lives of other evildoers? The answer, according to
Major, lies in a proper understanding of the medicinal character of divinely in-
flicted afflictions. Like Broickwy, Major argues that the sicknesses caused by sin
are inflicted not out of divine vengeance but out of divine admonition. A school-
master, Major suggests, will often focus his discipline and correction on those stu-
dents whom he especially loves, while students who are unteachable are simply
expelled from the school. They are permitted "to go about in their wickedness" (in
sua malitia grassari). But there is also a second reason why the infidels often enjoy
better health and prosperity than citizens of Christendom: "Those not accepting
the orthodox faith sometimes conduct their lives moderately; they defraud a neigh-
bor less than many of our countries."79 Therefore it is moral superiority, not divine
 128 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

indifference, that may account for the health and prosperity of some infidels. Never-
theless, the good fortune of unbelievers should never be envied, for a severe tor-
ture awaits them in the afterlife; "with good health, they run over a cliff" (valetudine
in praecipitium currunt).
According to Major, there are two respects in which sickness may result from
sin. First, some sins are the "immediate causes" (causaepropinquae) of illness. That
is to say, sickness often results as the natural consequence of sinful indulgence in
bodily pleasures. "Intemperateness" (intemperies), "sumptuous victuals" (lauta
obsonia), and drunkenness all produce sicknesses that are the natural result of such
overindulgence. Gastronomic pleasure is especially dangerous, for "it begets a
deadly gluttony" (exitialem ingluviem procreat), which ultimately shortens the
human lifespan.80 Sexual pleasures have the same deadly effect. How else can one
explain the fact that "sterile mules" (mulae steriles) live so much longer than horses?
In the second respect, sicknesses may result not as the natural consequence of sin-
ful behavior but as divinely inflicted punishments. Such sicknesses are not injuri-
ous if they are accepted with the proper disposition. In fact, when patiently and
joyfully received, these sicknesses are divinely dispensed medicines that are capable
of reorienting the guilt of sin. Therefore, those who complain and remain unre-
pentant in the midst of their afflictions merely add to their own guilt because they
"do not receive the medicine with joy" (medicinam haud gratanter acceptant).81
In his discussion of the relationship between sin and sickness, Musculus repeats
many of the same themes expressed by Broickwy and Major. He argues that sick-
nesses caused by sin are inflicted by God in order to admonish, and hence benefit,
those whom he especially loves. Thus, while not every sickness may be considered
a direct consequence of sinful behavior, it frequently happens "especially among
the children of God" (praesertim inter filios dei) that God corrects sins with sick-
ness in order to spare his people from future condemnation. Like Major, Musculus
distinguishes between sicknesses that are a biological consequence of sinful behavior
and those that are inflicted solely by the will of God. The causal relationship be-
tween sin and illness is written into the very fabric of nature, at least in regard to
the sins of bodily pleasures. A sin of this kind "does wrong not only against the will
and precepts of God but also against the very constitution of our nature." As ex-
amples of such medically hazardous sins, Musculus mentions luxurious living,
drunkenness, and, interestingly, wrath and envy.82
In one respect, Musculus contributes a unique addition to the discussion of the
relationship between sin and sickness. He argues that some degree of proportion-
ality must exist between the wickedness of the offense and the severity of divinely
inflicted punishment. In warning the man against future sin, Jesus did not specify
the sin that had caused the man's debilitating disease. This suggests that the man's
sin was not "anything ordinary" (vulgare aliquod) but was such a heinous and extra-
ordinary sin that there was no need to mention it; the man knew very well the sin
that had caused his sickness. The fact that the man had been afflicted for thirty-
 On the Healing at the Pool ofBethesda 129

eight years also suggests his guilt of some atrocious sin, "for it is not credible that
on account of some trivial offense such a grave and long sickness would have been
inflicted by God on him."83
When Jesus warns the healed man against future sin, he states that "something
worse" (detenus aliquid) may happen if the man fails to heed the warning. Each of
the commentators attempts to explain this statement as a warning of the future
punishments of hell. Broickwy argues that the afflictions of the present life are
admonitiones that are rooted in the mercy of God. Those who refuse these divine
disciplines are condemned as irrational brutes and despisers of God's mercy. They
are led to the afflictions of the future life that are rooted in the justice of God. The
tortures of hell are "punishments" (supplicii), not admonitions; there is no longer
any opportunity for repentance. Major argues similarly that those who refuse the
discipline of this life have a greater torment waiting for them in hell. In his mercy,
God uses sickness and other afflictions as disciplines to correct sinful behavior and
to prevent his people from the horrible tortures of the future life. Titelmans states
that if those who are liberated from affliction fall back once again into sin, they
will be condemned "on account of their ingratitude" (propter ingratitudinem). They
face the prospect of eternal suffering in the "future retribution." But Titlemans also
suggests that the warning of "something worse" may also indicate a threat of a fu-
ture illness in the present life much graver than the man's original disease.84
Like Titelmans, Musculus argues that Jesus' warning is a threat either of more
severe afflictions in the present life or of the punishments of hell. It is hard to imag-
ine, Musculus concedes, a more severe illness than the one that had afflicted the
man by the pool for so many years; even death itself would hardly seem worse than
the man's sickness. But no matter how severe and bitter the pain of present suffer-
ings may be, "it is not impossible for God to add to our afflictions." Even if the
severity of suffering cannot be surpassed in this life, the punishments of hell are
always "something worse." We are taught, Musculus argues, never to despise the
disciplines of the present life lest we are handed over to the future judgment of
God, which is not a corrective and medicinal discipline but a discipline of con-
demnation and perpetual perdition. Therefore, Jesus' words to the sick man con-
stitute an important warning to all Christians, for "we are never more disposed for
sinning than when we are healthy and without affliction."85

CONCLUSION

The theological presuppositions that divided Musculus from his Catholic peers
defined nothing less than the central meaning of the Christian gospel. The debate
over these issues severed the unity of Christendom into various theological camps,
precipitated armed conflict, and contributed to the emergence of the modern
nation-states. Given the power and virulence of the debate, it is striking how much
 130 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

the interpretations of Musculus and his Catholic peers share in common. The
exegetical tradition clearly exerts a centripetal force that to a certain degree miti-
gates the forces driving Catholics and Protestants apart. On any given passage, this
tradition defines the appropriate topics for discussion, identifies the central prob-
lematic issues, and suggests possible exegetical solutions.
One of the purposes of this comparative exegetical study has been to identify
characteristics that would distinguish Musculus's interpretation from the interpre-
tations of his Catholic contemporaries. Yet repeatedly we have found that Musculus
offers many of the same themes, arguments, and questions that are expressed by
the Catholic commentators. For example, all four commentators explain the mo-
tives of Jesus in similar fashion. Why Jesus singled out the man for healing, why he
issued three separate commands, and why he left the scene of controversy are ques-
tions that find the same basic answers. Our commentators also offer very similar
characterizations of the sick man and of the offended Jewish party. They praise the
patience of the sick man and commend him for his responses both to Jesus and to
the Jewish inquisitors. The Jews are condemned for a superstitious allegiance to
Sabbath regulations because their allegiance is based on a faulty understanding of
the true nature of the Sabbath. Additionally, with the exception of Titelmans, each
commentator interprets Jesus' warning to the healed man through a similar theo-
logical discussion on the relationship between sin and sickness. Most striking,
however, is the fact that Musculus joins the Catholic commentators in repeating
the traditional baptismal symbolism associated with the pool at Bethesda.
The characteristics that distinguish Musculus's comments on this story from the
Catholic interpretations are those that we have repeatedly seen to distinguish his
exegesis from that of other commentators. His tendency to interrupt the flow of
his comments with extended theological discussions is seen once again in his in-
terpretation of the Sabbath controversy. He presents a thorough treatment of the
true nature of Sabbath observance in a manner unparalleled by the Catholic com-
mentators. His passion for moral exposition also comes to the fore. Like the Catho-
lics, Musculus praises the disposition of the sick man as worthy of emulation, but
he develops this and other moral admonitions much more extensively than the
Catholic interpreters. The command to carry the pallet becomes a moral exhorta-
tion for Christians to properly govern their bodies; the command to walk becomes
an exhortation to pursue piety and obedience. Similarly, the man's public confes-
sion of his healing reminds Christians of their duty to proclaim their spiritual heal-
ing by Christ. We also find that at least in one area, Musculus's interpretation dis-
tinguishes itself from the Catholic interpretations because of the influence of
humanist modes of exposition. Major, Broickwy, and Titelmans each give the stan-
dard etymologies for the Greek and Hebrew names of the pool, etymologies rooted
in the work of Jerome and appearing throughout the exegetical tradition on the
story. Musculus, however, here parts company with the exegetical tradition, offer-
ing his own analysis of the Greek and Hebrew.
 On the Healing at the Pool ofBethesda 131

The most significant difference in the interpretations of Musculus and the Catho-
lics, however, lies in the area of spiritual exegesis. But it is not the case, as one might
have expected, that Musculus shows himself a more restrained allegerist than his
Catholic counterparts. The allegorical interpretation of the miracle as an image of
human salvation is in fact the major theme of Musculus's comments on the story.
The miracle images the healing of the inner human being, and the three commands
represent three distinct stages in the process of conversion. On a grander scale, the
miracle also represents for Musculus an image of salvation history. The sick man
thus images fallen humanity, while the miracle symbolically portrays the process
of human redemption. In contrast, Broickwy merely hints at the allegory of indi-
vidual conversion, while Major and Titelmans have nothing at all to say on the
matter. Even more striking is the fact that Musculus makes use of allegorical expo-
sition to express the one theme that would distinguish his interpretation as Prot-
estant. The impotence of the human will before it is transformed by the grace of
Christ is represented, Musculus argues, by the image of the sick man lying by the
pool who can do absolutely nothing to contribute to his own healing. This Augus-
tinian theme contrasts vividly with the interpretation of Major, who argues for the
meritorious disposition of the sick man in reorienting the guilt of his sin. For
Musculus, salvation is completely one-sided; human beings are redeemed just as
this man was healed, not by any meritorious act or disposition but by the free and
gracious election of God. Musculus expresses this idea, so central to the Protestant
Reformers, as a new wine poured into the old wineskin of the spiritual method of
exegesis.
 SIX

Musculus and the Lutheran Commentators

on the Healing of the Man Born Blind

I In his commentary on John, Musculus openly acknowledges his reliance

on patristic exegesis, citing the commentaries of Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyril
throughout. We have also seen that Musculus makes systematic use of Erasmus's
translation andAnnotationes in the composition of his commentary. There can be
little doubt that Musculus consults some of the sixteenth-century commentaries
on John authored by Protestant theologians as well, but it is surprisingly difficult
to determine these sources with precision. This difficulty stems from the fact that
he never cites by name the opinions of his contemporaries (with the exception of
Erasmus), preferring to refer to the opinions of "recentiores" or "quidam."1 Hav-
ing examined these anonymous references to "recent authors," however, I have
found no evidence that Musculus makes programmatic use (either as source or
adversary) of any contemporary Protestant exegete.
Insofar as Musculus reacts to the ideas of his contemporaries, his remarks are
directed mainly against Anabaptist teaching and the doctrines of Roman Catholic
theology. There are muted critiques of Lutheran christology and sacramental doc-
trine in places where one would expect them (such as at Jn 6:53-59 and Jn 20:26),
but these critiques are not directed against any particular exegetical opponent.
Unlike the John commentary of his mentor Bucer, who systematically refutes many
of the exegetical positions of Brenz in order to disprove the teachings of the "new
Marcionites," Musculus's commentary steers clear of such polemic. Indeed, in his
prefatory letter to the reader, Musculus expressly declares his intention to avoid
contentious remarks in his commentary. The writings that best serve the truth and
Christian piety are those "in which each person, according to the grace that he
receives from the Lord, calmly relates his sense of the truth to others without any
stomach for slanderous and brash insulting."2

132
 On the Healing of the Man Born Blind 133

One cannot, however, rule out the possibility that Musculus makes positive use
of the commentaries of contemporary Protestant theologians. Indeed, if similarity
of ideas could serve as an adequate criterion for determining a source, then the
possibilities for contemporary influences would be numerous. Focusing here on
the "Lutheran" commentators on John, we find that there are three commentaries
that antedate Musculus's: those of Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), Johannes
Brenz (1494-1570), and Erasmus Sarcerius (1501-1559).3 Melanchthon holds the
distinction of having authored the first Protestant John commentary (1523), a work
that was extremely popular, judging by its printing history.4 Brenz, the reformer
of Schwabisch Hall and adviser to Duke Ulrich of Wurttemburg, authored the sec-
ond Protestant commentary on John in 1527, a work that was published at least
twelve times between 1527 and 1554. The less popular commentary of Erasmus
Sarcerius, who served Landgrave Wilhelm von Nassau as superintendent of the
Lutheran churches, was published in 1540, just five years before the publication of
Musculus's own commentary.
Although there is no indication that Musculus makes systematic use of any of
these Lutheran commentaries, one piece of evidence suggests his familiarity with
either Melanchthon's or Brenz's commentary. Commenting on John 1:16 ("And
from his fulness we have all received grace upon grace"), Musculus summarizes
the various attempts by expositors to distinguish the two graces indicated by the
phrase "gratiam pro gratia." After presenting the views of Augustine, Chrysostom,
and Cyril, Musculus notes that "certain recent writers understand the first grace as
that which is of the Father toward the Son, and the latter as the grace of the Son
toward us by which we have been made pleasing and acceptable to the Father."5
This understanding of the phrase is presented by both Melanchthon and Brenz,
who argue that the grace that believers receive from Christ is anticipated by the
prior grace that Christ receives from the Father.6 Furthermore, of all of the other
sixteenth-century commentators I have examined, none offer this distinctive inter-
pretation of the phrase. Therefore, there is reason to believe that Musculus may
have consulted either or both of these Lutheran commentaries on John.
Having addressed the question of direct influence, we turn now to the main focus
of this chapter: a comparison of the exegesis of Musculus and the three Lutheran
commentators on the story of the healing of the man born blind (Jn 9). Before
beginning this analysis, one should note the sharp distinction between the com-
mentary of Musculus and his Lutheran counterparts as indicated by the respective
length of their treatments of this story. This distinction is most clearly seen when
one compares the length of Melanchthon's exposition, which fills a mere two col-
umns of the Corpus Reformatorum edition, to Musculus's comments on the story,
which run to forty-eight folio-sized pages. In the case of Melanchthon's commen-
tary, this contrast is largely due to the fact that Melanchthon's method of exegesis
does not entail a verse-by-verse exposition but rather a focus on selected verselets
that point (in his view) to the central theological themes, or loci, of a given text.
 134 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

But Musculus's interpretation of the story also vastly exceeds the running com-
mentaries of Brenz and Sarcerius, whose comments fill sixteen and thirty-one
octavo-sized pages, respectively.
The remarkable profuseness of Musculus's comments precludes an exhaustive
treatment of his interpretation of the healing of the blind man, a story that occu-
pies the entire ninth chapter of John's gospel. Therefore, this comparative study
focuses solely on the first seven verses of chapter 9. First, we will examine how
Musculus and the Lutheran commentators interpret the discussion between Jesus
and the disciples concerning the causes of the blind man's affliction. Second, we
will consider their interpretations of the healing miracle itself and what it represents.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIN AND SUFFERING

The conversation between Jesus and his disciples at the beginning of John 9 pro-
duces two basic interpretive questions. First, how should the disciples' question
be characterized? Seeing a man blind from birth, the disciples ask Jesus: "Who
sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Each of our commenta-
tors discusses the assumptions that informed the disciples' question, and in turn
each offers some evaluation of the question's validity. Second, how should one
interpret the response of Jesus? What does Jesus mean when he says: "Neither this
man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him"?
From an exegetical standpoint, however, the following statement of Jesus is even
more problematic: "We must work the works of him who sent me, as long as it is
day. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the
light of the world." Each of our commentators struggles to explain Jesus' use of
the metaphors of night and day, seeking in various ways to weaken the suggestion
that the work of the gospel would cease after the death or ascension of Jesus.
In their interpretation of the disciples' question, the Lutheran expositors each
conclude that the disciples were prompted by a common judgment of reason con-
cerning the relationship between sin and suffering. When reason sees affliction or
hardships of any kind, it naturally concludes that sin is the cause. Sarcerius states
that such reasoning is not a relic of an outmoded way of thinking, for there is still
a natural impulse in all of us to make an immediate connection between suffering
and sin. Indeed, he states, reason can find no other explanation for human miser-
ies than to conclude such miseries to be penalties for sin.7
Melanchthon and Brenz, however, argue that it is not reason alone that makes
such a judgment, but reason informed by the law. Since the law, Melanchthon states,
promises good things to the righteous and harsh things to the wicked, "reason infers
thus: this man is afflicted, therefore he is a sinner and rejected by God; this man is
well-off, therefore he is pious and dear to God." The problem of theodicy arises,
according to Melanchthon, when the state of human affairs fails to corroborate this
 On the Healing of the Man Born Blind 135

inference of reason informed by the law. The prosperity of the wicked and the
hardships of the righteous lead reason to condemn the judgment of God and to
deny the governance of divine providence.8 The law, Brenz notes, provides abun-
dant evidence that "curses, infirmities, plagues, calamities, and death itself entered
into the world on account of sin," and he refers the reader to Leviticus 26 (verses
14-39) and Deuteronomy 28 (verses 15-68) to demonstrate this threatening
aspect of the law. Therefore, whenever human reason is instructed in the law apart
from the knowledge of Christ, it always concludes that human sufferings are pun-
ishments for sin. Thus the disciples, indoctrinated in the law apart from a knowl-
edge of the cross of Christ, thought it entirely necessary that the man's blindness
had resulted from sin. The disciples reveal themselves—as Melanchthon and
Sarcerius also argue—to stand in the same error as the friends of Job.9
Yet according to Sarcerius, the disciples were only partly wrong in their assump-
tion that sin is the cause of affliction. They failed to realize that the righteous are
not always afflicted on account of sins; but their assumption was in fact true in
regard to the unrighteous: "Among the impious it is always true that they are af-
flicted because of their sins. Among the pious it is not always true." Therefore, by
implication—though he never states this explicitly—Sarcerius makes the blind man
a type or figure of the righteous sufferer, whose afflictions may have other causes
than sin. But for Sarcerius the causal relationship between suffering and sin remains
axiomatic for the unrighteous sufferer. In positing this distinction, Sarcerius's ex-
egesis stands out from the other Lutheran commentaries.10
Brenz's interpretation stands out in another way. Unlike Melanchthon or
Sarcerius, Brenz fully explicates the disciples' understandable perplexity. On the
one hand, they realized that God had promised to vindicate himself on the chil-
dren of sinners to the third and fourth generation (Dt 5:9; Ex 20:5). Therefore, they
could not safely dismiss the possibility that the blind man had been punished for
the sins of his forebears. On the other hand, the words of the prophet were ringing
in their ears: "The son will not bear the iniquity of the father" (Ez 18:20). But if the
blind man was himself to be blamed for an affliction from birth, how could he have
sinned before he was born? Even though the disciples believed it unfair that God
would take vengeance on the children of sinners, they could at least understand
this possibility. That each individual should bear the responsibility of his or her
own sin seemed fair but, in the case of one born with a congenital defect, totally
incomprehensible. How could the fetus act wickedly "who was not yet able to do
anything" (qui nondum quicquam agere potuit)?11
In his characterization of the disciples' question, Musculus's comments go well
beyond those of the Lutheran commentators. Like Brenz, he attempts to explicate
fully the context for the disciples' question—namely, what were the real questions
and assumptions behind the question? But Musculus develops an extensive and
nuanced interpretation of this context, raising issues not treated by Brenz,
Melanchthon, or Sarcerius. In fact, Musculus presents two possible ways of
 136 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

understanding the disciples' question, and in presenting these two possibilities,

Musculus's interpretation focuses squarely on the question of the disciples' dis-
position and motives for posing the question.
The first possibility is that the disciples asked the question "simply" (simpliciter).
They honestly believed that human sufferings are inflicted by God because of sin,
and they sincerely wanted to know to whom the sin should be ascribed. But if in
fact they asked "simply," then their question has an element of absurdity, for how
could the blind man have caused his own blindness through sin when he was born
with that defect? The disciples could have asked the question sincerely only if they
were informed "by the common opinion" (vulgata opinione) that the soul of the
blind man had sinned in some antenatal existence. Otherwise, the absurdity of the
question would belie the fact that it had been sincerely asked.
The second possibility, according to Musculus, is that the disciples asked the
question "in an argumentative fashion" (per modum argutandi). Since they had
heard Jesus say to the healed paralytic, "Sin no more lest something worse befall
you" (Jn 5:14), they assumed that Jesus was indicating such serious illnesses to be
punishments for sin. Unhappy with this correlation, and seeing the blind man, the
disciples seize the opportunity to initiate a quarrel with Jesus. The question, then,
is not posed simply and sincerely but only as a pretext for expressing their displea-
sure with Jesus' earlier statement. In Musculus's words, it is as if they were saying:
"If troubles of this kind are divine vengeances inflicted on account of sins, what
will we say about this blind man who was born blind before he sinned? For to whose
sin will we attribute this blindness? To the blind man? But that seems absurd. For
how could he have sinned, who was not yet born? But by what fairness would an
infant have been punished for the sins of parents since it is written that the son
does not bear the sins of his parents?"12 Unlike the Lutheran commentators, who
characterize the disciples' question as a theoretical query based on the judgment
of reason or of reason informed by the law, Musculus here portrays the question
as argumentative, tinged with indignation, and occasioned by Jesus' own words to
the healed paralytic.
Musculus does not, however, finally declare which of his two possible interpre-
tations of the disciples' question is preferable. Since the intention of the disciples
is not clearly expressed by the Evangelist, Musculus concedes the final interpreta-
tion to the judgment of the reader "to embrace the opinion that seems more prob-
able" (amplectendi sententiam, quae vero videatur propior). In either case, Musculus
argues that the disciples reveal a defective disposition that should be avoided by
believers in Christ. As is so often the case, Musculus here draws a moral lesson from
the story whereas other commentators express none.
If the disciples asked "simply," sincerely wanting to know whose sin had caused
the man's blindness, then they must be reproached for their curiosity. Paraphras-
ing Augustine, Musculus states that curious people are always eager to know about
the sins of others but are negligent and lazy concerning their own.13 Since they
 On the Healing of the Man Born Blind 137

believed that Jesus knew the sins of all people, they would have done better to ask
Jesus concerning their own sins. And if in fact they were truly concerned about the
blind man, they would have simply interceded on his behalf, asking Jesus to re-
move his infirmity. Thus, their prurient interest in the sins of others not only was
misplaced but also revealed their lack of charity toward the man. But if the dis-
ciples asked "in an argumentative fashion," then they must be reproached for their
temerity, for in effect they were calling into question God's justice. They rashly
accuse God either of unfairly punishing the innocent (i.e., an infant) or of unfairly
imposing the guilt of the parents' sin upon an innocent child. We see here, according
to Musculus, a splendid example of how "the temerity of human reason argues
against God" (humanae rationis temeritas contra Deum arguatur). To this reckless
arrogance of reason, Musculus argues, the words of Paul are a fitting response: "Who
are you, man, who responds to God?"14
In interpreting the response of Jesus, each of the Lutheran commentators ar-
gues that the blind man and his parents are not made sinless by the words, "Nei-
ther this man sinned nor his parents." Jesus' words must be carefully restricted to
the immediate context of the disciples' question: "Who sinned, this man or his
parents that he should be born blind?" Jesus declares simply that they had not sinned
so as to cause the blindness. But certainly they, along with all human beings, were
sinners, as the rest of Scripture makes abundantly clear.15 This exegetical common-
place, affirmed by nearly every commentator on the passage, is also echoed by
Musculus, who argues that Jesus was really saying, "Neither this man nor his par-
ents sinned that he should be born blind." Even if he did not say this "word for word"
(ad verbum), there can be no doubt that this is what he meant.16
When Jesus states that the purpose of the blindness was "that the works of God
might be manifested in him," he affirms that the affliction was not based in retri-
bution or punishment but rather in the purpose of bringing glory to God. This is
the basic point made by all of our commentators. Melanchthon states that by these
words Jesus teaches believers to endure afflictions patiently in order to arrive at
the fruit of such testings—namely, the recognition of God's will. When God's will
is recognized in the midst of such trials, his name is glorified.17 Sarcerius and Brenz,
on the other hand, do not stress the knowledge of God's will as much as the act of
liberation itself in bringing glory to God. According to Sarcerius, God is glorified
when the suffering are powerfully and unexpectedly liberated. The "works of God"
then are "signs and marks of God's power" (signa sunt notae potentiae dei), which
when recognized bring glory to God.18 Brenz argues that just as the great and fa-
mous men of the past acquired renowned names for their heroic and often brutal
deeds, so also God acquires a glorious name and fame through his acts of libera-
tion. Scipio is known as "the African" (Aphricanus) because of his conquest of the
Carthaginians. Manlius, who wore the neck-chain of a Gaul he killed in combat, is
known as "Torquatus" ("adorned with a neck-chain"). God also is known by titles
that commemorate his glorious acts, although these titles are far more honorable
 138 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

and praiseworthy than those of the cruel tyrants of history: "For when he brings
his people down into the utmost misery and afterward rescues them, he acquires
this title, 'God the Liberator and Helper in Times of Need' (ein Nothelfer), which
is a most magnificent title, inviting all men to call upon God."19 Brenz stresses that
such human calamities do not happen by chance but by the will of God in order to
bring glory to himself. God afflicted Joseph so that he might acquire glory in liber-
ating him from prison. God afflicted the Israelites so that in freeing them from the
tyranny of Pharaoh he might acquire praise among all the nations. In a similar fash-
ion, God afflicted the blind man with blindness in order to bring glory to himself
by a powerful act of liberation. Therefore, Brenz argues, anyone who impatiently
"rejects a cross from himself (crucem a se reijcit) in effect rejects the very glory of
God.20
Like Brenz, Musculus emphasizes the fact that the man's blindness occurred not
by chance but by the will of God; indeed, it was "determined from eternity" (ab
aeterno destinatus) that the man would be born blind in order to give Christ the
opportunity to manifest the works of God. But in distinction to the Lutheran
expositors, Musculus also explains why such extraordinary works are necessary to
arouse praise and glory to God. For in truth, it is a work of God that human beings
are born with sight; this gift of vision alone should be enough to lead human beings
to sing God's praises. But because of its ordinariness, the gift is not perceived to be
a work manifesting God's glory. The same can be said of the gifts of health and life
itself. Therefore, God afflicts individuals with infirmities and restores them by
extraordinary works in order to break through the spiritual blindness that prevents
human beings from seeing the works of God all around them: "And in this way we
serve the glory of God by our infirmities, while as long as we are well, we obscure
it."21
That human sufferings often occur simply as a vehicle for manifesting God's glory
is, according to Musculus, a great consolation for believers. This point is not new,
for Melanchthon, Brenz, and Sarcerius all make the same argument: the story
teaches us to remain steadfast in faith in the midst of afflictions, knowing that
patient endurance leads ultimately to God's glory.22 Yet Musculus once again goes
well beyond the Lutheran commentators, expanding this basic observation into
an extended discussion of the various causes of affliction. The consolation offered
by the story, in Musculus's reading, extends only to those whose suffering has no
other cause save the glory of God. Those who are afflicted for other reasons should
not hastily flee to this story for comfort, because personal responsibility for suffer-
ing is not universally ruled out by Jesus' response to the disciples.
Musculus enumerates three basic causes for human afflictions. The first and most
general cause is sin. In many places the Scriptures declare that God punishes indi-
viduals for their transgressions.23 Such punishment is not simply rooted in retribu-
tive justice but aims at correction and reform of life as 1 Corinthians 11:32 and
Hebrews 12:6 make clear. Yet the Scriptures also declare that individuals are occa-
 On the Healing of the Man Born Blind 139

sionally punished for the sins of others. Here, Musculus quotes Exodus 20:5, where
God threatens to visit the sins of parents on their children to the third and fourth
generation. But Musculus immediately blunts the edge of this dictum by explain-
ing that the statement applies only to those who imitate the wickedness of their
forefathers. The second cause of afflictions is "that we might be exercised, tested,
and made careful not to sin" (ut exerceamur, probemur, & ne peccemus cauti
reddamur). When patiently received, such afflictions are beneficial to piety: "Faith
grows in tribulations, prayer becomes more fervent, the soul is humbled and lives
soberly, and in sum the old man is killed and the new man grows."24 The third cause
is that which Jesus declares in the present story—namely, "that the glory of the
power and goodness of God might be declared in us" (ut declaretur in nobis gloria
potentiae ac bonitatis Dei). Musculus finds examples of this purpose in the afflic-
tions of Job and Lazarus, whose sufferings served to reveal God's glory.
This extended discussion of the causes of affliction represents a significant fea-
ture of Musculus's method of commenting, a feature that consistently distinguishes
his exegesis from the Lutheran interpretations. Throughout his comments on John
9, Musculus presents lengthy discussions of topics suggested by certain key words
and phrases in the text. Thus, in his treatment of John 9:22 ("If any one should
confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue"), Musculus intro-
duces a broad treatment of the subject of excommunication discussing what con-
stitutes a true versus a false excommunication, and what constitutes a laudable
versus a blamable fear of excommunication.25 At John 9:24 ("Give glory to God;
we know that this man is a sinner"), Musculus first presents an extraordinarily
lengthy discussion of "what it is to give glory to God" (quid sit Deo gloriam dare)
and then engages in an extended epistemological discussion of the nature of human
cognition.26 At John 9:31 ("but if anyone ... obeys his will"), he gives a lengthy
discourse on the will of God and how it is known.27 These examples (and others
could be included) point to an important difference between the interpretations
of Musculus and those of his Lutheran counterparts. Only on the subject of
excommunication do we find a brief discussion by Brenz, but even this is dwarfed
by the treatment by Musculus.28 In none of the other cases do Melanchthon, Brenz,
or Sarcerius offer any discussion similar to that of Musculus. This difference is sig-
nificant, for it points to a different understanding of what properly constitutes
biblical commentary itself. Musculus says nothing in his discussion of various topics
that is particularly exceptional or innovative; the Lutherans would likely agree with
almost everything he writes. But the Lutheran commentators would likely assess
such topical discussions as unnecessary and extraneous intrusions that have the
potential to distract from the plain and sensible meaning of the story at hand.29
The second part of Jesus' response to the disciples' question reintroduces the
Johannine themes of light and darkness. Jesus states that "we must w o r k . . . while
it is day" and further explains the metaphor of "day" by identifying himself as "the
light of the world." This much of Jesus' statement is clear and would pose no inter-
 140 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

pretive difficulties were it not for the limitations that Jesus seemingly places on the
duration of the day and the effectiveness of the light. Jesus is the light of the world
but only as long as he is in the world. And the night is coming, when no one may
work. In the history of exegesis, one finds various explanations of the metaphors
of night and day that attempt to show that Jesus' role as light of the world was not
limited—as the text seems to suggest—to the time of his earthly ministry.
Among the Lutheran expositors, we find two basic explanations. Melanchthon
claims his agreement with the "general view" (generali sententia) that "day" means
the gospel, "night," ignorance of the gospel. When Jesus states that no one may
work at night, he indicates that when the Word of God is not present, it is impos-
sible to work the works of God. "Therefore whatever reason unillumined by the
Word of God is able to do is condemned."30 The second explanation is found in
the comments of Brenz and Sarcerius, who concede that "day" does in fact mean
the time of Jesus' ministry on earth but assert that Jesus does not thereby limit his
role as light or restrict the work of his followers to the time of his earthly ministry.
Since Christ is eternal, Sarcerius argues, so also "his workings are eternal" (opera-
tiones eius aeternae sunt); that is, he continues to be the light of the world even after
his ascension. Those who think otherwise succumb to a falsehood of reason, for
Jesus does not limit his working absolutely but only his working of miracles in the
flesh. Therefore, according to Sarcerius, "night" may refer to the cessation of Jesus'
miracle-working, to the future "privation and obfuscation of the gospel under
antichrist" (privationem Evangelii & obfuscationem sub Antichristo), or, in a gen-
eral sense, to the unbelieving rejection of the gospel. Here Sarcerius expresses a
view close to that of Melanchthon: "Christ is a light to the world as long as it holds
him by faith, but where faith in Christ ceases, there Christ is no longer the light of
the world."31 Brenz comes to a different understanding of the term "night." Just as
"day" refers to the time of Jesus' earthly ministry, so also "night" refers simply to
the cessation of that ministry. However, Brenz argues that Jesus calls this time
"night," not because he would cease to be the light of the world or because the
disciples would truly be unable to work but because it would seem to the disciples
that the work of the gospel had ceased and that Jesus was no longer the light of the
world. In essence then, Jesus simply warns the disciples of the stumbling-block they
would experience in his humiliation and death, saying in effect: "I am the true light
of the world, although by no means will it appear so on the cross when my minis-
try ceases and the power of darkness prevails." Yet Brenz notes that there is also
"another opinion" (alia sententia) concerning the meaning of "night" and "day,"
and here he gives the interpretation of Melanchthon. "Day" simply means the pres-
ence of Christ by the Word received in faith, and "night" is the spiritual darkness
that envelops those who reject the Word.32
In his interpretation, Musculus explains the metaphors of day and night simi-
larly to Brenz and Sarcerius. "Day" refers to the time of Jesus' bodily presence in
the world, while "night" refers to the time of his passion and death. Musculus notes
 On the Healing of the Man Born Blind 141

that some interpreters explain night as a prophetic reference to the divine aban-
donment and dispersion of the Jewish people, but he thinks this view strains the
plain sense of the metaphors.33 But if the metaphors are to be taken in their "simple
sense," it does not necessarily follow, Musculus argues, that after his death Jesus
would no longer be the light of the world. Christ promised his perpetual presence
to the end of the age, and he continues to operate in the world by the power of his
spirit (Mt 28:20). Musculus explains—and here his interpretation distinguishes
itself from the Lutherans—that in interpreting the terms "night" and "day," one
must pay careful attention to the kind of language being used. These terms are
"similitudes" (similitudines), and as such "they should be understood in their simple
sense, not drawn out beyond their purpose."34 The terms "night" and "day" should
not be used to fuel the fire of debate concerning whether or not Jesus continues to
be the light of the world after his death, for this question "was not in the mind of
Christ" (in mente Christi nonfuit). If the similitudes are understood in their straight-
forward sense, it is clear that Jesus did not use the term "night" to express "times
of perpetual blindness and darkness" (perpetuae excaecationis tempora ac tenebrae)
but simply to indicate that his death was fast approaching and that the disciples
should therefore busy themselves with the work of the gospel while he is bodily
present.35

THE MIRACLE: SPIT, CLAY, WATER, AND OBEDIENCE

We come now to the account of the illumination of the blind man, focusing our
attention on what the commentators say about the particular method Jesus used
to accomplish the miracle. Unlike the healing of the ruler's son and the healing of
the man at the pool of Bethesda, Jesus does not heal here by his Word alone but
employs particular means to restore the man's vision. The standard question is why
Jesus used these means when he could, it is assumed, have simply commanded the
restoration of sight. While each of our commentators attempts to answer this ques-
tion at the literal level of interpretation, the very strangeness of the means employed
suggests a deeper symbolic level of meaning. Jesus spits on the ground, making a
mud ointment that he applies to the blind man's eyes. He then instructs the man
to wash in the pool of Siloam, where he finally receives his sight. The details of this
account—the spit, clay, and waters of Siloam—are rich in symbolic potential, and
the Evangelist himself seems to point to a latent level of meaning when he inter-
prets Siloam as "sent." Not surprisingly then, the exegetical tradition abounds with
attempts to ferret out the latent symbolism in the story of this miracle. For the
purposes of this study, the question is how and to what degree Musculus and the
Lutheran expositors exploit the symbolic potential of this passage. Here, however,
we must lay aside the interpretation of Melanchthon, for he writes nothing at all
about the miracle of the blind man's illumination.
 142 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

At the literal level of interpretation, there is one basic argument common to

Brenz, Sarcerius, and Musculusa: all three exegetes insist that the means Jesus
employed were not essential for the performance of the miracle. The employed
means, Brenz and Sarcerius argue, should not distract from the fact that the heal-
ing occurred by the power of the Word. Brenz states that Jesus sometimes healed
by his Word alone, and at other times he added "instruments" (instrumenta), not
by any necessity but "according to his mere pleasure" (pro mera sua libidine).
Musculus argues that it would be ridiculous to think that the clay or water con-
tributed anything to the actual healing, since clay smeared on the eyes hinders rather
than promotes vision, and water in itself cleanses only the external filth of the body.
If the means were not essential for the miracle, why then did Jesus employ them?
Here, we find a diversity of opinions among our commentators. According to
Sarcerius, Jesus made use of spit, clay, and water in order to commend the ordi-
nary means that God has established for accomplishing healing. Specifically,
Sarcerius has in mind the study of medicine, "which God created from heaven and
which 'the wise man will not despise"'(Ecclus 38:4).36 But by employing certain
means, Jesus also advocates the necessary use of the sacraments. By sending the
blind man to the pool of Siloam, Jesus directs him to a "type" (typum) of Christian
baptism. The story demonstrates, according to Sarcerius, that the sacraments con-
fer grace not in themselves or "by the work performed" (ex opere operato) but only
by the presence of the Word seized in faith. Without Jesus' command, the blind
man would have never recovered his sight, no matter how many times he washed
in the pool of Siloam. It was only by the response of faith and obedience that the
water became an effective means for conferring grace. God certainly may save any-
one apart from sacramental means, and in fact he does so in emergency situations.
But the empty fable (vanafabula) of the heretics, who assert that the sacraments
are not necessary in the Church, cannot stand against the example of Jesus, who
employed specific means in healing the blind man.37
Brenz states that Jesus utilized spit, clay, and water in order to show that "the
just means offered to us by the Lord must be used." Although he does not give
examples of these "just means," as Sarcerius does in pointing to medicine and the
sacraments, the essential point is the same. But Brenz proceeds to give another
explanation that centers on the effectiveness of "intermediary instruments" (media
instrumenta) in making known the works of God. The means appointed by God
are often those that run counter to human expectations and thus serve as forceful
demonstrations of God's power. "For God is not willing to distribute his goods to
us by the means which we choose, but [by those] which he himself chooses."38 Here
Brenz notes the example of the healing of Naaman, the leprous captain of the Syr-
ian army (2 Kgs 5:1-14). Naaman's expectation and hope that Elisha would greet
him and lay his hands on him were disappointed when he was instructed by a
messenger to dip himself seven times in the filthy waters of the Jordan. But it was
precisely because these means ran counter to the expectations of reason that the
 On the Healing of the Man Born Blind 143

work of God was "more celebrated" (celebrius). If Elisha had greeted Naaman and
touched the leprosy, then the healing would have been ascribed partly to the prophet
and not to God alone. In a similar fashion, Jesus healed the blind man employing
means that neither the man himself nor the spectators would have expected. Yet
these means were perfectly suited to the objectives of the miracle—namely, to make
the power of God known and to lead the blind man to faith: "Christ heals a blind
man with a poultice made from clay and spit so that by the strangeness of this
poultice the miracle and the power of his word would become more celebrated.
Second, the blind man is sent to the pool of Siloam so that the faith of the blind
man might be exercised by the long journey."39
Musculus argues that the miracle should be interpreted in two ways: both liter-
ally (quod attinet ad rei gestae literam) and figuratively (quodfacti huius mysterium
concernit). In his literal interpretation, he explains the significance of the "means"
used by Jesus similarly to Brenz: the strangeness of the miracle contributed to its
publication and ultimately to the glorification of the miracle's author. Certainly,
Jesus could have healed the man by a "naked word" (nudo verbo), but he purpose-
fully chose a particular method that would defy the expectations of reason. Who
would believe, Musculus asks, that Jesus was about to heal a deaf man if he stopped
up his ears with mud? Similarly, mud smeared on the eyes of a blind man would
seem in the judgment of reason to compound rather than alleviate blindness. A
surgical knife rather than a poultice of spit and clay would be much more agree-
able to human reason. But by choosing means that appear "more harmful than
helpful" (noxia magis quam conducibilis), Christ more firmly makes his power
known. He shows that his word is efficacious no matter what means he should
choose to use.40
More interesting, however, is the manner in which Musculus interprets the
mystical significance of the miracle, an interpretation that distinguishes his com-
mentary from the Lutheran expositions. Musculus here concedes the speculative
nature of his ideas and claims no finality for his interpretation: "Without prejudg-
ing anyone, I say how it appears to me."41 First, he suggests that the spit and clay
smeared on the eyes of the blind man may symbolize earthly wisdom which pre-
vents unbelievers from seeing divine truths. Accordingly, the water of Siloam rep-
resents the grace of the Holy Spirit, embodied in Christ sent by the Father. There-
fore, "by this mystical deed" (mystico hoc facto) Jesus teaches that the truths of God
cannot be discerned until the eyes of the mind are cleansed from the "clay of
human wisdom" (humanae sapientiae lutum) by the waters of Christ's grace. The
blind man thus bears the image of those like the scribes and Pharisees who blind
themselves by accumulating earthly wisdom:
Therefore, how insane are those who accumulate to themselves with the greatest zeal
this earthly clay and smear it on the eyes of the mind, as if from that they will be more
sharp-sighted for knowing the truth of Christ? They search for this clay with great
expense from the writings of the philosophers from which they are blinded more than
 144 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

illuminated. May the Lord grant that they should go to the pool of Siloam and there
wash away the eyes of the mind and be recleansed from the clay of earthly wisdom.42
Second, sculus interprets the spit and clay as an allegorical representation of
the incarnation of Christ, an interpretation rooted in Augustine's commentary and
well represented throughout the exegetical tradition. Here, the spit symbolizes the
Word of God, while the clay symbolizes the human flesh assumed by that Word in
the incarnation of Christ. The smearing of spit and clay on the eyes of the blind
man represents, according to Musculus, the offense that the incarnation of Christ
presents to unbelievers. The humility and abasement of the incarnate Word is such
an offense to human reason that it blinds until reason is washed by the water of
Siloam—that is, by the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Musculus sees no difficulty in asserting the validity of both allegorical interpre-
tations, but he recognizes that some may prefer one to the other: "Neither exposi-
tion is impious, but I leave to your judgment, reader, which one you should
accept."43 While he seems to acknowledge the inconclusiveness of such allegories,
he nevertheless presents this kind of exegesis throughout his interpretation of this
miracle to an extent unparalleled by the Lutheran commentators. Indeed, very early
in his comments on the story, Musculus indicates that the illumination of the blind
man represents an allegory of salvation. There are some glimmers of this under-
standing of the miracle in the comments of Sarcerius, who argues that the story
shows that salvation is not by human merits but by the grace and mercy of Christ.44
But Musculus elaborates this way of reading the story in much fuller detail, seizing
upon details that contribute to an overall picture of the miracle as an image of
human salvation.
Thus, for Musculus, the blind man does not simply represent a needy individual
but images the blindness that has stricken all of the descendants of Adam:
What is that birth that produces blind people? The birth of the flesh, which is from
Adam, does not produce seeing but blind people. The birth of the spirit does not
produce blind ones but seeing people. There are certain living beings that are in fact
born blind but after the space of a few days open their eyes so that they see. But the
posterity of Adam is born blind in such a way that unless it is regenerated by the spirit,
it does not see the light of truth at all.45

Since the blind man represents the spiritual blindness of fallen humanity, the
miracle demonstrates the manner in which spiritual illumination occurs. No
intercession precedes the miracle, either from the blind man himself or from his
friends. Rather, Jesus takes the initiative himself in conferring the benefit of sight;
by doing so, he shows that spiritual illumination can occur only "by his prevenient
grace" (ipsiusgratiapraeveniente).
Although Jesus could have healed the blind man on the spot, he sent him to
the pool of Siloam to wash his eyes. This command is significant, according to
Musculus, because it demonstrates the way "divine providence usually expends its
 On the Healing of the Man Born Blind 145

grace to mortals." Christ is able to accomplish the works of the Father without any
human effort, but he chooses to make human beings "co-operators with God"
(cooperatores Dei) in order to strengthen faith and the knowledge of divine power.46
Furthermore, the blind man was not sent to any pool, but specifically to the
pool that is interpreted "sent," an interpretation that the Evangelist gives,
according to Musculus, "in order to remind the reader of the mystical deed" (ut
lectorem mystici facti admoneat).47 Like Sarcerius, Musculus argues that the pool
presents an image of Christian baptism. But unlike Sarcerius, he discusses baptism
here in terms suggested by the story—namely, as a form of spiritual illumination:
"Therefore to have washed in the waters of Siloam, that is, in the the streams of the
baptism of Christ, is the same as to have been illuminated." Those who are bap-
tized in Christ regain their spiritual vision, lost in the fall. This is why, Musculus
argues, the ancient Greeks termed baptism (an enlightening).48
Turning now to the last component of the miracle of illumination, the obedi-
ence of the blind man to the command of Christ, we find that each of our com-
mentators commends his response as an example to all believers. Sarcerius simply
states that he gives an example of the obedience of faith.49 Brenz argues that the
man teaches us to seize the promises of God by faith and an eager obedience even
when the things that are promised are nowhere evident. When the commands of
God are faithfully executed, our faith will not be disappointed.50 Musculus also
praises the man's response as worthy of emulation, magnifying the greatness of his
obedience by probing the psychology of the situation. The blind man might have
turned away when he felt his eyes smeared with mud, thinking perhaps that he was
being ridiculed. He might have laughed outright when ordered to wash in the pool,
scorning such a command as absurd. But in fact he committed himself to Christ
and "promptly obeyed the command even though all these things seemed ridicu-
lous to human reason."51
Although the man's obedience serves as a general admonition to all believers,
Musculus directs this admonition more specifically to certain heretics who dismiss
the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper as observances that proffer no
spiritual benefit. These heretics see only the earthly elements in the sacraments,
and hence they ridicule those who observe these dominical commands: "Thus they
now croak, 'What power will water, bread, and wine have?'"52 If they had stood in
the blind man's shoes, they would have refused Jesus' command, responding in-
dignantly that neither the clay nor the water of Siloam could possibly illumine blind
eyes. If they had heard Peter's command to be baptized (Acts 2:38) they would have
retorted that water is not able to wash away sins. If they had been among the Isra-
elites bitten by venomous serpents (Nm 21:6—9), they would have refused as ab-
surd the prescribed remedy of viewing Moses' bronze serpent. They are fools who
"do not understand that neither water, nor bread, nor wine, nor a bronze serpent
is able by itself to confer anything, but that the power of healing is in the Word of
God seized by faith."53 The obedient response of the blind man thus serves as a fit-
 146 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

ting rejoinder to these heretics: "Let the heretics of our times note that obedience
of the blind man" who did not refuse the "earthly elements" (elementa terrena)
prescribed by Christ but eagerly seized them by faith in Christ's word.54

CONCLUSION

Viewing Musculus's comments on John 9:1-7 in the context of Lutheran inter-

pretations brings into relief a distinctive characteristic of his method of exposition:
the tendency toward an exhaustive exegetical treatment of the scriptural text. At
the most basic level of exposition, Musculus and the Lutherans focus on the same
exegetical questions and offer similar interpretations. But Musculus consistently
shows himself willing to probe these questions more deeply, to test differing pos-
sible interpretations, and to suggest more moral applications than one finds in the
Lutheran expositions.
Thus, in his treatment of the disciples' question, Musculus gives a much fuller
treatment of the context, suggesting not one but two different and equally valid
ways of understanding the query. Furthermore, while the Lutherans find in the
question no occasion for tropology, Musculus develops his interpretation into a
moral admonition against two dangerous vices: prurient curiosity (if the question
was asked "simply") and shameless temerity (if the question was asked "argu-
mentatively"). In his interpretation of Jesus' response, Musculus, like the Lutherans,
treats the basic and obvious question of how God is glorified when the suffering
are miraculously liberated. But Musculus alone examines the related question of
why such miracles are needed when God's glory is (or should be) apparent in the
works of creation. Similarly, Musculus is not content with a simple approbation
of the blind man's obedient response, such as one finds in the Lutheran interpre-
tations, but magnifies the virtue of this response with a discussion of other ways in
which he could have responded less faithfully to Jesus' strange deed.
At almost every turn, we find that Musculus simply has more to say than the
Lutheran commentators. Although he assumes the same basic menu of exegetical
questions, Musculus consistently educes further nuances, related questions, and
moral applications. Yet there are two other ways in which Musculus protracts his
treatment of the story of the blind man's illumination. First, Musculus makes use
of the words and phrases of the gospel text as a springboard for logical and system-
atic discussions of certain doctrines and truths, which are (at best) only tangen-
tially related to the text itself. This feature, seen throughout Musculus's interpre-
tation of John 9 in his extended treatments of various topics, such as the causes of
affliction, excommunication, the ways God is glorified, and various kinds of knowl-
edge, finds no analogue in the Lutheran commentaries. Second, Musculus gives
much fuller voice to the allegorical "images" in the miracle story than any of the
Lutheran commentators. The spit and clay thus represent the incarnation of Christ
 On the Healing of the Man Born Blind 147

or the blinding of earthly wisdom; the pool of Siloam represents baptism or the
grace of the Holy Spirit; and the healing miracle represents an allegory of spiritual
illumination, that is the salvation of the soul. Among the Lutheran commentators,
Sarcerius alone points to the baptismal imagery of the pool and briefly suggests
that the miracle portrays an image of salvation by grace apart from human merit.
Melanchthon and Brenz, however, present no "mystical" reading of the healing
story, a remarkable fact given how easily the elements of the story lend themselves
to a Protestant understanding of salvation. It is certainly not the case that the
Lutheran commentators dismiss allegorical interpretation altogether, for like
Musculus, all three assume at least two basic levels of meaning in the text: literal
and allegorical, or to use other terms, historical and mystical. But our compara-
tive exegetical study suggests that Musculus gives more weight to allegorical modes
of expression than do his Lutheran counterparts.55
In the attempt to provide a comprehensive commentary that takes full account
of different interpretive possibilities, related doctrinal and theological topics, and
the allegorical level of meaning, Musculus's exegesis reveals a different approach
and follows a different model in the task of commenting than that seen in the
Lutheran expositions. For the Lutherans, brevity is a virtue; the assembling of a
diffuse, prolix, and ostentatious exegetical apparatus that eclipses the biblical text
itself is avoided. For Musculus, however, it is not brevity but thoroughness that
defines the great virtue of the biblical commentator. These two competing models
were recognized by John Calvin in a prefatory letter to his commentary on Romans.
On the one hand, he notes that Melanchthon's method of only treating relevant
loci leaves too much unsaid; the reader always wishes for more. On the other
hand, he argues that Bucer's exhaustive method of exegesis also has its shortcom-
ings: "Bucer is too prolix to keep the interest of busy people.. . . Whenever he deals
with any subject. . . [he] brings up so many things that he does not know how to
take his hand off the paper."56 Calvin's description of Bucer's method would cer-
tainly characterize Musculus's method as well. Perhaps, then, this comprehensive
approach to exegesis characterizes a larger "school" of Reformed commentators
that includes Bucer and Musculus. We examine this question in the next chapter
by comparing Musculus and the Reformed commentators on the final Johannine
sign, the raising of Lazarus.
 SEVEN

Musculus and the Reformed Commentators

on the Raising of Lazarus

W We now examine Musculus's exegesis in the context of commentaries

authored by theologians who shared an allegiance to the reform movements in
southern Germany and Switzerland, centered in the cities of Zurich, Basel, Geneva,
and Strasbourg. This southern wing of the Protestant Reformation, represented in
its early stages by the central figures of Zwingli, Calvin, and Bucer, spawned a theo-
logical tradition that may be distinguished from the Wittenberg-oriented wing of
the Reformation and later became known as the Reformed tradition.
Although the writings of Luther precipitated Musculus's break with Rome, it
was this Reformed wing of Protestantism that defined his theological development.
The first steps of his career as a Reformer came under the guiding influence of the
Strasbourg luminaries Bucer and Capito, and in Augsburg Musculus guided a re-
form movement that was theologically oriented toward Zurich. When Musculus
was exiled, his first inclination was to look to the south, where his natural theo-
logical compatriots were active, and he resided for brief periods in Zurich, Basel,
and St. Gallen before receiving his call to Bern.
By examining Musculus's work on John in the context of other Reformed com-
mentaries, we seek to learn whether the characteristic features of his exegesis may
be explained, at least partially, in reference to the exegetical works of his theologi-
cal allies. We have yet to find any interpreter on John who matches the remarkably
thorough and exhaustive approach that Musculus takes in the exegetical task. His
comments swell to such proportions that they consistently overwhelm the inter-
pretations of his Lutheran, Catholic, and humanist peers. Does Musculus find a
model for this approach among the Reformed expositors? Does his affinity for
tropological exegesis—the extraction of moral analogies and observations from
practically every detail of the biblical text—find any counterpart among his fellow
reformers? Does his penchant for developing allegorical images from the miracle

148
 On the Raising of Lazarus 149

stories remain distinctive in a Reformed exegetical context?1 The answers to these

questions emerge in this final exegetical comparison, contributing to the charac-
terization of Musculus's exegesis that has developed in the course of this study.

REFORMED COMMENTATORS ON JOHN

Four Reformed theologians authored works on John that appeared in print prior
to Musculus's commentary: Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), the outstanding leader
of the reform movement in Zurich; the Basel reformer, Johannes CEcolampadius
(1482-1531); Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), Zwingli's successor in the post of
people's priest at the Grossmunster; and the great Strasbourg reformer Martin Bucer
(1491-1551). These men were accomplished exegetes who devoted much of their
scholarly work to the exposition of Scripture. Bucer was universally admired as a
first-rate commentator, whose exegetical magnum opus, the commentary on
Romans (1536), is justly famous. CEcolampadius distinguished himself as a Hebraist
who made use of the targums and Jewish exegesis in his exposition of prophetic
literature of the Hebrew Bible; his Isaiah commentary (1525) was widely regarded
as the sine qua non of any serious consideration of the prophet. Bullinger, also
trained in humanist methods of biblical scholarship, produced commentaries on
all of the New Testament writings; they were published first individually and then
as a complete set in 1561. From the lecture halls of Zurich comes the great bulk of
Zwingli's exegetical legacy. While Zwingli himself arranged for the publication of
his Isaiah and Jeremiah commentaries, the majority of his biblical commentaries
were published on the basis of student notes. All of his New Testament commen-
taries appeared after his death, edited by Leo Jud, who in 1539 published all known
exegetical works of Zwingli.
The first Reformed John commentary to appear in print is the Enarratio in
Evangelium lohannis of Bucer, published in Strasbourg in 1528.2 The commentary
was reworked by Bucer himself, and new versions were produced for publication
in 1530 and again in 1536.3 Second, we have the Annotationes piae ac doctae in
Evangelium loannis of CEcolampadius, published posthumously in 1533 in the form
of 102 lectures on the gospel.4 The work is based on a transcript of Johann Gast,
who heard the lectures delivered in Basel sometime between the fall of 1529 and the
fall of 1530.5 Third, we have the Annotationes of Zwingli, delivered in lecture form
some time in the year 1525 and published in 1539 on the basis of Leo Jud's recen-
sion of student notes.6 Finally in 1543, just two years before the publication of
Musculus's work on John, the commentary of Bullinger was released for publica-
tion; it went through two additional printings in 1548 and 1556 and was reissued as
part of the complete set of his New Testament commentaries in 1554 and 1561.7
Although Musculus cites none of these Reformed commentators by name, he
certainly makes use of Bucer's John commentary. If one examines Musculus's ref-
 150 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

erences to the opinions of "quidam" or "recentiores," there are several places where
he possibly has Bucer's comments in mind. In most of these places, however, it is
impossible to disprove the influence of another source that expresses the same
opinion as Bucer.8 But at Musculus's comments on John 10:10, there is a reference
to an interpretation of "recent authorities" that is in fact a verbatim citation of
Bucer's commentary: "Ex recentioribus quidam sic exponunt. Ut credentes vitam
habent, & abundantius habeant: hocest, ut vitam aeternamfidepercipiant, quaeper
spiritum eius semper incrementum accipiat, donecpleneperfecta beataque reddatur"
(Bucer's words in italics).9 Yet having given Bucer's opinion (along with the opin-
ions of Augustine, Cyril, Chrysostom, and Theophylact), Musculus politely but
firmly withholds his endorsement, preferring to offer his own interpretation, which
accords better (he argues) with the simple meaning of the text. In fact, at several of
the places where Musculus possibly cites the views of Bucer, he does so merely to
show an exegetical opinion with which he does not fully concur.10
Yet one cannot conclude that Musculus only uses Bucer negatively, for the
numerous general similarities of interpretation may owe a great deal to Bucer's work
on John. Indeed, even in his method of presentation, Musculus's commentary almost
certainly betrays the influence of his former teacher. Bucer divided the sections of
his commentary into paraphrasis, annotationes, and observationes, and Musculus-
although he omits the titles "paraphrase" and "annotation"—follows this basic divi-
sion. In particular, by his use of observations for moral and dogmatic reflections on
the text, Musculus adopted an organizational method that was particularly Bucerian.
Concerning the other three Reformed John commentaries, I have found no clear
evidence to suggest a direct influence. However, given the close friendship of
Musculus and Bullinger, it would be surprising if Musculus had not consulted
Bullinger's commentary.11 A thorough and systematic comparison of the two com-
mentaries might turn up evidence of Musculus's knowledge of Bullinger's exegesis.
One might also suspect the influence of CEcolampadius simply because Musculus,
in his Isaiah commentary, makes extensive use of CEcolampadius's exegesis. In-
deed, at the front of his Isaiah commentary, Musculus provides a table of the names
of exegetes whose works he has consulted. Although many of his contemporary
sources are hidden under the designation "recentiores" in this table, he singles out
four contemporaries whom he mentions by name: Bucer, Calvin, Luther, and
CEcolampadius.12 Clearly, Musculus considered CEcolampadius an exegete worthy
of serious consideration, and therefore it would not be surprising to find evidence
of the influence of CEcolampadius's John commentary on Musculus.

THE RAISING OF LAZARUS (JN 11:1-46)

Musculus's interpretation of the Lazarus narrative (running to twenty-nine folio-

sized pages) far exceeds the comments of his Reformed counterparts. Bullinger and
 On the Raising of Lazarus 151

CEcolampadius come closest to matching the length of Musculus's treatment, while

the comments of Bucer and Zwingli are dwarfed by comparison.13 This basic dis-
crepancy points to an important feature of Musculus's work as a commentator (as
I have repeatedly argued), and some effort must be made to determine what
accounts for the vastness of Musculus's exegesis. But in order to produce a man-
ageable pool of exegetical data, it has been necessary to limit this study to selected
portions of the Lazarus story.
In this comparative study, we will first examine the interpretations of the first
four verses of the story (11:1—4), which describe Lazarus's illness and the message
sent to Jesus by the sisters. Second, we move directly to the dialogues between Jesus,
Martha, and Mary (11:20-32), focusing our attention exclusively on the interpretive
portraits of the two sisters. Third, we examine the exegetical explanations of Jesus'
emotive response (11:33-35). And finally, the study concludes with a consideration
of the interpretations of the miraculous revivification of Lazarus (11:38-44).

Setting the Scene: News of Lazarus's Sickness (Jn 11:1-4)

The first two verses of the Lazarus narrative provide the background information
for the unfolding of the drama. A man named Lazarus, who resided in Bethany,
became ill. The Evangelist further relates that Lazarus's sister Mary was the same
person who anointed Jesus with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair. With
the exception of Musculus, none of the Reformed exegetes comment significantly
on these opening verses, preferring to begin their interpretations with the message
sent by the sisters to Jesus regarding Lazarus's illness (11:3).
From the background information of the first two verses, Musculus produces a
lengthy treatment of various extraneous topics. First and most significant is a gen-
eral discussion of human sickness. He examines the question of why human be-
ings often become ill before death, concluding that such illnesses serve as harbin-
gers of the future life, allowing the sick to put their human affairs in order and to
prepare their souls for the life to come. Musculus also offers an explanation for the
providentially arranged sickness of Lazarus, arguing that his illness, no less than
his death, served to illustrate the glory of God. Second, prompted only by the
mention in the text that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary lived in the same village,
Musculus discusses the ideal love that should exist among siblings. He bemoans
the fact that fraternal and sisterly love is so rare in his own day, arguing that the
extraordinary harmony and love between Lazarus and his sisters was the chief rea-
son Jesus especially loved this household. Finally, Musculus generates a grand
allegory from the names Bethany, Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, whose meanings
serve to establish an image of the redemptive work of Christ in the world.14 Thus,
at the very outset of his commentary on the Lazarus narrative, Musculus's inter-
pretation distinguishes itself from the other Reformed commentaries simply by the
scope of its investigation.
 152 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

The first common topic of exegesis among our commentators centers on the third
verse of the Lazarus narrative. The Evangelist relates that the sisters send word to
Jesus regarding Lazarus's illness and that Jesus responds: "This sickness is not unto
death, but for the glory of God so that the son of God might be glorified by it"
(11:4). Although Zwingli and Bucer write nothing about the sisters' message,
CEcolampadius, Bullinger, and Musculus each offer similar interpretations of the
message as an example of pious prayer. Unlike Bullinger and Musculus, however,
CEcolampadius interprets their petition according to a menu of allegorical corre-
spondences: the house of Mary and Martha prefigures the Church; Lazarus repre-
sents those who have died in their sins; the messenger represents the prayers of the
faithful. The sisters therefore intercede for their brother, just as the Church prays
for fellow Christians who have fallen into sin or ignorance. They express a human-
ity and compassion worthy of emulation: "If we see an ass wandering astray, we
lead it back according to the law. How much more if we see the soul of a brother
going astray? Love requires that we beseech the Lord for his salvation."15
Although neither Bullinger nor Musculus interpret the sisters' message as an
allegorical image of the prayers of the Church, they both make a prayer analogy
similar to the interpretation of CEcolampadius. Bullinger notes that the sisters do
not request any particular response of Jesus; they simply tell him that his friend is
ill. Thus, they not only demonstrate an example of compassion for the sick but also
show the proper way to seek aid from Christ. Nothing should be prescribed to him,
for he knows when and how he will bring assistance. Similarly, Musculus observes
that the sisters did not ask Jesus to come to Bethany but simply informed him of
his sickness. Since they knew Lazarus was loved by Jesus, they rightfully prescribed
no particular course of action but simply declared his need. For any human father,
Musculus argues, it would be enough to hear "your son has fallen down a well."
No one would think it necessary to prescribe anything further, because love would
dictate the obvious course of action. Therefore, the sisters exhibit a commendable
example of praying "with few words" (paucis verbis).16
Musculus argues that the sisters demonstrate another principle of prayer by the
fact that they remind Jesus of his love for Lazarus. Rightly expecting no special
prerogative on the basis of their blood relationship to Lazarus, they do not say,
"Lord, our brother is sick," but, "Lord, he whom you love is sick." Their words
thus present a model for the prayers of the faithful:
Let us also follow this example so that when praying for the brethren let us make much
of the fact that they were received in the grace of the Lord. And let us say, "Lord,
behold he for whom you died is sick." Or if a brother is in the midst of temptations,
let us say, "Lord, behold he whom you redeemed by your blood is being attacked by
Satan." ... Thus nowadays when praying for the Church let us say: "Lord, behold
your bride, whom you singularly love, is being oppressed and ravaged by the tyr-
anny of Antichrist."17
 On the Raising of Lazarus 153

Therefore, for Musculus it is not merely that the economy of the sisters' words is
commendable, but the words themselves have a "wonderful emphasis" (mira em-
phasis) that should be emulated in prayer.
In his interpretation of the sisters' message, Musculus also raises a question that
is not explored by either CEcolampadius or Bullinger. Namely, why did the sisters
send a message to Jesus instead of traveling to petition him in person? By sending
a messenger, they seem to have shown disrespect for the dignity and honor of their
lord. Yet there are three reasons, according to Musculus, why the sisters rightfully
sent an envoy to Jesus. First, "it was not fitting to the female sex" (muliebri sexui
non conveniebat) for Mary and Martha to set out on such a journey, leaving be-
hind the domestic duties of their home. Second, they properly chose to remain with
their sick brother, who sorely needed their attendance and aid. Third, because
the sisters knew Jesus well, they were certain of his love and mercy. Being well
acquainted with his "holy and admirable modesty" (sancta admirabilis modestia),
they knew he would not take offense at their message but would respond with kind-
ness to whatever they asked simply and sincerely. For Musculus, the crucial point
is that the sisters sent word to Jesus because they ardently longed for their brother's
health. Their love and diligence contrasts vividly, Musculus argues, with the sad
state of affairs in his own day, when sisters rarely "pray against" (deprecentur) the
death of a brother, or brothers against the death of a sister, especially when some
earthly gain may be expected from that death.18
Concerning Jesus' response to the sisters' message—"This sickness is not unto
death but for the glory of God, that the son of God might be glorified by it" (11:4)-—
we find a common core of exegetical opinion in the Reformed commentaries. By
his words, Jesus expresses two basic ideas. First, he does not deny that Lazarus will
die but denies only that Lazarus will remain dead. Knowing that he would resur-
rect Lazarus, Jesus speaks these words in anticipation of the impending miracle.
Second, Jesus discloses that his miracles confer glory equally on God the Father
and God the Son; when the Father is glorified, so is the Son, and vice versa.19 These
very traditional and rather obvious exegetical ideas are also expressed in Musculus's
commentary. But Musculus, who is rarely content with a simple gloss of the bibli-
cal text, discusses Jesus' response much more thoroughly in order to extract sev-
eral moral observations.
First, Musculus notes that Jesus responded to the news of Lazarus's sickness with
words of consolation in order to comfort the grieving sisters. Jesus thus bequeaths
an example of the proper response to those in mourning: the faithful should offer
comfort "with words producing a hope of better things" (verbis rerum meliorum
spem facientibus). Although some people think they display their piety by a phony
and dour pessimism in human affairs, they only succeed in demonstrating their
lack of humanity. Hearing someone grieve for a sick loved one, "they do not say
.. . 'Be of good cheer, God is able to raise him up'. .. but with a stern counte-
 154 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

nance they say: 'What use is mourning? He must die."' This "absurd Christianity"
(praeposterus Christianismus) not only violates the apostolic dictum to weep with
those who weep but also flies in the face of the humanity and compassion expressed
by Christ himself.20
Second, Musculus argues that Jesus' statement serves as a reminder that not every
sickness leads to death but that illness is often inflicted by God as a divine correc-
tive aimed at spiritual reformation. The infirmities of the body thus serve to pro-
tect human beings "from the infirmity and death of the soul" (ab animae infirmitate
morte). Not only do such infirmities work ultimately to our benefit, but they
also work to the glory of God's son. Therefore we are taught, Musculus argues, to
glory in our infirmities. Bucer makes the same argument, asserting that an eager-
ness for God's glory allows us to endure afflictions with equanimity, knowing that
adversities "will work for the illustration of his glory . .. and also for our salva-
tion."21 Yet while Bucer briefly mentions this point, Musculus produces an extended
discussion of how infirmities lead to the glory of God. If the question is viewed
superficially, Musculus argues, one might conclude that such infirmities subtract
from the glory of God's creative work: "What glory is able to overflow to him,
through whom we were created, from an infirmity of our mortal bodies? Would
not more glory return to him if we were strong as the angels of God than from the
fact that we are prone to many infirmities? Surely, not the infirmity but the strength
of a work is the glory of a creator."22 Musculus responds that Jesus' words refer not
to how we were created in the beginning but to how "in being reformed we are
made" (reformando reddimur). Thus, it is not infirmities in themselves that bring
glory to God but the divine process of transforming infirmities into strength. The
glory of a physician, Musculus notes, comes not from making the healthy sick but
from making the sick well.
Third, Musculus argues that Jesus' response also indicates by analogy that not
every infirmity of the soul—namely, sin—leads to the death of the soul. There is a
sin unto death and a sin not unto death (1 Jn 5:16-17). Although every violation
of God's law is in fact worthy of death, the sins of those who are partners of Christ's
grace will not lead to the destruction of their souls. Only those who sin without
repentance "to the very end" (finaliter) commit sin unto death.23 Musculus's inter-
pretation here is in keeping with his general understanding of Lazarus as a type or
image of the sinner, an understanding that becomes more apparent in the later
stages of his commentary on the story. CEcolampadius, who also stresses this sym-
bolic interpretation of Lazarus, offers a similar interpretation (which he explicitly
terms allegory) of Jesus' response. Only those who sin against the Holy Spirit—
that is, those who are unwilling to repent—sin unto death. The sins of those "pre-
ordained to life" (praeordinati ad vitam) will not lead to their perdition but to the
ultimate strengthening of their spiritual life: "After a lapse, the sons of God are much
more fervent and so order their life that God is more glorified through them." When
they repent, like Lazarus, "they rise again, ordering their life in greater fear."24
 On the Raising of Lazarus 155

Martha and Mary (Jn 11:20-32)

As Jesus approaches Bethany, he is greeted by Martha, who, having heard of his
impending arrival, has run out to meet him. Mary, the Evangelist writes, remained
at home. Initiating a dialogue (or perhaps a quarrel) with Jesus, Martha states:
"Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know
that whatever you ask of God, God will give you." Jesus' response leads her first to
confess a belief in the general resurrection of the dead and finally to confess a be-
lief in Jesus as the Christ, the son of God. Martha then informs her sister "secretly"
(silentio) that Jesus is present and calling for her. Followed by an entourage of fel-
low mourners, Mary goes out to meet Jesus, falling at his feet and greeting him
with the same words used previously by Martha: "Lord, if you had been here, my
brother would not have died."
Here we focus on two central questions regarding the Reformed interpretations
of this part of the Lazarus narrative. First, how do the commentators characterize
the responses of the two sisters to Jesus' arrival? And second, how do the commen-
tators develop their characterizations of Martha and Mary into moral or allegorical
exegesis? Once again, we find that while CEcolampadius, Bullinger, and Musculus
devote considerable attention to developing an exegetical portrait of the sisters,
Zwingli and Bucer have very little to say.
Both CEcolampadius and Bullinger regard Martha's running to greet Jesus as a
commendable act, demonstrating her zeal for Christ. According to CEcolampadius,
Martha was not annoyed that Jesus had delayed his coming to Bethany but eagerly
ran out to meet him, showing her "sedulity" (sedulitatem) both for Christ and for
her brother. Bullinger believes Martha had been pacing to and fro, caring for
domestic matters, when she heard that Jesus had arrived at the outskirts of Bethany.
She then "by virtue of a sedulity natural to her" (pro sedulitate sibi ingenita) ran
out to meet him, displaying not only zeal for her lord, whom she receives "with
religion and reverence" (cum religione reverentia), but also true piety, expressed
in her humanity and love for Lazarus. Bullinger argues that Martha thus presents
"a salutary example" (exemplum salubre) to be imitated by the faithful, who should
also run to meet Christ "by a pure faith, sincere repentance, and ardent prayers"
(fide pura, poenitentia syncera precibus ardentibus).25
Like CEcolampadius and Bullinger, Musculus praises Martha's running to Christ,
for by doing so, she displayed "a courteous and proper reverence" (officiosam
honestam reverentiam) for her lord. What distinguishes Musculus's exegesis, how-
ever, is its stress upon Martha's reception of Jesus as a multifaceted moral exemplum.
First, Martha demonstrates the virtue of aggressive hospitality. Just as Abraham
and Lot ran to meet their guests (Gn 18:2,19:1), so Martha demonstrates the proper
welcome that a host owes to visiting friends and guests. Yet Martha does not merely
run to Jesus as her guest, but also as her lord; she thus demonstrates the appropri-
ate reverence due to lords and masters by their subjects. Furthermore, like Bullinger,
 156 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

Musculus spiritualizes Martha's running to Jesus as an image of the interior re-

ception of Christ by the believer:

And especially in respect to Christ let us imitate this example of Martha that we also
should run to meet him coming to us. You say: where and how? Who would be
unwilling to run to Christ coming to us? But how does he come to us? How may I
run to him? He comes to us through his gospel, through the ministers of his Word,
through his members. At the end of the world he will come visibly with glory. While
you are in this life, run to meet him with a soul eager for truth, reverent, and grate-
ful. Welcome him in his Word, ministry, and members so that at the end of the world
you might be carried off to meet him and thus reign with him in heaven forever.26

Therefore, those who imitate Martha in welcoming Christ take part in a "most
happy exchange" (foelicissima commutatio): receiving Christ in the guest room of
their hearts in this present age, they are in turn welcomed by Christ to an eternal
heavenly guest room in the age to come.
If Martha is to be commended for running to Jesus, is Mary to be condemned
for remaining at home? Neither CEcolampadius nor Bullinger find fault with Mary,
defending her, however, for different reasons. CEcolampadius claims that Mary was
not expressing indifference, for she simply had not received the news of Jesus'
arrival. Otherwise, she would have joined Martha in running to her lord. Bullinger
argues that Mary remained at home to fulfill the purposes of divine providence: it
was more suitable to the glory of the future miracle that she remain at home to
receive her guests, who would later follow her to Jesus, witnessing ultimately the
miraculous raising of Lazarus. Although Musculus at a later point in his commen-
tary argues for the work of divine providence in the assembly of Mary's attendants
as unwitting witnesses to the miracle, here he repeats CEcolampadius's explana-
tion: if Mary had known that Jesus was in the suburbs of Bethany, she would have
run to him.27
In medieval exegesis, Mary is frequently interpreted as a representative of the
contemplative life and Martha as a representative of the active life. By remaining
at home, Mary thus images the meditative and contemplative soul, in contrast to
Martha who, by running to Christ, portrays the soul devoted to works of charity.28
Of the Reformed commentators, only CEcolampadius and Musculus echo this
traditional interpretation, arguing, however, against the tendency of monastic
theologians to elevate the contemplative over the active life. Thus, although
CEcolampadius sees the sisters as symbols of a twofold life in the Church, "con-
templative and practical" (contemplativam practicam), he argues against the sepa-
ration of these lives: "It is necessary that every one should take possession of each
life" (Necesse est, ut utranque vitam quisque complectatur). The illumination of the
mind amounts to very little if works of charity are abandoned, and conversely those
who actively give themselves in service to the neighbor must "make time for
contemplation"(vacant contemplationi) in order to establish themselves in God.29
 On the Raising of Lazarus 157

Similarly, Musculus argues that by sitting at home Mary produces an image of a

calm and restful mind that should be imitated by the faithful: "There is certainly a
great benefit in tranquillity and rest, whereby the mind of a human being is with-
drawn from the troublesome cares and business of this world." Yet Musculus
quickly denounces the monks who sing the praises of the contemplative life merely
to excuse their own laziness and gluttony; they have an active life, to be sure, but it
is one of oppressing and exploiting the Church. In no respect do they reflect the
true spiritual life, which engages actively in works of love for the neighbor while
finding occasion periodically for times of rest and meditation.30
When Martha greets Jesus with the statement, "Lord, if you had been here, my
brother would not have died," her words could certainly be read as an accusatory
complaint, spoken in bitterness and frustration. Surprisingly, however, none of the
Reformed commentators focus on this possibility, choosing to interpret her open-
ing statement as an expression of faith, although perhaps a faith not perfectly strong
or informed. Bucer states simply that Martha demonstrates the nature of true faith:
she shows her love for Jesus, by whom she knows she is loved. Zwingli argues that
Martha would not have made the statement if she did not believe in Christ, and
thus she exhibits faith, although a faith that is weak and imperfect. Similarly,
CEcolampadius states that Martha demonstrates a faith that was not entirely wor-
thy of Christ; she believed in him and held him in high esteem "but not as much as
was fitting" (sed non quantum oportebat). Her faith, unlike that of the centurion
(Lk 7; Mt 8), was not informed by a proper understanding of Jesus' divine power;
she should have realized that the salvation of her brother did not depend on the
physical presence of Jesus.31 Likewise, Bullinger argues that Martha's faith was
weaker than the centurion's because she did not realize that Jesus could have ban-
ished Lazarus's sickness by a word. Yet Bullinger especially commends the mod-
eration and self-control evident in Martha's statement: "She does nothing from
weakness of soul: she does not grumble; she does not curse; she does not scold him
for delaying at the first message; she does not wail in a womanly fashion and fall
down and roll about in the dirt, as one unable to bear the grief; she does not tear
out her hair and mutilate her cheeks; but with amazing moderation and endur-
ance she laments her lot before Jesus, her most faithful master."32
In his interpretation of Martha's first statement, Musculus, unlike most of the
Reformed commentators, finds no occasion to censure the deficiencies of her faith
or understanding. Her words in fact express three commendable acts that serve as
moral examples for the faithful. First, returning to his theme of hospitality,
Musculus notes that she initiates the conversation with Jesus; by doing so, she
demonstrates the proper reception of a guest. The host bears the social obligation
of initiating conversation with a guest by friendly words of greeting and welcome.
Second, Martha demonstrates the correct manner of expressing grief by pouring
out her heart to the Lord. And third, her statement indicates her firm confidence
and trust in Christ.33
 158 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

In Martha's second statement—"But even now I know that whatever you ask of
God, God will give you"—Musculus finds the first indication of a weak faith. Here,
Musculus repeats the same argument made by CEcolampadius and Bullinger re-
garding the deficiency: her words betray her failure to understand Jesus' divine
power. Thinking of Jesus as a holy and pious man of God, whose prayers had spe-
cial efficacy with God, she urges him to intercede on Lazarus's behalf.34 Yet unlike
any of the Reformed commentators, Musculus takes pains even here to enumerate
several commendable features of Martha's faith. First, her statement indicates at
the very least her belief in God's existence. Second, she recognizes that God is suf-
ficiently powerful to revive the dead. Third, she believes that God loves the righ-
teous and pious. Fourth, she believes that God indulgently hears the prayers that
the righteous make, both for themselves and for others. Fifth, she knows that Jesus
is so loved by God the Father that nothing is denied him. Therefore, Martha's
faith—although not perfectly heroic—must not be absolutely "disapproved"
(improbanda), for she believed in Christ far differently than those who were say-
ing, "We know this man is a sinner" (Jn 9:24). In fact, Martha images those among
the faithful who confess and believe in Christ yet with a faith and understanding
still deficient. Just as Jesus did not reject Martha's feeble faith but promoted and
strengthened it, so also we are taught, argues Musculus, to embrace and support
weaker Christians with patient and gentle instruction.35
Martha's third statement—"I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at
the last day"—comes in response to Jesus' promise, "Your brother will rise again."
According to Zwingli, CEcolampadius, and Bullinger, her confession—although
prompted by a misunderstanding of Jesus' words—demonstrates that she had been
instructed and firmly believed in the teaching of the future general resurrection of
the dead. Bullinger argues that Martha did not dare to hope that Jesus was speak-
ing of Lazarus's restoration in the present because she did not perfectly understand
Jesus' power and glory. But her statement proves that the Jews had always believed
in the resurrection of the flesh, and thus the heresiarchs who deny this doctrine
are shown to be impure spirits and instruments of the devil. QEcolampadius notes
that although Martha believed in the doctrine of the future resurrection, she did
not understand "what sort it was" (quails esset), nor that it would be accomplished
by Christ himself. Furthermore, although she had been taught and confessed this
doctrine of consolation, her sorrow was not entirely mitigated by her belief. Yet
CEcolampadius does not condemn Martha's sorrow: "Even those who know the
future resurrection are not able to repress the force of nature so as not to weep."36
Musculus focuses his comments squarely on the positive features of Martha's
faith as indicated by her confession. In a manner unparalleled by any of the Re-
formed commentators, he extracts and analyzes five distinct features of the con-
fession that serve as moral imitanda for Christians. First, her confession implies a
belief in the end of the world and a rejection of the pagan doctrine of the world's
eternity. Second, she rightly affirms a belief in the future resurrection of the dead,
 On the Raising of Lazarus 159

a doctrine the Sadducees ridiculed as contrary to reason. Third, she does not
affirm simply a general belief in the future resurrection but a specific belief in the
future resurrection of Lazarus. She thus demonstrates the true nature of Christian
faith, which always moves from the general to the personal and specific: "Let us
also make inferences in this way: all will rise again, therefore I also will rise again.
Those who believe in Christ will rise again to eternal life, therefore I also etc. On
account of Christ, God pardons and has mercy on the penitent and believing, there-
fore, he will have mercy also on me. God does not desert those who hope in him,
therefore, he will not desert me."37 Fourth, Martha expresses a remarkable certi-
tude of faith because she does not say, "I believe," but "I know he will rise again."
Her knowledge was not based on any natural arguments or proofs of the doctrine
but solely on a faith and hope in God that is produced in the hearts of believers.
Her confession was therefore superior to that of Nicodemus, who says, "We know
that you are a teacher come from God" (Jn 3:2), and superior to that of the apostles,
who declare, "We have believed and come to know that you are Christ, the son of
the living God" (Jn 6:69).38 Nicodemus and the apostles had witnessed distinct
proofs and signs that supported the certitude of their confessions. Martha, on the
other hand, expresses a certitude of faith in a matter entirely indistinct and un-
proved. Fifth, although Martha firmly believes that her brother will be resurrected,
she nevertheless takes "little comfort" (parum consolationis) from this faith, long-
ing for his immediate restoration in this life. Here, Musculus reiterates the inter-
pretation of CEcolampadius, noting that Martha's continuing grief in no way be-
lies her confession of faith: "This is an infirmity of the saints that Christ tolerates
in them. And thus we also must guard against condemning anyone on account of
this."39
The dialogue between Martha and Jesus ends with a further confession of faith,
prompted by Jesus' direct question: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who
believes in me, even if he should die, will live, and all who live and believe in me
will never die. Do you believe this?" (11:25-26). Martha responds immediately:
"Yes, Lord. I have believed that you are Christ, the son of God, who was to come
into the world" (11:27). We find widely divergent assessments of Martha's final
confession in the interpretations of CEcolampadius and Bullinger. Their disagree-
ment stems partly from their use of different Latin translations for the text. Fol-
lowing Erasmus, Bullinger reads Martha's words as, "I believe" (ego credo), while
CEcolampadius retains the traditional reading of the Vulgate, "I have believed" (ego
credidi).40 Zwingli and Bucer also comment on the content of Martha's words but
voice no opinion regarding the adequacy of her faith as indicated by the confession.
CEcolampadius argues that Martha's faith has not suddenly become robust,
absent the deficiencies her earlier statements exposed. Rather, in making this con-
fession "she boasts about her faith" (gloriatur defide sua), unwilling to acknowl-
edge the true inadequacy of her belief in Christ. In effect she was saying: "Certainly
I have long since believed great things of you, that you are the son of God, con-
 160 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

cerning whom the prophets have spoken." Nevertheless, she still did not under-
stand the divine power of Christ. Martha says the right words, but the "spark of
faith was shining too little" (scintilla fideiparum lucebat).41
Like CEcolampadius, Zwingli and Bucer both note that Martha uses the past tense
to voice her confession. Clearly, they argue, Martha thinks that she has previously
believed what she now confesses. But whether Martha is correct in this assump-
tion, neither Zwingli nor Bucer say. Zwingli, however, in a rather strange interpre-
tive move, seizes the occasion to attack his opponents on eucharistic doctrine: "She
does not say, 'I believe that I eat you bodily in bread, but I believe that you are the
Christ."42
Bullinger's characterization of Martha's confession contrasts vividly with that
of CEcolampadius. Arguing that Martha was "now better established in faith" (iam
melius in fide instituta), he describes her words as the "most complete example of
a sincere confession of faith" (absolutissimum exemplum syncerae confessionis fidei).
There is no boasting here, for Bullinger does not consider the implications of her
use of the past tense (in the Greek and the Vulgate). Rather, she voices in complete
sincerity "a catholic confession of orthodox faith" (catholica orthodoxae fidei
confessio), saying in effect:

"Yes indeed, Lord," that is, "I believe very much and most firmly in your words, that
you, who save the souls of the faithful and revive the bodies of the dead, are life and
resurrection." To this she now adds the basis of resurrection and the chief point of
the whole Christian faith: "I believe," she says, "that you are Messiah, the son of the
living God, who . . . comes into the world," that is, "I believe that you are true God
and man, the savior and vivifier of the whole world."43

In his discussion of Martha's confession, Musculus takes a middle course be-

tween the interpretations of CEcolampadius and Bullinger, neither fully condemn-
ing nor extolling the adequacy of her faith. He notes that she seems not to have
understood Jesus' words, for if she had, she would have more appropriately con-
fessed, "I believe you are resurrection and life." However, Musculus believes that
Martha implicitly confessed this by saying, "Yes, Lord," as though to say, "I abso-
lutely believe what you say is true" (Prorsus credo verum esse quod dicis). Schooled
in the prophetic writings concerning the Messiah, Martha adds a further eloquent
and firm confession of her faith in Jesus as the Christ promised by God, a faith she
shared with all the elect of the Old Testament.
Although Musculus follows Erasmus in translating Martha's words in the present
tense (ego credo), he notes that the Greek literally reads, "I have believed"
not "I now believe" She thinks that she has
always believed what she now confesses, but clearly, Musculus argues, her faith and
knowledge of Christ was imperfect, as her earlier statements show. Musculus does
not characterize her statement as harshly as Gicolampadius (i.e., as a boast), but
he does argue that she portrays an image of those who cannot bear to acknowledge
 On the Raising of Lazarus 161

that they have not had a full and perfect knowledge and faith in Christ. Such people,
Musculus argues, are found all too frequently in his own day. Hearing the evan-
gelical doctrine of salvation by faith alone, these "simpletons" (simpliciores) readily
give their assent, arguing that this doctrine is nothing new but something they have
always believed. They simply are not intelligent enough (tantum intelligentiae non
habent) to recognize that the things they did and believed "in papaldom" (inpapatu)
do not square with the faith required by the gospel.44
The verses following Martha's confession, which describe the summoning of
Mary and her subsequent encounter with Jesus, are passed over in silence by Zwingli
and Bucer. CEcolampadius, Bullinger, and Musculus, however, each develop fur
ther insights in their exegetical portraits of the sisters from this section of the nar-
rative. Following her confession, Martha leaves Jesus in order to summon her sis-
ter, saying: "The master is present and is calling you" (11:28). Hearing this news,
Mary immediately goes out to meet Jesus, followed by an entourage of comfort-
ers. When she finds Jesus, she falls at his feet and repeats the same words used by
Martha: "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died" (Jn 11:32).
CEcolampadius and Bullinger both regard Martha's summoning of Mary as an
image of the effects or workings of faith, which always seeks to draw others into
the same joy and salvation found in Christ. Never content with their own salva-
tion, the truly faithful, like Martha, spread the joyous news: "The master is here
and is calling you." At the literal level of interpretation, CEcolampadius notes tha
the Evangelist does not indicate that Jesus ordered Martha to summon Mary. But
certainly, he believes, "she understood the mind of Christ" (intellexit mentem
Christi), who wanted Mary and her attendants to be witnesses of the impending
miracle.45
Musculus argues that Martha must have summoned Mary by a direct dominical
command, for otherwise her sudden departure would have been thoughtless and
rude. Martha would have preferred to accompany Jesus into the village, but having
received Jesus' directive, she promptly and eagerly leapt to the task. Yet unlike
CEcolampadius and Bullinger, Musculus is unwilling here to characterize Martha's
behavior as an ideal image of obedience or the effects of faith. Although she sum-
moned her sister at Jesus' command, she decided "at her own initiative" (proprio
instinctu) to summon her "secretly" (clanculum), hoping to avoid the malice of the
Jews who were seated with Mary in the house. She obeyed Jesus, but she did so cau-
tiously, hoping to insulate Jesus from his enemies. Yet all of Martha's devices were
for nothing because the Jews followed Mary—as divine providence had arranged—
when she hurried out to meet Jesus. Thus, for Musculus, Martha represents not an
ideal to be imitated but a vice to be avoided: "Therefore, we have here an example
of human reason which thinks that the commands of God... must be performed
secretly and cautiously in order to avoid the knowledge of the impious."46
In one respect, however, Musculus sees a positive moral example in Martha's
summoning of Mary. Referring to Jesus simply as she knows with-
 162 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

out a doubt that Mary will understand whom she means. Although this title could
have indicated any rabbi, Martha and Mary had reserved the title for Jesus alone,
their one and only true master. Having devoted themselves completely to the teach-
ings of Jesus, they could not bear to hear any other teacher. For Musculus, the moral
is clear: "Therefore, we are reminded by this example that we ourselves should
recognize no other master than this Christ, the son of God."47
CEcolampadius, Bullinger, and Musculus each interpret Mary's response to the
summons as a commendable example of the response of faith and devotion to
Christ. Faithful Christians respond like Mary, argues CEcolampadius; they do not
delay, but as soon as they are called by Christ by the movement of the Holy Spirit
in their hearts, they quickly rise and follow. Bullinger argues that Mary leapt for
joy when she heard the news, producing an image of sincere piety and of eager and
ardent faith in God. True faith never contrives long delays when it hears the call-
ing of God "but makes haste, and in fact, joyfully" (sed festinat, 6- laete quidem).
Similarly, Musculus describes Mary's avid response as an example "of quick and
prompt obedience" (alacris promptae obedientiae) and an image "of a mind
eagerly embracing the heavenly teacher" (animique coelestem avide
complectentis). Musculus also interprets Mary's response as a dramatic image of
the restitution of the gospel occurring in his own age. Hearing the call of Christ,
many people have imitated Mary by turning away from vacuous human doctrines
(represented by the Jews consoling Mary) and by running to Christ.48
Bullinger and CEcolampadius have surprisingly little to say about Mary's encoun-
ter with Jesus. Bullinger simply states that she performed an act of worship by fall-
ing at Jesus' feet and notes that she repeats the same words used earlier by Martha.
CEcolampadius argues that Mary confers "a little more honor" (aliquanto plus
honoris) on Jesus by her act of adoration but maintains that she, like her sister, fails
to recognize that Jesus was no less powerful when absent than when present. She
had no more expectation of a miraculous restoration of Lazarus than did her sister.49
Musculus's commentary distinguishes itself once again, both by its breadth of
analysis and by its attention to the moral lessons below the surface of the text. For
Musculus, the great virtue of Mary's act of worship is its complete lack of inhibi-
tion. Followed by the Jews who she knew were hostile to Jesus, she nevertheless
performed a dramatic act of devotion, demonstrating an example of her singular
love for Christ. Without any dissimulation, she completely disregarded their opin-
ion and openly revealed her true affection for her lord. Again, Musculus makes a
pointed moral observation: "If we also were of this mind toward Christ, we would
cling to his word as true disciples without any shame and with no fear of adversar-
ies." Furthermore, Musculus argues that Mary reveals her deep love for her brother
and for Christ by repeating the words used earlier by Martha—"Lord, if you had
been here.. .." It should come as no surprise that they use the same words, for the
sisters felt the same longing for Christ and the same affection for their brother and
no doubt frequently discussed their feelings with each other. Therefore, in Mary's
 On the Raising of Lazarus 163

statement (as in Martha's), Musculus sees a positive example of pious devotion to

God and of faithful service to the neighbor. Only in one respect does Musculus
propose a gentle criticism of Mary's statement: she shows that even the pious "from
time to time" (subinde) fail to comprehend the "judgments and councils of divine
providence" (iudicia consiliadivinaeprovidentia).50

The Emotive Response of Jesus (Jn 11:33-35)

One of the most powerful moments in the Lazarus narrative describes Jesus' own
emotional response to the tragic scene of Mary and her attendants weeping over
Lazarus's death. This moment has generated a number of exegetical difficulties
throughout the history of its interpretation because the language used to describe
Jesus' affections is, at best, somewhat murky in meaning. This is no less true in the
Greek than it is in the Latin of the Vulgate, which translates
(Jn 11:33) as "infremuit spiritu et turbavit
seipsum" (he groaned in spirit and troubled himself). For centuries, commenta-
tors have struggled to discern precisely what emotion(s) this phrase expresses,
whether simply sadness or anger or some mixture thereof. The Latin verb infremere
certainly conveys a sense of anger, meaning literally "to growl," but the story gives
no definite clues to indicate a reason for anger at this point in the story. And while
it is certainly understandable that Jesus could have been troubled by the appear-
ance of those mourning Lazarus, it is far less clear how he could be said to have
"troubled himself." The statement at John 11:33 that "Jesus wept" (lacrimatus est
lesus) is perfectly clear, but it poses other sorts of interpretive challenges. Namely,
for whom or what was Jesus weeping? Lazarus? Mary? The human condition? And
how was it in keeping with Jesus' superior character to weep? Does it not bespeak
a lack of control or weakness of temperament that he should give such public vent
to his emotions?
Among the Reformed commentators, Zwingli alone seems uninterested in pur-
suing these questions. He does, however, repeat an exegetical commonplace in
asserting that the emotive response of Jesus gives evidence of his true human nature
and of his deep love for human beings.51 CEcolampadius makes the same point,
arguing that Jesus wanted to demonstrate the truth of his human nature by reveal-
ing himself to possess a human soul "that could feel pain and be moved by affec-
tions" (quae potuit dolere tangi affectionibus). Jesus was not indifferent to the
sisters' grief, and because of his ardent love for them, he felt their sorrow and pain
in his soul. Those who deny that Jesus had a soul similar to ours, CEcolampadius
notes, succeed only in diminishing our consolation. For it is a great comfort to know
that he who came for the salvation of the world also feels the pain of our ills. Re-
garding the anger implied by the verb infremere, CEcolampadius states that some
think that Jesus was angry either at the "evil spirit" (maligno spiritui) or at human
sin, through which death had entered the world.52
 164 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

Bullinger also notes that some have argued that Jesus was angry either at the evil
spirit, human sin, or the unbelief of the Jews, but he prefers to understand Jesus'
emotive response simply as an expression of grief and condolence: "I think there is
no other reason for the groaning, distress, and tears of the Lord than that expressed
by John, namely that he especially loved Lazarus and the whole family, and when
he saw [this family] oppressed by grave sorrow, and all the Jews condoling with it
and weeping profusely, the Lord's heart was also moved."53 Bullinger expends con-
siderable effort in analysis of the Greek at John 11:33 and of the meaning of the
Latin termfremitus, which he defines as "a vigorous, loud, and tumultuous move-
ment of water" (vehemens sonora ac tumultuans aquae commotio). He provides
lexicographical data from Lorenzo Valla and offers several attempts at German
paraphrase in order to elucidate the difficult expressions. These words, he argues,
indicate that Jesus "was so moved and shaken in his entire innermost being, that
he was unable to bring forth any sound at the time."54 This powerful affection of
the soul is frequently followed by weeping; tears flow from the heart as blood from
a wound.
Bullinger argues that Christ's dignity was in no way harmed by his public dis-
play of tears, for by weeping over the misfortunes of his friends, he is in the com-
pany of other amid dei such as Abraham, Israel, Joseph, and others, who also
mourned the calamities of friends. By weeping with Mary, Jesus not only demon-
strates his true humanity, as the Church Fathers were so eager to point out, but
also gives an example of true commiseration and sympathy.55 Just as the apostle
Paul does not absolutely forbid mourning and grief for the dead (at 1 Thes 4:13)
but only a pagan sort of mourning, "lacking all hope and moderation" (omni spe
& modo carentem), so Jesus gives a beautiful example of proper Christian com-
miseration, "for the Christian religion does not make human beings into stones or
tree trunks."56 Furthermore, Christ also teaches that we should groan over our sins
so that we might learn true penitential sorrow.57
Like CEcolampadius and Bullinger, Bucer interprets the phrase "infremuit
spiritu" as an expression of deep sorrow, not of divine anger. When Jesus saw the
multitude of weeping people, "his bowels of compassion were moved" (commota
viscera eiusfuere) and he demonstrated the pain of his soul with a groan (fremitu)
and tears. He wept because he truly and especially loved Mary, Martha, and Lazarus;
he felt their loss as his own, their grief as his own. By this ardent love for the family
of Lazarus and by his open expression of grief, Jesus demonstrated that he pos-
sessed a real human nature and thus refuted the future Marcionite heresy.58
For Bucer, the scene of the mourners and Jesus openly weeping over Lazarus's
death paints a portrait of the kind of love required by God, a love that is not "sense-
less" (stupentem) but "living and ardent, which stirs up the heart and shows itself
in the whole body."59 Bucer develops this portrait of Christian love and compas-
sion into an extended discussion of the proper Christian response to the death or
misfortunes of others. Christian love, he argues, is unable not to grieve over the
 On the Raising of Lazarus 165

loss or death of a neighbor. Christians rightly grieve over the death of others, even
though they know that all things work for the good of the elect (Rom 8:28), and
that for believers "death is the door to life" (mors ianua vitae). Therefore the sis-
ters were not scolded or rebuked by their lord when he saw them weeping over
Lazarus's death but rather were joined in their grief by Jesus himself. Certainly,
believers should not mourn "as the heathen, destitute of the hope of a future and
better life" (sicut ethnici, spefuturae et melioris vitae destituti; 1 Thes 4:13) because
the Holy Spirit offers consolation that soothes the sorrow of the heart. But "as long
as a true brotherly love lives in the hearts of the saints, they are not able not to grieve
and mourn the dead, or other afflicted ones."60
Bucer has in mind here the Anabaptists (or "Catabaptists" as he calls them), who
interpret Paul's injunction at 1 Thessalonians 4:13 as an absolute prohibition of
mourning for the dead.61 To see the foolishness of their position, they need only
look to the example of Christ, who wept not only over Lazarus's death but also
over the destruction of Jerusalem (Lk 13:34). Certainly, no one can be imagined
more "spiritual and constant" (spirituale et constans) than Christ, and yet in the
face of human tragedy, "he was unable to contain himself (continere se non potuit),
giving way to tears. "Therefore," Bucer concludes, "some of our Catabaptists are
Stoics more than Christians, who permit no mourning, no tears for the dead or for
brothers afflicted in other ways."62
Each of the themes we have seen expressed by the Reformed commentators is
reiterated by Musculus. Unlike Bucer, Bullinger, and CEcolampadius, however,
Musculus fully endorses the view that the expressions "infremuit spiritu" and
"turbavit seipsum" imply anger on Jesus' part. He was angry at Satan, whose ma-
licious works allowed death to enter the world. Although Musculus concedes his
inability to fully explain what the strange expressions mean—particularly what it
means for Jesus to have "disturbed himself—he is confident that Jesus was in some
sense angry and that this anger was expressed as a moral example for all believers.
When we consider the causes of our own mortality, Musculus suggests, we too
should be disturbed in spirit and angry at the works of Satan. Just as this indigna-
tion was not unbecoming "to the mildness of the spirit of Christ" (mansuetudini
spiritus Christi), so also it is fitting for a pious soul to groan over matters pertain-
ing to God's glory—although it is not fitting to groan over "personal and trivial
matters" (rebusprivatis ac levibus).63
For Musculus, however, Jesus' emotive response is not a simple feeling of anger
but a complex emotion encompassing both anger and grief. When Jesus saw Mary
and her attendants weeping, he groaned in spirit and was deeply moved, partly by
a feeling of anger at Satan and partly by feelings of sympathy and sorrow for those
who were mourning. His feelings of commiseration ultimately manifested them-
selves in tears, proving not only his true humanity but also his merciful disposi-
tion toward human beings.64 This is the same argument made by all of the Reformed
expositors. Yet when Musculus comes to the subject of weeping, he develops a
 166 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

nuanced treatment of the topic quite different from anything found in the other
Reformed commentaries. Musculus in fact examines the topic in three distinct
contexts, each of which has a different significance or moral application: the weep-
ing of Mary, the weeping of the Jews, and the weeping of Christ.
By her weeping, Mary gives an example of proper Christian mourning for the
dead. Musculus argues that no one could possibly consider Mary as reprobate,
lacking a faith in the resurrection. Yet despite her faith and despite the fact that
her brother had been dead now for four days, she was not only weeping but also
"wailing" (plorasse); and she was not wailing "in private places" (in latebris) but in
full view of Christ and the multitude of onlookers. Therefore, like Bucer, Musculus
concludes that it is not required of the elect to be "unfeeling and heartless" (saxei
in the face of the death of others. For the apostle does not forbid the
mourning of the dead at 1 Thessalonians 4:13 but only an excessive or immoder-
ate mourning similar to those who have no hope. Yet while mourning is not for-
bidden, a public exhibition of grief is not always required. Therefore, Musculus
argues that while Mary should not be condemned for her mourning, neither should
Martha be condemned because she did not make a public display of her grief.65
The Jews who visited Mary in her home, followed her to the tomb, and joined
her in her weeping demonstrate a model of proper Christian commiseration. These
pious Jews were the same ones, Musculus argues, who began to believe in the Lord
because of the raising of Lazarus. Certainly, they embody the Pauline admonition
to weep with those who weep (Rom 12:15), and thus they exhibit an example that
Christians should imitate.66
At first glance, according to Musculus, the weeping of Christ may appear as
something of an embarrassment. For it is not seemly "if an eminent, mature, hon-
orable, wise, and courageous man, should weep, even though bitterly moved."67
The Evangelist almost seems to have been unconcerned about the glory of Christ
by noting "so conspicuously" (tam insigni) the tears of his lord. Why then did the
Evangelist record this event? First, Musculus argues, it was fitting to demonstrate
not only that Christ was a real human being but also that he was a partaker of all
human infirmities save sin alone. Faith is strengthened when the Christian recog-
nizes Christ as a merciful priest, able to sympathize and condole with human mis-
eries. Second, Musculus understands the weeping of Christ as an important part
of the effectiveness of the miracle he was about to perform. The bald demonstra-
tion of divine power and majesty in the raising of Lazarus might have "scared away"
(absterreret) people from Christ. Therefore, by weeping he joins an infirmity of the
flesh to the work of divine power in order to attract people to himself. On the other
hand, those who were offended by the "infirmity of weeping" (lachrymantis
infirmitate) would be moved to faith in Christ as the son of God by the "power of
revivification" (resuscitantis virtute).68
This understanding of the weeping of Jesus as a strategic ploy aimed at the
effective reception of the miracle is found in none of the other Reformed commen-
 On the Raising of Lazarus 167

taries. Musculus, however, does not argue that the weeping was dissimulation; Jesus
wept because he truly loved Lazarus and his sisters and because he sincerely com-
miserated with their suffering. Here, Musculus argues in a similar vein to Bullinger
and Bucer by praising the weeping of Jesus as an example of Christian commisera-
tion that the faithful should imitate. Like Bucer, Musculus takes the occasion to
criticize the teachings of the Anabaptists: "That Stoic which the Ana-
baptists are once again attempting to introduce into the Church, is entirely for-
eign to the saints." No one would have been impressed if Jesus had expressed stony
indifference to the death of Lazarus. But when Jesus weeps, the Jews are struck with
admiration for the spirit of true love and humanity in Jesus. The Jews do not say,
"Behold, a womanly soul" (Ecce animum muliebrem), but "Behold, how he loved
him" (Ecce quomodo amabateum). Therefore, Musculus argues (using almost the
same words as Bucer), the religion of the Anabaptists "ought to be called Stoicism
more than Christianity" (magis Stoicismus quam Christianismus did debet).69

The Miraculous Revivification (Jn 11:38-44)

The most astonishing sign of Jesus' ministry is described by the Evangelist in short
order. Jesus approaches the tomb, is again deeply moved, and orders the stone to
be removed from the cave. Martha, who interrupts Jesus with concern about the
offensive odor of the corpse, is reminded by Jesus that she will see God's glory if
only she believes. With the stone removed, Jesus offers a prayer of thanksgiving
and commands Lazarus to come out of the tomb. Appearing with his hands, feet,
and face wrapped in burial cloths, Lazarus is unbound and released at Jesus'
command.
Only three of our commentators—GEcolampadius, Bullinger, and Musculus—
have anything to say about the description of the tomb. And at the literal level,
these three commentators express a similar idea: by his burial in a cave closed by a
heavy stone, the truth of Lazarus's death is made undeniable in order to highlight
the truth of the future miracle. CEcolampadius notes that the miracle was arranged
in such a way as to diminish the suspicion of a "deception" (fraus). By Lazarus's
burial in a cave fortified by a large boulder, the spectators would be less likely to
conclude that Lazarus had not been truly dead or that some kind of swapping of
bodies had taken place.70 Bullinger argues that the stone was so large and heavy
that it could not be removed except by strong crowbars. Therefore, by the way in
which Lazarus was buried, the "suspicion of a trick" (suspitionem praestigii) would
be removed and any future calumnies would be disproved.71
Musculus echoes this same idea, noting that the Evangelist purposefully
described the tomb and stone so that no one would suspect that the miracle
occurred "by some deception" (fraude aliqua). But unlike CEcolampadius and
Bullinger, Musculus pauses to consider how and why the bodies of human beings
are buried. He notes that the dead bodies of humans are not simply "cast aside like
 168 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

beasts" (instar bestiarum abjiciantur) without a second thought but are carefully
and lovingly buried so as to be protected from wild animals. This manner of bury-
ing the dead points to a "residual hope" (spem residuam) among humankind that
the dead will be restored in the future. Insofar as burial custom hints at this hope
in the future resurrection of the body, it is appropriate to treat human corpses with
care. But nothing commendable is found, Musculus argues, in "superstitious,
haughty, and expensive burials" (superstitiosas, superbas, &sumptuosassepulturas).12
The order to remove the stone raises two basic interpretive questions: Why did
Jesus order others to remove the stone, and to whom did he issue the command?
Both Bullinger and Musculus note that Jesus certainly could have removed the stone
himself by an act of divine power. Jesus chose not to do so, according to Bullinger,
in order to avoid a pompous and extravagant display of power; his miracles oc-
curred "within measure" (intra modum). Musculus, however, argues that Jesus
frequently made use of human effort in order to heighten the psychological im-
pact of his miracles. By their hands-on participation in the event, the witnesses
would experience more vividly the truth of the miracle.73 CEcolampadius argues in
a similar vein when he states that Jesus gave the command in order to make every-
thing "conspicuous" (conspicua) to the spectators. As to the identity of the recipi-
ents of the command, we find a basic disagreement between CEcolampadius, who
thinks Jesus commanded the disciples, and Bullinger, who states forcefully that Jesus
ordered "not his disciples, but undoubtedly relatives of Lazarus" (non discipulos
suos, sed hand dubie cognatos Lazari). Musculus hazards no explicit guess, but he
probably agrees with Bullinger that the disciples did not receive the command; Jesus
ordered, he states, some of those who were standing by.74
For CEcolampadius and Musculus, the stone and its removal may also be inter-
preted figuratively to express allegorical and moral truths. CEcolampadius suggests
that the stone represents the burden of unbelief that is placed upon the sinner dead
in sins. By removing the stone, the disciples represent the work of the ministry in
teaching and encouraging "external works" (externa opera). But the internal work,
the raising of the sinner to life, is accomplished by Christ alone.75 Musculus, on
the other hand, argues that the removal of the stone produces an image of how
God operates in the world. The removal of the stone was not necessary for Jesus to
accomplish his purpose. But he elicited human cooperation in the accomplishment
of the miracle in order to instruct them in the knowledge of divine power. Simi-
larly, the world has been so arranged by the council of God that human beings are
made copartners in matters that are beyond their capacity. Human beings partici-
pate actively in fulfilling the divine commands to procreate, to feed and care for
their young, and to instruct others in the knowledge of God. Although all of these
things are easily accomplished by God alone without human effort, it was pleasing
to God "to make us co-operators of his wonderful and divine works, so that we
might be exercised in knowledge and faith in his providence."76
 On the Raising of Lazarus 169

According to CEcolampadius, Bullinger, and Musculus, when Martha interrupts

Jesus with her concern about the stench of the corpse, she unwittingly contributes
a further proof that Lazarus was truly dead and thus truly resurrected. Further-
more, her objection also served to emphasize the greatness of the miracle because
she indicates that Lazarus was not recently dead but—to use the graphic descrip-
tion of Bullinger—that "the blood in his veins and in his entire body was dissolved
into pus, the internal organs and especially vital parts were spoiled, and to such an
extent as if they had rotted. For a stench arises from rottenness and spoilage." That
Jesus by a word alone revives not simply a dead man but a stinking, rotten corpse
serves to highlight, in Bullinger's view, the greatness of divine power in Christ.
Musculus makes the same point, arguing that the Evangelist purposefully recorded
Martha's objection in order to impress upon the reader the greatness of Christ's
power in resurrecting a decaying dead body.77 But Musculus also presents a moral
interpretation of Martha's words found in none of the other Reformed commen-
tators, an interpretation based upon the identification of Lazarus as a type or image
of the sinner dead in sins. Mary's objection about his stench reminds us, argues
Musculus, that "we ought to despise no sinner, however spoiled and fetid with the
putridity of sins, that we should doubt him able to be restored by the grace of Christ
to repentance and life."78
Although Martha's words may have contributed to the ultimate glory of the
miracle, none of the Reformed commentators see her objection as laudable in
itself. According to CEcolampadius her words betray her unbelief; earlier she said
she believed, but here she expresses despair, attempting to dissuade her lord, just
as the carnal disciples tried to dissuade him from returning to Judea. Bullinger
characterizes her as "somewhat forgetful and vacillating in faith" (nonnihil obliviosae
in fide vacillanti). She did not truly believe that Jesus could revive her dead
brother. Bucer is more forgiving, explaining her words as a simple misunderstand-
ing. Martha believed that Jesus could raise Lazarus from the dead, but she did not
realize that he actually intended to do so; she believed that Lazarus would be res-
urrected but only at the end of time. Musculus also carefully softens his criticism
of Martha, describing her as "an example of a soul not wicked, but partly anxious
and partly unsteady in faith." Her anxiety reminds Musculus of Jesus' words else-
where: "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things" (Lk
10:41). Predictably, Musculus then proceeds to draw the moral lesson that "the
more we lack faith in God's providence, the more we are vexed by superfluous cares
and anxieties." Only a firm faith in divine providence will liberate us from such
cares.79
According to Bullinger, Martha was anxious because she feared the awful smell
would drive everyone away from the tomb. CEcolampadius, however, argues that
Martha believed Jesus wanted to view the body and therefore warned him of the
smell. In effect, she was saying: "We do not want to sadden you when you see him,
 170 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

for he will be a pitiable sight."80 Musculus echoes this idea, stating that Martha
believed Jesus ordered the stone's removal so that he could enter the tomb to view
the corpse. This understanding of Martha's anxiety corresponds with Jesus' earlier
query, "Where have you laid him?," to which Martha responds, "Lord, come and
see" (11:34). But even though Jesus did not intend to view the body, Musculus,
unlike any of the other Reformed commentators, develops a moral interpretation
regarding the viewing of the dead. However much the faithful may sympathize and
feel sorrow for a family experiencing the death of a loved one, they will not effec-
tively commiserate with their neighbor unless they view the dead body. This active
form of commiseration applies also to those experiencing other types of loss; when
the misfortune is seen "in person" (coram), there is an increase in "compassion"
and the pain of those grieving their loss is soothed. The pious,
Musculus argues, should exercise and foster this kind of commiseration by the
habitual visitation of the neighbor in distress.81
While Zwingli and Bucer offer no commentary on Jesus' response to Martha,
(Ecolampadius, Bullinger, and Musculus each propose explanations for Jesus'
words: "Did I not tell you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?"
(11:40). For CEcolampadius this rhetorical question was intended primarily to
expose Martha's lack of faith. With or without faith she would in fact see the miracle,
but she would not see God's glory in the miracle unless she believed. Jesus rebukes
Martha by telling her in effect that her role is not to interrupt or obstruct his work
but simply to believe.82 Bullinger characterizes Jesus' words as a "little scolding"
(obiurgatiuncula), by which he rebukes her forgetfulness. In Bullinger's view Jesus
was really saying: "Do you remember my words, Martha, or perhaps you have for-
gotten what I just told you: if you would believe, the glory of God would be illus-
trated by your brother's future death? Perhaps you have forgotten that I promised
you: your brother will rise again?" Yet in Bullinger's interpretation, Martha has not
merely forgotten the word of promise but has also succumbed to the objections of
the flesh and human reason, which tell her that the belief in bodily resurrection is
completely absurd; she cannot believe that Jesus will really revive a stinking corpse.
Therefore by his question Jesus not only reminds Martha of his promise but also
encourages her to reject the reasonings of the flesh, saying in effect: "A stench, a
purulent and rotten corpse will in no way impede the power of God. Just believe
and you will discover that God is truthful and powerful."83
For Bullinger, the moral interpretation of Jesus' response is clear. His words
represent an admonition and encouragement to Christians of all ages to cling to
their faith in the bodily resurrection "against philosophers" (contra philosophos)
who ridicule such faith as absurd. The pseudo-wisdom of these philosophers is
rooted in the reasonings of the flesh, which is always at war with God. When they
argue that it is impossible for decayed bodies to rise whole again, the faithful should
remember and believe the word and promises of the omnipotent God, who ere-
 On the Raising of Lazarus 171

ated the whole world from nothing and the first man from the mud of the earth
and by that same creative power reconstitutes dead human bodies.84
In Musculus's interpretation of Jesus' response, we find him repeating the themes
expressed by GEcolampadius and Bullinger. Like Bullinger, Musculus understands
Jesus' words as a rebuke of Martha's forgetfulness. Jesus did not simply encourage
Martha to believe but also reminded her of his promise by saying, "Did I not tell
you?" (Nonnedixi tibi). Unlike Bullinger, however, Musculus makes a moral ob-
servation regarding Martha's forgetfulness. The fact that she could hardly remem-
ber for one hour the word of promise she had heard from the mouth of Christ
himself warns us a fortiori how likely we are to forget God's Word in times of tri-
als. Like CEcolampadius, Musculus states that Jesus encourages Martha's faith not
because the miracle was in any way dependent on her belief but only so that she
would see the glory of God in the miracle. Jesus did not tell her that Lazarus would
be resurrected if she believed but that the risen Lazarus would reveal God's glory
only to the eyes of faith. The faithful are thus admonished not simply to see the
works of God—for these are everywhere apparent in nature—but also to see these
works with faith in God's goodness and power. If endowed with such faith, the
Christian will see even the sky as a marvelous work of God's glory.85
Regarding Jesus' prayer of thanksgiving, we find a general similarity of interpre-
tation among the Reformed commentators. They each assert that Jesus prays not
for himself but for the sake of the audience that has gathered around the tomb. By
the prayer, Jesus intends to show that he works miracles by the Father's power
(Bullinger, Bucer), that he is loved by the Father (Zwingli, CEcolampadius), and
that he shares the same will with the Father (Bullinger, Bucer). The ultimate pur-
pose of the prayer was to instill the saving and life-giving faith that Jesus was sent
by God the Father (CEcolampadius, Bullinger). Morally, the prayer maybe inter-
preted as teaching Christians to recognize Christ as their advocate (Zwingli,
CEcolampadius), to acknowledge God as the author of all good things (Bullinger),
and to understand the absolute necessity of faith (CEcolampadius, Bullinger).86
Musculus repeats many of these same ideas in his interpretation of Jesus' prayer.
Jesus intended to show that he shared the same will with God the Father and that
he did his miracles not by satanic power but by the power of God. He referred the
glory of the impending miracle to the Father in order to instill in the spectators
saving faith—namely, the belief that he had been sent into the world by the
Father. Like CEcolampadius and Zwingli, Musculus also sees the prayer as an image
of Christ's role as eternal advocate, although he argues (unlike any of the Reformed
commentators) that Jesus prays not as one "equal to the Father in divinity"
(divinitate patri aequalis) but as the son of man, priest, and mediator between God
and humankind.87 The theme that most distinguishes Musculus's interpretation,
however, is his understanding of Jesus' prayer as an exemplum or model of Chris-
tian prayer. While the Reformed commentators interpret the prayer exclusively for
 172 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

its christological significance, Musculus stresses above all the moral lessons that
may be inferred from the manner in which Christ expressed his prayer.
First, Musculus notes that in raising his eyes Jesus reveals "a mind dependent
on God and elevated to God" (animia Deopendentis &ad Deum erecti). This physi-
cal gesture thus represents the appropriate disposition of the heart in one praying
to God, for "the heart is in the eyes" (cor esse in oculis). Yet Musculus argues that
this gesture does not dictate a prescribed bodily posture for prayer, and he ridi-
cules those who pray by stretching forth their hands and eyes "to images" (ad
simulachra). Second, Musculus notes that Jesus gives thanks to God for hearing
his prayer, even though no explicit petition is mentioned by the Evangelist. He
concludes that the petition was expressed by the groaning, disturbance, and weep-
ing of Jesus; his emotive response was a type of prayer that God heard. Therefore,
Musculus concludes that an effective petition is not necessarily dependent on the
use of words. Finally, Musculus observes that Jesus prays with great confidence,
saying, "I knew you always hear me." The faithful should follow this example by
praying with a firm confidence that they will acquire what they seek from God, as
long as they seek things that pertain to the glory of God and the salvation of
humankind. One must always distinguish, Musculus argues, between prayers that
arise from the personal longings of the flesh and prayers that are prompted by the
longing of the spirit for the glory of God. When Jesus prayed in the garden, "Let
this cup pass from me," his prayer was of the flesh, not of the spirit. Such petitions
of the flesh may indeed be brought before God, but not with a firm certitude that
the petitions will be granted. And thus it was fitting that Jesus expressed his prayer
in the garden not with the confidence he expressed before raising Lazarus but with
the proviso, "Not my will, but your will be done."88
Having finished his prayer, Jesus "cried out with a loud voice, 'Lazarus, come
forth'" (Jn 11:43), a command that is interpreted both for its literal and its alle-
gorical significance by Reformed commentators. Bullinger and Bucer, however,
concentrate solely on the literal purpose of Jesus' exclamation, arguing that Jesus
wanted the spectators to know that he was raising Lazarus by his voice alone (Bucer)
and that he alone by his own power was accomplishing the miraculous deed
(Bullinger). (Ecolampadius and Bullinger both note that the loud voice was not
necessary for the revivification of Lazarus, for Jesus could have raised him silently
at his mere pleasure; but the loud exclamation was needed so that the bystanders
would understand what was taking place. Musculus likewise argues that as far as
Lazarus was concerned, it made no difference whether Jesus commanded silently,
in a whisper, or in a loud exclamation. But since Jesus was considering the "integ-
rity and glory of the miracle" (integritati gloriae miraculi), he cried out with a
loud voice so that the onlookers would recognize his great confidence and author-
ity and so that they would clearly hear that Jesus did not make use of magical in-
cantations in restoring Lazarus to life.89
 On the Raising of Lazarus 173

Regarding the allegorical meaning of Jesus' exclamation, we find two traditional

interpretations. The first is expressed by Zwingli, who argues that the loud voice
symbolizes the trumpet blast at the final resurrection of the dead.90 The second is
expressed by CEcolampadius, who sees the shout as a symbol of the spiritual call to
repentance by Christ: "We also will be saved by Christ as he cries out to our hearts
and mortifies our members and commands us to depart from those bodily things,
leading us to spiritual things."91 Rarely to be outdone by his fellow reformers in
the area of spiritual exegesis, Musculus argues that Jesus' exclamation represents
both the loud "shout" (clamor) that precedes the future awakening of the dead and
the general call to repentance that takes place in the hearts of those who have fallen
asleep in sin. Musculus especially stresses the latter idea, noting that the metaphor
of "crying out" is used repeatedly in the Bible to convey the call to repentance. John
the Baptist was a voice "crying out" in the wilderness (Jn 1:23), and Isaiah was
commanded by God: "Do not stop your voice crying out like a raised trumpet and
declare to my people their sins" (Is 58:1). In a similar fashion, by the crying out of
Jesus, an image is "sketched" (delineatum) of the call to repentance. Such a call
must be vigorous and loud, because for those who are dead in their sins, a gentle
word simply will not suffice. Musculus notes that this forceful "crying out" is
especially needed "nowadays" in the "preaching of repentance to this age, dead in
sins not for just four days, but for many years."92
This understanding of Lazarus as an image of a sinner restored by Christ also
dominates Musculus's interpretation of the emergence of Lazarus from the tomb.
Here, his comments go well beyond the interpretations of the Reformed commen-
tators, who explain solely the literal significance of the appearance of Lazarus in
grave clothes. Zwingli argues that Lazarus appeared wrapped in burial garb so that
no one would suspect trickery or that they were seeing a mere phantasm. The fact
that Lazarus was able to emerge from the tomb was a miracle in itself, for normally
the bindings would have immobilized his body. Bullinger, CEcolampadius, and
Bucer echo this traditional understanding of Lazarus's emergence as a secondary
miracle that contributed to the glory of the primary miracle of Lazarus's revivifi-
cation.93 Musculus, however, makes no such claim for an ancillary miraculous event;
Lazarus emerged in burial clothes so that everyone would see that it was Lazarus
himself who came out of the tomb, appearing in the same form in which he was
buried. Jesus could have called him out nude, but it was more fitting for the "proof
of the miracle" (evidentiam miraculi) that he should emerge wrapped in his
"sepulchral bindings" (fasciis sepulchralibus).94 But more important for Musculus's
interpretation is the value of this scene as an image or allegorical portrait of the
paradigmatic sinner: "Those who are dead in sins also have hands and feet bound
by the habit of sins as by certain bindings, so that they are able neither to work nor
to walk in the way of God, and a face so bound up by stubbornness that they can
neither hear nor see." A further image is revealed by the advance of Lazarus from
 174 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

the tomb: "Those who are dead in sins are thus aroused that they not only come
back to life but also show themselves vivified by the power of Christ by the con-
duct of life, as by a certain advance."95
Musculus continues with this basic allegory in his interpretation of Jesus' com-
mand to unbind Lazarus and let him go. But here Musculus treads on perilous
ground, for the overwhelming majority of medieval commentators interpret the
command to loosen (solvere) Lazarus as a command directed to the disciples as
representatives of the future sacramental ministry of the priesthood in absolving
(absolvere) the penitent sinner.96 This allegory was rooted in the interpretation of
Augustine, who argues that Lazarus comes forth as a sinner confessing sins, whose
guilt nevertheless remains. In order to remove his sins, Jesus commands his ser-
vants to loosen him, fulfilling his promise: "Whatever you shall loosen [solveris]
on earth, will be loosened in heaven" (Mt 16:19).97 In general, the Reformed com-
mentators steer clear of this traditional exegesis, preferring to emphasize the
unbinding of Lazarus as the completion of the miraculous event that points to the
future resurrection of the faithful. Bucer explicitly rejects the traditional allegory,
noting that "those who delight in uncertainties invent mystical meanings here."
We should simply learn, Bucer argues, that Christ is the resurrection and the life,
and we should "let others talk nonsense about the power of absolving."98 Unlike
Bucer, Bullinger, and Zwingli, CEcolampadius openly embraces an allegorical read-
ing of the scene: "I do not reject what pertains to allegory" (Ad allegoriam quod
attinet non respuo). However, OEcolampadius discusses not the general power of
absolution in the sacramental ministry of the Church but rather the power of ex-
communication. No one is made dead by being wrapped in a human binding such
as a decree of excommunication unless already dead to Christ in sin. Likewise, the
removal of such a decree does not make a person alive in Christ unless the grace of
God has already revived that person. CEcolampadius has thus taken the old alle-
gory regarding absolution and shifted its meaning in order to mitigate the force of
the traditional reading. The clear implication of his interpretation is that the power
of absolution means nothing unless the sinner has already been absolved by God.99
Like CEcolampadius, Musculus presents an allegorical reading of the loosening
of Lazarus, though he comes closer to the traditional interpretation of this act as
an image of the release or absolution of the sinner's guilt by the ecclesiastical min-
istry. When the sinner is made alive by Christ, "the bindings which are in sins and
death... are uncoiled and loosened. And thus in Christ there is liberty, in the king-
dom of Satan bindings and captivity."100 Although Musculus does not identify those
who unwrapped Lazarus as the disciples, he argues nevertheless that they image
the ministry of the Church: "He himself did not loosen the binding, but he orders
him to be loosened by those who were standing by, witnesses of this resurrection.
You have here an image of the ecclesiastical ministry, through which they, who are
aroused to life by the voice of Christ, are loosened from sins."101 Musculus adds,
however, the same caveat as CEcolampadius: no one is able "to be absolved in the
 On the Raising of Lazarus 175

Church" (in ecclesia absolui) who remains in sin and death. The power of Christ
must first awaken the sinner to life, just as Jesus first revived Lazarus before his
burial clothes were removed.
Musculus notes additionally that Jesus ordered Lazarus not only to be unbound
but also to be let go (sinite abire), a command that contributes to the image of the
sinner restored by Christ. Those who hear the voice of Christ's gospel, respond in
repentance, and come to life out of the tomb of sins must be allowed to advance in
the discipline of faith. Just as Lazarus was released to dwell once again among the
living, so the repentant sinner must be welcomed by the communion of the faith-
ful to enter "the house of those living in Christ" (domum viventium in Christo).102

CONCLUSION

This study shows that within the Reformed exegetical tradition on John, no dis-
tinct model exists that can fully account for the characteristic features of Musculus's
exegesis. However, of all the commentators contemporary to Musculus, the great-
est affinities in interpretation are seen in this Reformed exegetical context. Thus,
Musculus's characteristic predilection for moral exegesis finds significant analogues
in the Reformed commentaries, particularly in the interpretations of Bullinger,
CEcolampadius, and Bucer. And of all of the sixteenth-century commentators we
have examined, CEcolampadius alone matches Musculus's eagerness to embrace
allegorical interpretations.
Yet none of the Reformed commentators mirror Musculus in the extensive
weight given to moral exposition. By his use of moral "observations," Bucer may
provide the inspiration for this basic approach in Musculus's exegesis, but Musculus
expands his own sections of observations into such enormous proportions that they
dominate his exposition of the gospel text in a manner unparalleled by Bucer.
Bullinger, while offering no separate sections of observations, in fact comes closer
than Bucer in matching this tropological emphasis of Musculus's commentary. This
point is significant, for one could expect a more thoroughgoing influence of Bucer's
work on Musculus. After all, Musculus heard Bucer lecture on theology and the
Bible and even transcribed for publication Bucer's Psalms and Zephaniah com-
mentaries. Yet Musculus's John commentary, while betraying the influence of
Bucer, is clearly not a slavish imitation.
Nowhere does Musculus demonstrate his independence from Bucer more than
in his fondness for allegorical exposition. Bucer mentions the interpretation of the
removal of Lazarus's burial clothes as an allegory for the absolving ministry of the
Church, but only for the purpose of ridiculing it as nonsense. Musculus, however,
eagerly embraces this traditional allegorical reading as well as many others, which
all depend on the central allegorical equation of Lazarus as an image of the sinner
dead in sins. Although Zwingli allegorizes Jesus' shout as a symbol of the final
 176 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

trumpet blast, he makes no use of the penitential imagery. Bullinger also purpose-
fully avoids any allegorical exposition of the story. But CEcolampadius and
Musculus share a devotion to the symbolic potency of the story that distinguishes
their interpretations from the other Reformed commentaries. Both give full weight
to the penitential allegory, and both give voice to the traditional interpretation of
Mary and Martha as symbols of the contemplative and active lives. In addition,
Musculus alone develops an allegorical interpretation of the Lazarus story as an
image of the redemption of the world. The evidence clearly suggests a disagree-
ment among the Reformed commentators regarding the propriety of allegorical
modes of interpretation.
The fact that Musculus combines the allegorical emphasis of CEecolampadius
with the moral emphasis of Bucer and Bullinger partially explains the extraordi-
nary length of his exegesis. But there are other factors as well. For one thing, the
commentaries of Zwingli and Bucer practically defy comparative analysis with
Musculus at significant points in the Lazarus narrative simply because they do not
offer a verse-by-verse exposition of the text. Zwingli's exegesis of the story is really
nothing more than brief notes and banal glosses of selected phrases from the text.
Bucer also employs criteria of selection, limiting his discussion to portions of the
story that provide exegetical data for the topics of concern to him. Hence, Zwingli'
and Bucer have frequently fallen by the wayside in the comparative analysis of the
Reformed commentators. But Musculus's comments also greatly outdistance the
running commentaries of CEecolampadius and Bullinger, who like Musculus, touch
upon each verse of the Lazarus story. How, then, are we to explain the prodigious
scale of his exegesis? Certainly, as I have argued, Musculus draws out more moral
injunctions from the text, but he also develops two other kinds of commentary,
closely related to moral interpretation, which are distinctive features of his work.
First, Musculus frequently interprets the events in the gospel text as dramatic
images of events occurring in his own time. For example, by her confession of faith,
Martha represents those who, hearing the restored gospel message of salvation by
faith alone, confess their agreement too quickly, arguing that they have always so
believed. Mary, by leaving her Jewish attendants and running to Jesus, represents
those who are turning away from false doctrines to embrace the gospel preached
by the Protestant reformers. Jesus, by calling out with a loud voice, reminds
Musculus of the vigorous and forceful preaching that is necessary for a Church
asleep for centuries under papal domination. These images function in Musculus's
commentary not simply (or even primarily) as moral admonitions but as inter-
pretive keys or examples that elucidate the meaning of the gospel text.
Second, Musculus frequently allows the words and events of the text to trigger
discursive discussions of topics that are only tangentially related to the gospel nar-
rative. This is not a totally unique feature of his commentary, for Bucer engages in
similar kinds of digressions. But the extent to which Musculus allows the text to
blossom into various topical essays is indeed an important and distinctive feature
 On the Raising of Lazarus 177

of his commentary. Thus, the Lazarus narrative occasions lengthy discussions of

bodily illness, the mutual love of siblings, hospitality, burial customs, and the prac-
tice of viewing the dead. The words of the biblical text have an extraordinary sug-
gestive power for Musculus, whose comments range over topics unexplored by his
contemporaries in building a remarkably imaginative and thorough edifice of
interpretation.
 Conclusion

II began this book by making a case for the historical importance of

Musculus, an importance that is no way reflected in modern scholarship on the
Protestant reformation. Certainly Musculus deserves attention for his prominent
role as a leader of the reformations in Augsburg and Bern, and the full story of his
reformational activities has yet to be written. This study, however, has focused on
the importance of Musculus as a theologian and in particular as a interpreter of
Scripture. His ten biblical commentaries, written over a span of twenty years, are
the principal literary legacy of Musculus, representing the work that earned him a
reputation in the sixteenth century as a first-rate biblical scholar. By examining
Musculus's commentary on John, this study has developed a portrait of the dis-
tinctive and traditional features of his work as a commentator that point to the
exceptional skill he brought to the exegetical task. I conclude this study by sum-
marizing these principal features of Musculus's commentary as reflected in his
exegesis of the Johannine signs.
First, I have shown how important the exegetical tradition is in defining and
shaping much of what Musculus writes in his commentary. This fact is demon-
strated in the first three chapters, which prove that his commentary serves as a
conduit for the expression of exegetical ideas rooted in the patristic and medieval
periods. While Musculus sprinkles his exegesis with insights from the commen-
taries of Cyril, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Nonnus, my research strongly suggests
that the patristic influence is more significant and far-reaching than his occasional
citations would indicate. The direct citations frequently occur in places where the
biblical text occasions serious interpretive difficulties and where the Fathers voice
differing interpretive solutions. Musculus occasionally states his preference for one
solution or the other, occasionally surrenders the decision to the reader, and occa-
sionally offers his own solution, which differs from the patristic options. These

178
 Conclusion 179

citations alone, however, do not reflect the strong current of patristic influence that
flows just beneath the surface of Musculus's commentary. By comparing his exe-
gesis and that of the Fathers, one quickly discerns a more general appropriation
and adaptation of patristic ideas, in particular, those of Chrysostom. This general
influence should not come as a complete surprise since Musculus devoted much
scholarship to the patristic literature and made strong arguments for the value of
the patristic witness in the construction of theology and exegesis.
More surprising, however, are the similarities of interpretation between Musculus
and the medieval commentators. Although Musculus criticizes medieval exegetes
for darkening the meaning of the text by their "absurd eagerness for allegorizing,"
my research clearly shows the remarkable parallels between the interpretations
of Musculus and the medievals on the feeding of the five thousand. Certainly,
Musculus's explicit citations of medieval exegetes are rare; in the entire commen-
tary, only the views of Lyra and Theophylact are mentioned in a handful of places.
But my research has uncovered recurring echoes of medieval exegetical ideas in
his interpretation, a fact that suggests a more comprehensive and complex rela-
tionship of Musculus to his medieval predecessors. Yet it is not merely the similar-
ity of ideas that binds Musculus's commentary to the medieval exegetical tradi-
tion but also a similar understanding of the nature of the Bible; as a book dense in
layers of signification, the meaning of the Bible is appropriately expounded accord-
ing to a multiplicity of senses. Notwithstanding his warnings against the fanciful
excesses of medieval exegesis, Musculus betrays not simply a tolerance but also an
eagerness for "spiritual" modes of exposition, utilizing the three standard meth-
ods expressed by medieval hermeneutical theory: tropology, anagogy, and allegory.
Second, I have established that Musculus's commentary reveals an extensive
reliance on humanist biblical scholarship as represented by Erasmus, who, signifi-
cantly, is the only modern author cited by name in the entire work. Erasmus's trans-
lation provides the basic text for Musculus's exegesis, and much of the linguistic
and textual-critical data of Erasmus's Annotationes on John finds its way into
Musculus's commentary. Yet Musculus does not simply incorporate Erasmus's
insights but critically evaluates the data on the basis of his own linguistic skills.
Donning the hat of a humanist scholar, Musculus carefully compares Erasmus's
translation to the Vulgate and the Greek, altering, correcting, and improving the
text and reverting, at times, to the reading of the Vulgate when it presents, in his
view, a superior rendering of the Greek. Therefore, although Musculus gives voice
to the exegetical tradition, his commentary is clearly not that of a reactionary tradi-
tionalist but that of a progressive making use of the latest and best biblical schol-
arship and assuming the new priorities for critical scholarship promoted by the
humanists.
However, in spite of the extensive influence of humanist studies on Musculus's
commentary, I have shown the sharp contrast in the interpretations of Musculus,
Erasmus, and Faber on the story of the sea miracle. Indeed, in no other context
 180 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

does Musculus's exegesis stand out in such bold relief as in the context of human-
ist commentaries on John. The rich tones of Musculus's allegorical images and the
incessant preoccupation with moral admonitions contrast vividly with the some-
what barren commentaries of the two humanists, who scarcely offer anything be-
yond a strictly literal explanation of the text. For Musculus, one basic allegorical
image dictates the course of his interpretation: the stormy sea represents the
satanic opposition that plagues followers of Christ, and in particular ministers of
the Word, represented by the disciples. Accordingly, Musculus interprets all of the
elements of the story—the wind, the waves, the darkness of the night, and the boat—•
as symbolic images of truths conforming to this basic allegory. Furthermore, on
the basis of his allegorical reading of the story, Musculus draws out multiple moral
lessons concerning fear, courage, haughtiness, obedience, and carnality. This "spiri-
tual" reading of the story finds no counterpart in the matter-of-fact commentaries
of the two humanists and suggests a different understanding of the nature and pur-
pose of biblical commentary. Musculus appropriates the tools and methods of the
humanists in order to establish a correct text, a faithful translation, and a proper
understanding of the literal-grammatical meaning of the words of the text. But this
is only the beginning, or rather, the foundation on which he constructs an inter-
pretation that edifies faith and promotes piety. For Musculus, a commentary on
the Bible is not the same thing as a commentary on Homer or Virgil but represents
a theological genre with explicitly theological purposes.
Third, I have shown that Musculus's preoccupation with allegorical interpreta-
tions distinguishes his exegesis not only from the commentaries of the humanists
but also from the commentaries of all of his contemporaries, Catholic, Lutheran,
and Reformed. This point, however, must be carefully nuanced since none of the
sixteenth-century commentators I have read reject allegorical exegesis altogether.
What differentiates Musculus's commentary is not his use of allegorical exegesis
as a mode of interpretation but rather the degree to which he makes use of this
mode, spinning out allegorical interpretations from the text at almost every turn.
Only in the figure of CEcolampadius have I found a sixteenth-century interpreter
who embraces allegory as enthusiastically as Musculus. In five of the seven sign
passages, Musculus offers at least one, and usually multiple, allegorical images of
the miracle. Only in his interpretation of the wedding at Cana and the healing of
the ruler's son does Musculus omit any discussion of the symbolic quality of the
signs. The latter story, however, does not easily lend itself to allegorical interpreta-
tion, and even the patristic and medieval commentators rarely move their exposi-
tions in an allegorical direction. But the lack of allegory in Musculus's commen-
tary on the wine miracle is certainly puzzling, for the symbols of wine and marriage
are rich in allegorical potential, and Musculus usually shows an eagerness to draw
out the content of such latent symbolism.
I argued in chapter 2 that Musculus enunciates a cautious approach to the use
of "mystical" exposition: allegorical interpretations are acceptable only when they
 Conclusion 181

conform to "evident necessity"—that is, when the literal meaning and the context
of a passage suggest the appropriateness of an allegorical reading. Thus, Musculus
justifies his allegorical interpretation of the bread in the feeding miracle as evidently
necessary because Jesus himself suggests this interpretation: "I am the bread of life."
In conformity with this hermeneutical rule, Musculus rejects number allegory—a
favorite mode of exposition among the medieval commentators—as evidently
unnecessary. The five loaves may be interpreted allegorically, but nothing is to be
made of the numerical symbolism, just as nothing is to be made of the two fish, or
of the six water pots, or of the five porticos at the pool of Bethesda. But Musculus's
actual exegesis shows that this cautious approach frequently breaks down. How is
the allegorical interpretation of the disciples' boat as a symbol of the Church evi-
dently necessary? This same question could be asked regarding his interpretations of
the rinsing in the pool of Bethesda as baptism, of the poultice of spit and clay as an
image of both the incarnate Word and the blinding of human wisdom, of the stormy
sea as a symbol of satanic tyranny, and of Mary as a symbol of the contemplative life.
Clearly, another force is at work that dictates Musculus's approach to these symbols,
and that, I suggest, is the force of the exegetical tradition. Musculus knows that past
exegetes have interpreted these things as symbols of greater spiritual realities, and he
is unwilling to forego these interpretations entirely, especially when they contribute
to his goals of edification and admonition. Even his aversion to number allegory
breaks down occasionally, as when he offers an interpretation of the four days of
Lazarus' death as symbolic of the four ages of the world. One senses that Musculus
may have felt some embarrassment at proposing this symbolism (rooted in Augus-
tine), for he relegates it to the margin. But the clear impression is that Musculus finds
it difficult to pass up the opportunity for a good allegory.
Fourth, I have established an overriding preoccupation with moral exegesis in
Musculus's commentary on the Johannine signs. This is arguably the most distinc-
tive feature of his exegesis, for it comes to the fore in each of the contexts we have
examined. This ethical quality of his interpretation, which appears particularly
characteristic of Reformed exegesis, is underscored by Musculus's general reliance
on the homilies of Chrysostom, who shares a similar devotion to the moral lessons
embedded in the text of Scripture. Yet no commentator included in this study
comes close to Musculus in terms of the sheer quantity and scope of moral expo-
sition. No rule of evident necessity restrains Musculus here, for he discovers latent
ethical principles in even the most seemingly innocuous details of the text. And
occasionally, his moral observations grow to such proportions—such as in his dis-
cussion of marriage (chapter 1) and thankfulness (chapter 3)—that they resemble
separate moral treatises, complete with titles and subdivisions. A fundamental
pastoral purpose controls Musculus's exegesis as he attempts to demonstrate not
only what the gospel text meant then but also what it means now and how as a
living text it continues to demand a living response in the lives, hearts, and minds
of its readers.
 182 The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century

Finally, this study has demonstrated that as an exegete, Musculus displays

exceptional talent and creativity in crafting an interpretation that is explainable in
reference to no one commentator or group of commentators. Although he bor-
rows insights from his exegetical forebears, he is certainly not an epigone—a second-
rate imitator—of anyone; and at no place in his commentary does Musculus
descend to the level of obsequious parrotry. His work on John reveals the full com-
plexity of the exegetical task, which involves not merely a dialogue with the text of
Scripture but also a sensitive engagement with the stream of traditional interpre-
tations, a careful and critical use of the best and most recent biblical scholarship,
and the application of a skillful and imaginative reading of the text to produce a
commentary that served, and indeed still can serve, the faith of those who call them-
selves Christian.
Notes

ABBREVIATIONS

CCSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954- ).

Comm. I Wolfgang Musculus, Commentariorum in Evangelistam loannem, heptas
prima (Basel: Bartholomaus Westheimer, 1545).
Comm. II Wolfgang Musculus, Commentariorum in Evangelistam loannem, heptas
altera, item tertia etpostrema in eundem (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1548).
CR Corpus Reformatorum. Vols. 1-28 comprise Philippi Melanchthonis opera
quae supersunt omnia. Edited by C. G. Bretschneider. Halle: C. A. Schwet-
schke and Sons, 1834-1860. Vols. 29-87 comprise loannis Calvini opera
quae supersunt omnia. Edited by G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss. Brunswick
and Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke and Sons, 1863-1900. Vols. 88-101 com-
prise Huldreich Zwinglis samtliche Werke. Edited by E. Egli et al. Berlin-
Leipzig-Zurich: C. A. Schwetschke and Sons, 1905-.
FC The Fathers of the Church (New York and Washington, D.C.: 1947- ).
LC (1560) Wolfgang Musculus, Loci communes in usus sacrae theologiae candidatorum
parati (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1560).
LC (1563) Wolfgang Musculus, Loci communes sacrae theologiae, iam recens recogniti
et emendati (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1563).
PG }. -P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graece, 162 vols.
(Paris: 1857-1866).
PL J. -P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina, 221 vols.
(Paris: 1844-1864).
Synopsis festalium concionum, authore D. Wolfgango Musculo Dusano.
Eiusdem vita, obitus, erudita carmina (Basel: Conrad Waldkirch, 1595).

183
 184 Notes to Pages 3-4

INTRODUCTION

1. For a bibliography of Musculus's works, including the various printings, see Paul
Romane-Musculus, "Catalogue des oeuvres imprimees du theologien Wolfgang Musculus,"
Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 43 (1963): 260-278.
2. Although Musculus does not explain his reasons for changing publishers, it seems
that Westheimer, who left Basel for Mulhausen in 1547, was no longer publishing at the
time Musculus finished the second volume. In 1548 Westheimer sold his publishing house
"zum Baren" to Michael Isengrin. See Josef Benzing, Buchdruckerlexikon des 16. Jahrhunderts
(Deutsches Sprachgebiet) (Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1952), pp. 25-26.
3. Richard Simon, Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament (Rotterdam, 1685; reprint,
Frankfurt: Minerva, 1967), pp. 438-439: "On peut dire que cet Auteur a connu la veri-
table maniere d'expliquer 1'Ecriture." In particular, Simon praises Musculus's Psalms com-
mentary for its careful attention to patristic scholarship. Musculus, he claims, showed more
respect for antiquity than most Protestant authors. He also praises Musculus's new Latin
translation of the Psalms, which altered the ancient translation only when necessary.
4. Both letters exist in the collection of the Zofingen Stadtbibliothek (call no. PA 15A).
The letter from Micron (I.172) is dated August 24,1556, and the letter from Cruciger (I.158)
is dated August 20, 1556. The letter from Micron is printed in J. H. Gerretsen, Micronius.
Zijn leven, zijn geschriften, zijn geestesrichting (Nijmegen: H. Ten Hoet, 1895), pp. ix-xi of
the appendix. Further evidence of Musculus's influence in Poland is seen in a letter
(December 1561) to Bullinger from the Polish theologian Christoph Thretius, founder and
rector of the Latin school in Cracow, who writes that his program of Scripture reading is
conjoined with study of the Decades of Bullinger, the Institutes of Calvin, and the Loci com-
munes of Musculus. The letter is quoted in Walter Hollweg, Heinrich Bullingers Hausbuch,
Beitrage zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche, vol. 8 (Neukirchen: Erzie-
hungsverein, 1956), p. 187.
5. Duncan Shaw, "Zwinglianische Einflusse in der Schottischen Reformation," Zwing-
liana 17 (1988): 375-400. See also Gottfried W. Locher, "Zwinglis Einflu|3 in England und
Schottland—Daten und Probleme," Zwingliana 14 (1975): 165-209.
6. Farel to Haller, March 1551 (CR 42:80 [#1466]): "Saluta quaeso pium Musculum.
Nondum audimus istius psalmos absolutos, quos non pauci optant."
7. Calvin, In Librum Psalmorum commentarius (CR 59:13): "Nec vero de Wolphgangi
Musculi commentariis, si iam tunc in lucem prodiissent, tacere fas fuisset quando et hic
sedulitate et industria non parum laudis bonorum iudicio meritus est."
8. Andrew Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-Century London (Ox-
ford: Clarendon, 1986), p. 24.
9. The evidence for all of these calls has been collected in handwritten copies of the
correspondence in the BurgerbibliothekBern, Cod. 689 (8°f. 97): "Vocationes aliquot, quae
domino Wolfgango Musculo contigerunt, ex litteris ipsius collectae" (fol. lr-31v).
10. See the letter (dated January 7, 1556) from Musculus to Ambrosius Blaurer in
Briefwechsel der Bruder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer 1509-1567, vol. 3, ed. Traugott
SchieB (Freiburg: Friedrich Ernst Fehsenfeld, 1912), no. 2039, pp. 349-350: "Lysmaninus
hac transiit. Persuadere mini conatus est, ut conferam me in Poloniam, si illo vocer, verum
haudquaquam persuasit."
 Notes to Pages 4-5 185

11. In rhetorical modesty, Musculus replied to Erastus that he did not see how he was
a suitable candidate for the position in Heidelberg since he was "a man educated in a mon-
astery and not distinguished with the degree of a Master, still less of a Doctor" (homo in
monasterio educatus, et ne Magisterii quidem, nedum Doctoratii gradu insignitus). Burger-
bibliothek Bern, Cod. 689.
12. Paul Josiah Schwab, The Attitude of Wolfgang Musculus toward Religious Tolerance,
Yale Studies in Religion no. 6 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933).
13. Richard Baumlin, "Naturrecht und obrigkeitliches Kirchenregiment bei Wolfgang
Musculus," in Fur Kirche und Recht: Festschrift fur Johannes Heckelzum 70. Geburtstag, ed.
Siegfried Grundmann (Cologne: Bohlau, 1959), pp. 120-143.
14. Helmut Kre.pner, "Die Weiterbildung des Zwinglischen Systems durch Wolfgang
Musculus," in Schweizer Ursprunge des anglikanischen Staatskirchentums, Schriften des
Vereins fur Reformationsgeschichte no. 170 (Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1953), pp. 45-72.
See also R. Pfister, "Zurich und das anglikanische Staatskirchentum," Zwingliana 10(1955):
249-256.
15. Alexander Schweizer, Die Glaubenslehre derevangelisch-reformierten Kirche dargestellt
undausden Quellen belegt, 2 vols. (Zurich: Orell, Fussli &Comp., 1844-1847); Otto Ritschl,
Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus, 4 vols. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1908-1927), esp. 2:244, 249-250,404,415, 417; Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics Set
Out and Illustrated from the Sources, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson (London: George
Allen, 1950), pp. 23-24, 303-304, 362-363; Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree:
Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins, Studies in His-
torical Theology no. 2 (Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth, 1986), pp. 47-57, 71-75, and Post-
Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1: Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1987), pp. 69-79, 179-181; vol. 2: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), pp. 64-66, 188-191, 248, 320-321, 342, 352, 364-366,
393-394,467,471-472.
16. WilhelmGass, Geschichte der protestantischenDogmatik,vol. 1 (Berlin:GeorgReimer,
1854), p. 132; Heinrich Heppe, Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der reformierten
Kirche, namentlich in der Niederlande (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1879), pp. 208-209; Gottlob
Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund imAlteren Protestantismus: vornemlich bei Johannes Cocceius
(Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1923), pp. 50-51, 55, 59, 212-214; Lyle Dean Bierma, "The
Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevian," Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1980, pp. 68-76;
J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Ath-
ens: Ohio University Press, 1980), pp. 200-202; Stephen Strehle, Calvinism, Federalism,
and Scholasticism: A Study of the Reformed Doctrine of Covenant, Basler und Berner Studien
zur historischen und systematischen Theologie, vol. 58 (Berne: Peter Lang, 1988), pp. 157-
158; David A. Weir, The Origins of Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation
Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 12, 44; Charles S. McCoy and
J. Wayne Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradi-
tion (Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), p. 22.
17. Ruth Wesel-Roth, Thomas Erastus. Ein Beitragzur Geschichte der reformierten Kirche
und zur Lehre von der Staatssouveranitat. Veroffentlichungen des Vereins fur Kirchen-
geschichte in der evang. Landeskirche Badens 15 (Lahr/Baden:MoritzSchauenburg, 1954),
pp. 107-110, "Die Lehre vom christlichen Staat bei Wolfgang Musculus."
 186 Notes to Pages 5-6

18. Gerretsen, Micronius, pp. 9, 92.

19. Wolfram Lohse, "Die Fupwaschung (Joh. 13,1-20). Eine Geschichte ihrer Deutung,"
Ph.D. diss., University of Erlangen/Nuremberg, 1967, p. 68; William Rader, The Church
and Racial Hostility: A History of Interpretation ofEphesians 2:11-22, Beitrage zur Geschichte
der Biblischen Exegese 20 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1978), pp. 77-78, 88-91, 95-96;
Johannes Bouterse, De boom en zijn vruchten. Bergrede-Christendom bij Reformatoren,
Anabaptisten en Spiritualisten in dezestiendeeeuw(Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1987), pp. 240-255,
"De Bergrede bij Musculus."
20. Elsie Anne McKee, Elders and the Plural Ministry: The Role ofExegetical History in
Illuminating John Calvin's Theology (Geneva: Librairie Droz S. A., 1988); John Lee Thomp-
son, John Calvin and the Daughters of Sarah: Women in Regular and Exceptional Roles in
the Exegesis of Calvin, His Predecessors, and His Contemporaries (Geneva: Librairie Droz S. A.,
1992), pp. 92-96, 124-125, 131-133, 146-149, 165-176, 217-219.
21. The volume brings together poems attributed to Musculus and a confession on
the Lord's Supper, "Confessio Wolfgangi Musculi de sacramento corporis et sanguinis
Domini." The biography by Abraham Musculus (Synopsis, pp. 1-55) is entitled "Historia
vitae et obitus clarissimi theologi D. Wolfgangi Musculi Dusani, S. Litterarum apud
Bernates professoris, per Abrahamum Musculum filium, pietatis ergo scripta."
22. Ludwig Grote, Wolfgang Musculus, ein biographischer Versuch (Hamburg: Rauhes
Haus, 1855).
23. Musculus's authorship of many of the hymns attributed to him has been questioned
by more recent studies: A. E. Cherbuliez, "Das Gesangbuch Ambrosius Blauerers und die
Chronologie der in der Schweiz gedruckten reformierten Gesangbucher des 16. Jahrhunderts,"
Zwingliana 5 (1933): 417-454; Manfred Schuler, "1st Wolfgang Musculus wirklich der
AutormehrererKirchenlieder?"JahrbuchfurLiturgikundHymnologiel7(1972): 217-221.
24. Wilhelm Theodor Streuber, "Wolfgang Musculus oder Muslin. Ein Lebensbild aus
der Reformationszeit. Aus dem handschriftichen Nachlasse des verstorbenen Dr. Wilhelm
Theodor Streuber," Berner Taschenbuch aufdas Jahr 1860 (Bern, 1860), pp. 1-79.
25. The autograph of the diary exists in the Burgerbibliothek Bern: "Wolfgangi Musculi
diarium itineris ad conventum Isenacensem anno 1536." Portions are published in Theodor
Kolde, Analecta Lutherana. Briefe und Aktenstucke zur Geschichte Luthers (Gotha: Perthes,
1883), pp. 216-230. Grote complains in the preface to his work (Wolfgang Musculus,
pp. ix-x) that he had not been able to utilize the diary since Streuber had taken possession
of it.
26. Rudolf Dellsperger, "Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563)," in Die Augsburger Kirchen-
ordunungvon 1537 und ihr Umfeld, ed. Reinhard Schwarz (Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlag-
haus Gerd Mohn, 1988), pp. 91-110. In the volume are included several other articles that
treat aspects of Musculus's life. See especially Gottfried Seeba(3, "Die Augsburger Kirchen-
ordnung von 1537 in ihrem historischen und theologischen Zusammenhang," pp. 33-58,
and Marijn de Kro9n, "Die Augsburger Reformation in der Korrespondenz des Strafiburger
Reformators Martin Bucer unter besonderer Berucksichtigung des Briefwechsels Gereon
Sailers," pp. 59-89.
27. Theodor Beza, Les vrais portraits des hommes illustres en piete et doctrine. . . (Paris:
Jean de Laon, 1581; reprint, Geneva: Slatkine, 1986), pp. 59-61.
28. Friedrich Roth, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte, 4 vols. (Munich: Theodor Acker-
 Notes to Pages 6-12 187

mann, 1901-1911), esp. 2:46-49, 55-56, 192-194, 256-258, 288-297, 324-327, 433-435,
451-454. See also Horst Jesse, Die Geschichte der Evangelischen Kirche in Augsburg (Pfaf-
fenhofen: W. Ludwig, 1983), pp. 109,120,122,125,138-140;and Philip Broadhead, "Poli-
tics and Expediency in the Augsburg Reformation," in Reformation Principle and Practice:
Essays in Honour of Arthur Geoffrey Dickens, ed. Peter Newman Brooks (London: Scolar,
1980), pp. 53-70.
29. Henri Vuilleumier, Histoire de I'Eglise Reformee du Pays de Vaud sous le Regime
Bernois, 4 vols. (Lausanne: Editions la Concorde, 1927-1933), 1:266-267, 629, 668-671,
715-716; Kurt Guggisberg, Bernische Kirchengeschichte (Bern: Paul Haupt, 1958), pp. 172-
174, 195-196, 257-258. See also Rudolf Pfister, Kirchengeschichte der Schweiz, vol. 2: Von
der Reformation bis zum zweiten Villmerger Krieg (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974),
pp. 213,215, 300-301.
30. Hastings Eells, Martin Bucer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1931), pp. 120,
183-184, 187-188, 197; R. Emmet McLaughlin, Caspar Schwenckfeld, Reluctant Radical:
His Life to 1540 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), pp. 147-148, 164-166; Horst
Weigelt, "Die Beziehungen Schwenckfelds zu Augsburg im Umfeld der Kirchenordnung
von 1537,"inSchwarz,DieAugsburgerKirchenordnungvonl537undihrUmfeld, pp. 111-122.
31. The following sketch of Musculus's career is based upon my own reading of the
Synopsis and the biographies by Grote, Streuber, and Dellsperger.
32. His German name was rendered in a number of various forms, such as Mauslein,
MeuBlin, Mausli, Meuslin, and Moesel. In his later years in Bern, Musculus was known as
Muslin.
33. Bucer recommended Musculus and Ambrose Blaurer, the reformer in Constance.
When Blaurer refused the call, Bucer recommended his student Boniface Wolfhart (Lyco-
stenes), who arrived in Augsburg shortly after Musculus to take the preaching post at
St. Anne's, a post previously held by the Lutherans. Bucer also sent two other preachers to
Augsburg: Theobald Schwarz (Nigri), who remained only a few months before returning
to Strasbourg, and Sebastian Meyer. See Eells, Martin Bucer, pp. 119-120.
34. See Ulrich Im Hof, "Die reformierte Hohe Schule zu Berne," in 450 Jahre Berner
Reformation. Beitrage zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel (Bern:
Historischer Verein des Kantons Bern, 1980), pp. 194-224.
35. His last male heir was the renowned David Muslin, preacher at the Munster in Bern,
who died in 1821.
36. Robert M. Grant and David Tracy, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible,
2d ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), p. 92.

CHAPTER ONE

1. A. Rivera, "Nota sobre el simbolismo del milagro de Cana en la interpretacion

patristica,"EstudiosMarianas 13 (1953): 62-72;M.-E. Boismard,DuBaptemea Cana(Jean
1, 19-2, 11) (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1956); Angelo Bresolin, "L'esegesi di Giov. 2, 4
nei Padri Latini," Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes 8 (1962): 243-273; Joseph Reuss, "Joh
2, 3-4 in Johannes Kommentaren der griechischen Kirche," in Neutestamentliche Aufsatze:
Festschrift fur Josef Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, F. Mussner (Regens-
 188 Notes to Pages 13-15

burg: Pustet, 1963); Jose Ramos-Regidor, "Signo y Poder: a proposito de la exegesis

patristica de Jn 2, 1-11," Salesianum (1965): 499-562; Adolf Smitmans, Das Weinwunder
von Kana: DieAuslegung von Jo 2, 1-11 bei den Vatern und heute (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr,
1966); Rolf Heine, "Zur patristischen Auslegung von Ioh. 2, 1-12," Wiener Studien 83
(1970): 189-195.
2. Wolfgang Musculus, Comm. I, pp. 61-62.
3. Ibid., p. 60.
4. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist: Homilies
1-47, FC 33:215, hereafter cited as Homilies on John.
5. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, trans. James A. Weisheipl
and Fabian R. Larcher (Albany: Magi, 1980), p. 156, hereafter cited as Commentary on John;
Hugh of St. Cher, Postilla super totam Bibliam, 8 vols. (Venice: N. Pezzana, 1732), vol. 6:
In Evangelia secundum Matthaeum, Lucam, Marcum, Joannem. fol. 291r, hereafter cited
as Postilla super Joannem; Desiderius Erasmus, Paraphrasis in Evangelium secundum loan-
nem . .. (Basel: J. Froben, 1523) p. 34, hereafter cited as Paraphrasis in loannem.
6. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 59. The Athenian measure metreta would corre-
spond to approximately nine English gallons. Each pot would have been able to hold from
eighteen to twenty-seven gallons.
7. Ibid., pp. 59-60.
8. Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 156.
9. Erasmus, Paraphrasis in loannem, p. 35.
10. Musculus, Comm. I, pp. 59-60.
11. Ibid., p. 60: "Servandus erat ordo, quo miraculum redderetur magis conspicuum."
12.
v Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:217; Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 157;
Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 291r; Erasmus, Paraphrasis in Ioannem, p. 34.
13. Erasmus, Paraphrases in loannem, p. 35.
14. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 60: "Verum ita constituit ut nos plantemus ac rigemus, ipse
vero incrementum addat."
15. Ibid.
16. Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:216.
17. Ibid.
18. Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 157; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 291r. See
also Denis, Enarratio in Evangelium secundum Joannem, vol. 12: (In Lucam (X-XXF), et
Johannem) of Opera omnia, 42 vols. in 44 (Monstrolii: S. M. De Pratis, 1901), p. 315, here-
after cited as Enarratio in Joannem.
19. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 60.
20. Ibid.
21. Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of John 1-10, FC78:179, hereafter cited
as Tractates on John.
22. Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 291r.
23. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 61. Many of the miracles of the Bible, Musculus argues, can
be classified as simple accelerations of natural processes. As an example, he mentions the
blossoming of Aaron's rod (Nm. 17:8): "It was not unusual that the rod of Aaron blos-
somed, for we see the blossoming of branches every year, but that it blossomed in an un-
usual method and time certainly made it suffice as a miracle."
 Notes to Pages 15-18 189

24. Vulgate: "Quid mihi et tibi, mulier? Nondum venit hora mea." However, Musculus,
Melanchthon, and Bucer all follow Erasmus in translating the phrase as, "Quid mihi tecum
est mulier."
25. Augustine, Tractates on John,FC 78:183.
26. This anonymous prologue to John, which affirms that John was the groom at Cana,
was mistakenly attributed to Jerome by Bonaventure, Albert the Great, Hugh of St. Cher,
and Nicholas of Lyra. See the notes of the Quaracchi editors, Doctoris Seraphici S. Bona-
venturae opera omnia (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1882-1902), 6:243, n. 2,245,
n. 1.
27. Hugh, Postilia super Joannem, fol. 290r.
28. Ibid., fol. 278r.
29. Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 313.
30. Martin Bucer, Martini Buceri Opera Latina, vol. 2: Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis,
ed. Irena Backus (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), p.111: "Ioannem tamen affirmare fuisse hunc
sponsum frivolum est"; hereafter cited as Enarratio in Iohannem.
31. Erasmus, Paraphrasis in loannem, p. 34; Musculus, Comm. I, p. 55.
32. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 55.
33. Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:206-207.
34. The reluctance to accuse Mary of base motives seems to be particular to the Latin
exegetical tradition. Reuss, "Joh 2,3—4 in Johannes Kommentaren der griechischen Kirche,"
p. 213, shows that several of the Greek Fathers, like Chrysostom, accuse Mary of errone-
ous behavior. In a fragment of a John catena attributed to Origen, Mary is accused of seeking
her own glory through her son's miracles. According to Theodor of Mopsuestia, Mary
erroneously believes that Jesus' miraculous power is bound to certain times and emergen-
cies. In fragments from a John catena, Ammonius of Alexandria accuses Mary of forget-
ting the divinity of her son; by informing Jesus of the situation, she presupposes his igno-
rance. See also Smitmans, Das Weinwunder von Kana, pp. 114-115.
35. Thomas, Commentary on John, pp. 151-152.
36. Hugh, Postilia super Joannem, fol. 290v.
37. Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 313; "Docemur causam et indigentiam nostram,
superioribus nostris simpliciter atque modeste insinuare, et in eorum potestate quid facien-
dum sit relinquere."
38. Erasmus, Paraphrasis in Ioannem, p. 34.
39. Bucer, Enarratio in Iohannem, p. 111.
40. Ibid., p. 113.
41. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 57.
42. Ibid., pp. 57-58: "Non dicit: Omne vinum ebiberunt, & intemperanter consump-
serunt. Sed simpliciter & modeste. Vinum non habent."
43. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 59.
44. Hugh, Postilia super Joannem, fol. 291r.
45. Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 314.
46. Erasmus, Paraphrasis in Ioannem, p. 34.
47. Philip Melanchthon, Annotationes in EvangeliumIoannis,CR14:1077, hereafter cited
as Annotationes in Ioannem.
48. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 59.
 190 Notes to Pages 19-23

49. Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 290v.

50. Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:215
51. Bucer, Enarratio in Iohannem, p. 111.
52. Melanchthon, Annotationes in loannem, CR 14:1077-1078.
53. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 59: "Haec erat in Virgine constantia fidei, quae nubila irati
dei sola penetrat, & contra spem sperat, sperandoque tandem vincit."
54. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 59.
55. Ibid., p. 58.
56. Thomas, Commentary on John, pp. 154-55; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 290v;
Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, pp. 313-314.
57. On the tendency of medieval commentators to offer multiple literal interpretations,
see Ceslaus Spicq, Esquisse d'une histoire de I'exegese latine au moyen age (Paris: Libraire
Philosophie J. Vrin, 1944), p. 207.
58. Reuss, "Joh 2, 3-4 in Johannes Kommentaren der griechischen Kirche," p. 209,
shows that this explanation actually antedates Augustine; it is found in fragments of a John
catena attributed to Origen.
59. Augustine, Tractates on John, FC 78:188.
60. Ibid., pp. 184-187.
61. Ibid., pp. 190-192.
62. Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:208.
63. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John, vol. 1: S. John
I-VIII, trans. P. E. Pusey (Oxford: James Parker, 1874), p. 156, hereafter cited as Commen-
tary on John.
64. Chrysostom's interpretation of Jesus' "hour" as the time of his public ministry re-
flects a Greek exegetical tradition. See Reuss, "Joh 2, 3-4 in Johannes Kommentaren der
griechischen Kirche," p. 213.
65. Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:214-215.
66. Cyril, Commentary on John, p. 156.
67. Melanchthon, Annotationes in Ioannem, CR 14:1077.
68. Bucer, Enarratio in Iohannem, p. 111.
69. Erasmus, Paraphrasis in loannem, p. 35.
70. Musculus, Comm. I, pp. 58-59.
71. Cyril, Commentary on John, p. 155.
68. Bucer, Enarratio in Iohannem, p. 111.
73. Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 151.
74. Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 290v.
75. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 59.
76. According to Smitmans, Das Weinwunder von Kana, p. 144, the Fathers variously
interpret the miraculous wine as symbolic of: 1) the eucharistic blood; 2) the gospel, which
supercedes the law; 3) the prophetic fulfillment of history in Christ; 4) the spiritual sense
of Scripture; 5) the gift of the Holy Spirit; 6) the new life of grace; 7) conversion; 8) joy. In
general, the wine is seen as a symbol of salvation that has a multifaceted signification.
77. Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:219-221.
78. Augustine, Tractates on John, FC78:197-199.
79. Cyril, Commentary on John, p. 158; Erasmus, Paraphrasis in loannem, p. 36; Melanch-
thon, Annotationes in Ioannem, CR 14:1078.
 Notes to Pages 23-29 191

80. Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 153; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 291r-291v;
Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, pp. 316-317.
81. Bucer, Enarratio in lohannem, p. 113: "Et, quod mireris, sobrietatis autor tantum
vini convivis—inter quos indubie fuere qui largius quam necessitas posceret, biberunt—
donavit—et quidem optimum quale"; "Catabaptistae indubie, si turn adfuissent, graviter
Dominum increpuissent, si non etiam excommunicassent."
82. Musculus's text reads: "Omnis homo primo loco bonum vinum ponit, & cum
inebriati fuerint, tunc id quod deterius est."
83. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 61.
84. Ibid., p. 55: "Usurpari solet hic locus ad matrimonii cohonestationem, propterea
quod in his nuptiis Christus comparuit."
85. Of the commentators I am treating, only Chrysostom and Melanchthon omit this
point. However, Chrysostom argues in a sermon on Isaiah 6 and in a sermon on Colossians
3 that Jesus' presence at the wedding at Cana indicates his approval of marriage. The John
commentary of Caspar Cruciger (CR 15:63-65), which was based on Melanchthon's lecture
notes, makes Jesus' approval of marriage the central theme of the Cana story. Adolf Smitmans,
Das Weinwunder von Kana, pp. 194-207, demonstrates that John 2:1-11 was a pivotal text
in the patristic period in Christian discussion of the place of marriage. For example, Tertullian
(in De monogamia) and Jerome (in Adversus Iovinianum) both argue that Jesus attended only
one wedding during his ministry to show that Christians may only marry once and that he
does not give a blanket approval of the married state per se. The majority of Fathers, how-
ever, see the Cana story as an indication of the sanctity of marriage.
86. Augustine, Tractates on John, FC 78:183; Cyril, Commentary on John, p. 157.
87. Augustine, Tractates on John, FC 78:204.
88. Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 150.
89. Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 290v.
90. Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 316: "Celebremus ergo spirituales nuptias in con-
scientia nostra, uniendo et intime copulando animas nostras Verbo . .. sponso animarum
sanctarum ... ut animae nostrae fecundentur et impraegnentur coelesti semine, id est
lumine gratiae copiosae, quatenus indesinenter producant fructus spirituales, seu actus
virtuosos."
91. Erasmus, Paraphrasis in Ioannem, p. 36; Melanchthon, Annotationes in Ioannem,
CR 14:1078.
92. Bucer, Enarratio in Iohannem, p. 114: "Texuntur ex his allegoriae, sed nihil, tam
Christus quam Evangelista allegoricos in his dixit. Historia aperta est qua memoratur."
93. Bucer, Enarratio in lohannem, p. 115: "Solet hic tractari locus communis, con-
iugium .... Summa est: Non est bonum homini esse soli."
94. Musculus, Comm. 1, pp. 55-57.

CHAPTER TWO

1. From the Greek Fathers, Musculus presents quotations from Chrysostom, Basil, Gre-
gory of Nazianzus, Origen, Athanasius, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hesychius of Jerusalem,
Ignatius, and Cyril of Alexandria. For many of these citations, Musculus gives the original
Greek, but usually he offers a Latin translation. From the Latin Fathers, Musculus cites a
 192 Notes to Pages 30-32

vast spectrum of Augustine's writings in addition to quotations from Jerome, Tertullian,

Cyprian, Ambrose, Lactantius, and Hilary of Poitiers.
2. Synopsis, pp. 4-5.
3. Paul Adam, "L'Humanisme a Selestat," in Les lettres en Alsace (Strasbourg: Societe'
savante d'Alsace, 1962), pp. 89-104.
4. C. Reedijk, ed., The Poems ofDesiderius Erasmus (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1956). Poem 98,
"Encomium Selestadii": "Illa tibi propria est, quod & una, & parva, tot aedis / Virtute
insignes ingenioque viros."
5. Ludwig Grote, Wolfgang Musculus, ein biographischer Versuch (Hamburg: Rauhes
Haus, 1855), p. 11. The same assertion is made by Rudolf Dellsperger, "Wolfgang Musculus
(1497-1563)," in Die Augsburger Kirchenordnung von 1537 und ihr Umfeld, ed. Reinhard
Schwarz (Gutersloh: Giltersloher Verlaghaus Gerd Mohn, 1988), p. 92, n. 2.
6. Synopsis, p. 5: "Hoc fuit initium, & hic cursus studiorum eius, usque ad annum aetatis
suae 15. primum monasticum vitae genus ingressus est."
7. The Latin text is quoted in Charles Schmidt, Histoire Litteraire de I'Alsace a la fin du
XVe et au commencement du XVIe siecle (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1966), 2:160, n. 4:
"Scripsisti in tuis litteris ut tibi scriberem quid noster magister faceret. Scias quod de mane
Alexandrum facit; hora nona aliqua carmina ex aliquibus autoribus, scilicet ex Horacio,
Ovidio, etc.; post duodecimam in Mantuano; die lune ascribit aliqua carmina que probare
debemus per quantitates sillabarum. Hora quarta recapitulamus que per totam diem
habuimus." Autograph in Universitatsbibliothek Basel.
8. The Doctrinale is actually a poem consisting of 2,645 hexameter verses, with notes
on noun declensions and gender, the various verbal forms, and syntax. It was a standard
grammar for more than three centuries until it was gradually replaced by the humanists.
9. Schmidt, Histoire Litteraire de I'Alsace, p. 160.
10. Synopsis, p. 5: "Post illinc discedens Colmariam, inde Selestadium venit, ibique
operam literis dedit. Tenebatur autem iam turn in illa puerili aetate poetices amore, inque
poetarum lectione perquam assiduus erat."
11. Ibid.: "Et cum eius studii propositum esset a praeceptore certamen, ut recitandis
memoriter carminibus pueri inter se certarent, factum est cum hoc exercitii genere impensius
delectaretur, ut diligentior esset in ediscendis multis carminibus, & scribendorum quoque
versuum rationem facilius assequeretur."
12. Ibid., pp. 5-7. The monastery no longer exists. One building of the monastery still
remains, serving as a Protestant church in Lixheim.
13. Ibid., p. 7. Musculus also began to study organ. The prior purchased an organ for
the monastery and arranged for private lessons (at the expense of the monastery) in the
neighboring town of Neuweiler.
14. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
15. Ibid., pp. 10-12.
16. Ibid., pp. 15-17.
17. According to ibid., p. 24, Musculus also began to study "very obscure rabbinic com-
mentaries" (rabinorum obscurissimos commentarios) and Aramaic. In his first published
work, Ainfrydsams unnd Christlichs Gesprech (Augsburg: Philip Ulhardt?, 1533), Musculus
demonstrates his familiarity with the commentaries of Rashi. He also composed his own
Hebrew dictionary, the manuscript of which still exists in the Bremen Library, according
 Notes to Page 32 193

to Grote in Wolfgang Musculus, pp. 55-56. Grote also argues that a manuscript of a Hebrew
grammar, extant in the Bern Library, was written by Musculus. However, I did not find
this source in my own examination of the Bern collection.
18. Synopsis, pp. 19-20. One of Musculus's poems is entitled "In Tzephaniam Buceri,"
published in ibid., pp. 67-68.
19. Ibid., p. 25: "Designatum igitur ei primum fuit templum S. Crucis; in quo docuit
septem illis annis." While every biographer has followed the Synopsis here in designating
the Church of the Holy Cross as Musculus's first preaching post in Augsburg, this desig-
nation may be an anachronism. According to Detlef von Dobschutz, "Die Geschichte der
Kirchengemeinde Heilig-Kreuz und ihrer Kirche," in Die Evangelische Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche
in Augsburg (Augsburg: Evangelisch-Lutherisches Pfarramt, 1981), pp. 9—18, the Chapel
of St. Ottmar (St. Ottmarskapelle) was renovated and renamed Kirche zum Heiligen Kreuz
in 1561. In July 1537 Musculus was assigned to the cathedral church (Dom), where he
served until he left the city in June 1548.
20. According to Synopsis, p. 30, Musculus was in his fortieth year when he began his
studies in Greek. This would indicate the years 1536 or 1537. However, since Musculus
published his translation of Chrysostom in 1536, he must have begun his studies in Greek
at an earlier date. Betuleius (1501-1554) studied classical literature at Erfurt and Tubingen.
In 1523 he continued his education in Basel, where in 1529 he assumed the direction of a
newly established Latin school. In 1536 Betuleius assumed the rectorate of the St. Anna
Latin school in Augsburg. He brought fame to the Augsburg school through the many
textbooks he authored, among which were several Latin plays based on Old Testament
stories and annotated editions of the works of Cicero and Lactantius. See Karl Koberlin,
Geschichte des humanitischen Gymnasiums bei St. Anna in Augsburg von 1531 bis 1931 (Augs-
burg: Gymnasium bei St. Anna, 1931), pp. 16-41; Friedrich Roth, Augsburgs Reforma-
tionsgeschichte (Munich: Theodor Ackermann, 1904), 2:209, n. 85; and Welt im Umbruch:
Augsburg zwischen Renaissance und Barock (Augsburg: Augsburger Druck- und Verlag-
shaus, 1980), 1:328-329.
21. Synopsis, pp. 29-30. Musculus also acquired some knowledge of Arabic during his
tenure in Augsburg. A rudimentary Arabic-Hebrew dictionary in Musculus's own hand is
extant in the Burgerbibliothek Bern (Cod. 686). Further evidence that Musculus knew some
Arabic is contained in a letter from Martin Frecht to Ambrose Blaurer in which Frecht
reports that he has sent a coin with an Arabic inscription to Musculus for translation. Frecht
reports, however, that Musculus could not decipher the writing. Letter no. 1117 in Brief-
wechsel der Bruder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer 1509-1567, ed. Traugott Schie|3 (Freiburg:
Friedrich Ernst Fehsenfeld, 1910), 2:287-288.
22. Ioannis Chrysostomi in D. Pauli epistolas commentarii (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1536).
23. Opera D. Basilii Magni Caesariae Cappadociae Episcopi omnia (Basel: Johann
Herwagen, 1540); Operum Divi Cyrilli Alexandrini Episcopi tomi quatuor (Basel: Johann
Herwagen, 1546); Divi Gregorii Theologi Episcopi Nazianzeni opera omnia egraeco in latinum
conversa, in collaboration with Bilibald Pirkneimer (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1550);
Athanasii Magni Alexandrini Episcopi, graviss. scriptoris, et sanctiss. martyris, opera (Basel:
Jerome Froben & Nicolas Episcopius, 1556). For a study of Musculus's edition of Basil,
see Irena Backus, Lectures humanistes de Basile de Cesaree (Traductions latines 1439-1618)
(Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1990), pt. 1, chap. 4.
 194 Notes to Pages 32-33

24. From Eusebius, he included 10 books of the Historia ecclesiastica and 5 books of
the Vita Constantini. From other ecclesiastical histories, he included 7 books from Socrates
Scholasticus, 9 from Sozomen, 2 from Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and 6 from Evagrius
Scholasticus. Musculus's translations continued to be reissued well into the seventeenth
century. For a summary of the different editions of his translations, see Paul Romane-
Musculus, "Catalogue des ceuvres imprimees du theologien Wolfgang Musculus," Revue
D'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 43 (1963): 261-263. Musculus's work as a transla-
tor is summarized in Synopsis, pp. 29-30.
25. Polybii Megalopolitani Historiarum libri priores quinque Nicolao Perotto Sipontino
interprete. Item, epitome sequentium librorum usque ad decimum-septimum Wolfgango
Musculo interprete (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1549). Contrary to the title, the translation
in fact includes book 18. He prefaces his translation with a letter to the reader in which he
writes a Christian defense of the study of history. Musculus also considered working on a
Josephus project, as indicated by a letter from the Basel printer Hieronymus Froben dated
March 3, 1545. In the letter Froben asks Musculus to help in the production of a new edi-
tion of Chrysostom and Josephus. The autograph exists in the Zofingen Stadtbibliothek,
call number PA 15A (Ep. 109).
26. The only source that indicates this commission is the chronicle of Achilles Pirminus
Gasser, "Annales Augustani" (Augsburg, 1576) (2° Cod. Aug. 41 in the Augsburg Staats-
und Stadtbibliothek), fols. 541v-542r. The monasteries of the city were abandoned in 1537
when the council forbade Catholic services of worship.
27. The purchase was a considerable expenditure considering the fact that the council
had given Betuleius a yearly budget of 50 guilders for the new library. The collection was
purchased from Antonius Eparchus, a man living in Venice who had recently fled Turkish
rule. See Loenhard Lenk, Augsburger Burgertum im Spathumanismus und Fruhbarock(1580-
1700) (Augsburg: H. Miihlberger, 1968), p. 154; Richard Schmidbauer, Die Augsburger
Stadtbibliothekare durch vier Jahrhunderte (Augsburg: Die Brig, 1963), pp. 19-20; 450 Jahre
Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg (Augsburg: Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, 1987), p. 7.
28. John M. Moore has demonstrated in The Manuscript Tradition ofPolybius (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), pp. 16-17, that Musculus in fact utilized the
Polybius manuscript from the Eparchus collection in his translation of 1549. Preserved in
the Augsburg Staats- und Stadtbibliothek is a catalog compiled by Hieronymus Wolf of
the manuscripts sold by Eparchus: Catalogus graecorum librorum, manuscriptorum, augus-
tanae bibliothecae (Augsburg: Michael Manger, 1575) (4° Aug. 202). The catalog lists a codex
containing works of Cyril and four codices of Gregory of Nazianzus. The Eparchus manu-
scripts were moved to the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich in 1806. A textual study
(such as that of Moore) comparing the Musculus editions with the Eparchus collection is
needed to establish Musculus's use of the Cyril and Nazianzus manuscripts.
29. Vom Ampt der Oberkeit in sachen der Religion und Gottesdienst. Ain bericht ausz
gotlicher schrifft des hailigen alten lerers und Bischoffs Augustini an Bonifacium den
Kayserlichen Kriegs Graven in Aphrica (Augsburg: Philippe Ulhardt, 1535).
30. Roth, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte, 2:288-290.
31. Opera D.Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1539), 5 vols.
His letter to the reader appears in the beginning of the fourth volume with the title
"Wolfgangus Musculus Dusanus, ad lectorem," hereafter cited as Ad lectorem.
 Notes to Pages 33-36 195

32. Ad lectorem, p. ii: "Plurimum mihi delinquere videntur, qui ad omnia aliorum
obsurdescunt, sua tamen adorant, quasi in universum defuerit priscis omnis veritatis
cognitio."
33. Ibid.: "Bonum quomodo tenebit qui nihil probat, sed omnia aliorum fastidit?
Quomodo probabit, qui ne legere quidem dignatur? Quomodo leget, qui summo etiam
cum contemptu quaevis exibilat?"
34. Ibid., pp. ii-iii: "Non consulo ut noctesque diesque superstitiose magis quam religi-
ose versentur scripta Patrum. Nam hoc a legendis Canonicis scripturis avocabit plurimum,
quibus prima & potior studiorum nostrorum portio consecranda est. Regia potius
ingrediamur via, quam sancti viri & scriptis & proprio exemplo monstrarunt. Ut enim
periculum est, ne si indiscriminatim omnia complectare, pro veritate mendacium, pro
certitudine voluntatis, humanae opinionis fallaciam apprehendas, ita vicissim timendum,
ne si quae aliorum sunt prorsus contemnas, tuasque duntaxat cogitationes exosculere,
veritatem ipsam aliorum sententiis expressam rejicias, proque illa proprii cordis phan-
tasiam adores. Utrobique periculum est fere idem. Quid enim interest, sive propriis, sive
aliorum erratis neglecta veritate decipiare?"
35. Ibid., iii.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid., p. iv: "Vigilate fratres, vigilate, veteres astus satanae recognoscite, sanctorum
Patrum studia diligentius expendite, ex illis quanta diligentia, quibusque modis & armis
inania haereticorum phantasmata eventilanda sint."
38. Ibid., pp. iv-v.
39. For a discussion of these issues in a highly charged polemical context, see Musculus's
Adversus libellum Iohannis Cochlaei de sacerdotio et sacrificio novae legis aeditum (Augsburg:
Philip Ulhardt, 1544). Musculus reissued the booklet one year later in a German transla-
tion, Auffdas Buchlin Johannis Cochlei welches er zur verthiidigungBapstlichs Priesterthumbs
unnd Messopffers imJahr 1544 wider die leer des Euangelions inn den Truck geben hat. Erste
Antwort und Ablaynung (Augsburg: Philip Ulhardt, 1545). In the treatise, Musculus re-
sponds to Cochlaeus's charge that the Bible does not contain everything that Christians
must believe, such as, for example, the orthodox formulation of Trinitarian teaching.
40. Musculus, LC (1563), p. 286: "Inter libros Novi testamenti sunt nonnulli, de quibus
etiam veterum sententiae variant: utpote Epistola posterior Petri, duae posteriores Ioannis,
Epistola Iudae, Epistola ad Ebraeos, & Apocalypsis Ioannis, quae in Concilio Laodiceno
cap. 59 & ultimo, inter Canonicas scripturas non recitatur: quibus etiam eam quae Iacobo
inscribitur, quidam recentiores connumerant."
41. Ibid.: "Meae modestiae non est, ut de illis pronunciem .... Iudicia tamen veterum
hoc efficiunt, ut minus sim illis quam caeteris scripturis astrictus: licet haud facile quaevis
damnanda censeam, quae in illis leguntur."
42. Ibid., pp. 293-94: "Ubi vero ex scriptis patrum aliquid contra nos adferunt, palam
dico, nolle me ad illorum authoritatem adstringi. Literas enim illorum, ut Augustini verbis
utar, non ut canonicas habeo, sed eas ex canonicis considero, & si quid in eis authoritati
canonicarum Scripturarum congruit, accipio: sin minus, cum pace illorum respuo." Au-
gustine, Contra Cresconium, book 2, chap. 32.
43. Musculus, 1C (1563), p. 290.
44. He produces citations from Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew (Expositione 2,
 196 Notes to Pages 36-38

Homilia 49), from several writings of Augustine (Epistolae 3, 7, 19, 166; De doctrina
Christiana, book 1, chap. 37; book 2, chap. 6; Contra Cresconium, book 2, chap. 31), and
from Jerome's preface to Galatians.
45. The autograph is in the Zofingen Stadtbibliothek, call number PA 15A (Ep. 242),
hereafter cited as Epistola 242.
46. Epistola 242.
47. The actual focus of the controversy was on how to characterize the prohibition
against graven images. The Catholics argued that this prohibition was not a separate com-
mand but an explanatory adjunct to the first command against having other gods. The com-
mand against coveting was then broken into two distinct commands in order to yield ten
commandments. The Lutherans actually joined the Catholics in this scheme of enumera-
tion. The Reformed theologians, however, argued that the prohibition of graven images
was a separate command, distinct from the command against having other gods. See Bo
Reicke, Die zehn Worte in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Beitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen
Exegese 13 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1973).
48. Epistola 242. Musculus also discusses the controversy at length in the Loci communes
(1563) under the topic heading "Divisio Decalogi" (pp. 53-54). He also published a previously
unknown booklet on the topic entitled Von der zaal und auBtheylung der zehen gebott auB den
alten Lereren gezogen (Bern: Matthew Apiarius, 1551). The booklet is bound and virtually hid-
den in a large volume of manuscripts in the Zurich Zentralbibliothek, call number Ms. S 76.
49. Epistola 242: "Ubi ex Augustino pro doctrina gratiae et justificationis aliquid citamus,
in promptu est adversariis ex Chrysostomo citare diversum, id quod exempli gratia loquor.
Nam ex omnibus Patribus non dabuntur duo, quorum scripta inter se consentiant per
omnia, praesertim in iis, quae ad nostram causam citari possunt."
50. Musculus, LC (1563), p. 293: "Quis adeo stupidus est, ut ex obscuro de claro, & non
magis ex claro de obscuro iudicandum esse sentiat? Quern dabunt nobis de numero patrum,
cuius scripta tanquam lucem ad illustrandas sacras Scripturas sequamur? Si cunctos, quo-
rum scripta extant, sequi voluerimus, fiet ut quod in Scripturis sacris clarum est, adhibitis
illorum expositionibus obnubiletur, propter sententiarum & expositionum diversitatem.
Si unum duntaxat delegerimus, nec constabit quis nam ex illis deligendus sit: nec unius
sententia certas nostras conscientias reddere poterit, caeteris diversa sentientibus."
51. Ibid., p. 291; Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, book 2, chap. 6.
52. Musculus, LC (1563), p. 293; Augustine, Epistola 19.
53. Musculus,LC(1563), p. 293: "Partim negligentia antiquariorum, partim temeritate
haereticorum, tot seculorum decursu sic scripta patrum ab origine sua degenerarunt, ut
plane stolidissimus sit, vel studiose malignus in Ecclesiam Dei, quisquis illorum calculis
conscientias fidelium obstringendas esse putaverit."
54. Ibid., p. 294.
55. Ibid., p. 293.
56. Ibid., p. 292: "Obsecro, ubi consisteret universa Romana sedes cum omnibus istis
personatis Episcopis, Carnalibus, Praelatis, Monachis, Academicis, Sophistis, Scotistis,
Thomistis, Occamistis, & aliis id genus hominibus, qui iam seculis aliquot moderamina
Christianae religionis per fas ac nephas, prece, precio, vi & armis occuparunt, si sanctorum
patrum ac veterum canonum concilorumque iudicio subjicerentur?" My translation does
not reflect Musculus's pun on Cardinalibus/Carnalibus.
 Notes to Pages 38-40 197

57. See the appendix "Commentaries on the Gospel of John, 1470-1555," in Timothy J.
Wengert, Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes in Johannem in Relation to Its Predecessors and
Contemporaries (Geneva: Librairie Droz S. A., 1987), pp. 235-254. Musculus also could have
read the commentary of Arnobius the Younger, which was printed in Basel in 1543 with the
title Annotationes ad quaedam evangeliorum loca (PL 53:569-580). The work is actually a col-
lection of scholien on selected pericopes from John, Matthew, and Luke. Since Arnobius does
not comment on John 4:46-54,1 will not utilize his commentary. See Berthold Altaner and
Alfred Stuiber, Patrologie (Freiburg: Herder, 1978), p. 459, and Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte
derAltkirchlichenLiteratur (Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1962), 4:603-606.
58. He explicitly cites Augustine's Tractates 29 times, Chrysostom's Homilies 27 times,
Cyril's Commentary 18 times, and Nonnus's Paraphrase5 times.
59. For example, in his comments on John 1:14 (Comm. I, p. 19), Musculus presents
the interpretations of Cyril and Chrysostom on the phrase "et habitavit in nobis." He pro-
nounces their interpretations valid, saying, "Si cui ista sententia placet, per me licebit earn
amplectatur." But he proceeds to offer his own contrasting interpretation. In his comments
on John 3:8 ("Spiritus ubi vult spirat"), Musculus presents Cyril's and Chrysostom's
understanding of Spiritus as the wind and Augustine's understanding of Spiritus as the Holy
Spirit; Musculus proclaims either interpretation acceptable (Comm. I, p. 78). In his inter-
pretation of John 1:16 (Comm. I, p. 26), Musculus offers the opinions of Augustine,
Chrysostom, Cyril, and "recentiores" on the meaning of the phrase "gratiam pro gratia."
He respectfully rejects all of their interpretations and offers his own. In his comments on
John 1:49 (Comm. I, p. 53), Musculus presents the contrasting interpretations of August-
ine and Chrysostom on Nathanael's confession and sides with Augustine. Similarly, on
John 13:6ff. (Comm. II, pp. 299-300), Musculus prefers Augustine's to Chrysostom's inter-
pretation. But on John 7:28 (Comm. I, pp. 421-422), Musculus agrees with Chrysostom
against Augustine. On the identity of the unknown disciple of John 18:15, Musculus sides
with Chrysostom and Cyril against Augustine (Comm. II, p. 415).
60. Nonnus's paraphrase received new life in the Reformation through Melanchthon,
who used it in his own commentary on John and who arranged for the publication of the
Greek original and a Latin translation. See Wengert, Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes in
Johannen, pp. 64-65. See also Johannes Quasten, Patrology, 3 vols. (Antwerp: Spectrum,
1960), 3:114-116.
61. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (New York: Doubleday,
1966), pp. 194-195.
62. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 150.
63. Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:346.
64. Cyril, Commentary on John, p. 232.
65. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 150.
66. Both the Greek New Testament term and the Vulgate term "regulus"
are ambiguous, meaning "petty king" or "princelet." See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel Accord-
ing to St. John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), p. 247.
67. The synoptic comparison occurs as early as Irenaeus (Adversus omnes haereses II,
22:3). See Brown, Gospel According to John I-XII, pp. 192-193.
68. Augustine (Tractates on John, FC79:102, 105) implies he was a Jew by contrasting
his faith with the faith of the Samaritans, who believed without any miracles, and with the
 198 Notes to Pages 40-45

faith of the "foreign centurion," who believed in the power of Jesus' spoken word. Cyril
(Commentary on John, p. 235) argues that the story indicates "the extreme readiness of the
aliens to obedience."
69. Nonnus, Paraphrasis in Joannem, PG 43:781.
70. Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:347.
71. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 150.
72. Ibid.
73. Augustine, Tractates on John, FC 79:102.
74. Nonnus, Paraphrasis in Joannem, PG43:781:

75. Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:348.

76. Augustine, Tractates on John, FC79:102.
77. Cyril, Commentary on John, p. 233.
78. Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:348-349.
79. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 150.
80. Here Musculus quotes Mt 16:14: "Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah, and
others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
81. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 151: "Nam pro sua bonitate linum fumigans non extinguit."
A reference to Is 42:3: "Et linum fumigans non exstinguet" (Vulg.).
82. Nonnus, Paraphrasis in Joannem, PG 43:784.
83. Augustine, Tractates on John, FC 79:105.
84. Ibid., p. 104.
85. Cyril, Commentary on John, pp. 233-234.
86. Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:347-349.
87. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 151: "Non enim dicit: Nisi videris, sed: nisi videretis signa
& prodigia non creditis."
88. Ibid.
89. Ibid.: "Oremus ergo dominum, ut det nobis simplici & syncero corde verbo &
evangelio regni dei credere, ut nec cum ludaeis signa, nec cum Graecis mundi quaeramus
sapientiam, sed cum electis sensum nostrum in obsequium fidei captivemus, quo Christum
crucifixum dei virtutem & sapientiam solida & indubitata fide appraehendamus."
90. Ibid.
91. Ibid., p. 152.
92. Here Musculus echoes the comments of Chrysostom (Homilies on John, FC33:348),
who argues that the ruler failed to recognize that miracles are intended for the soul, not
the body.
93. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 152: "Quis unquam parens ad dominum venit, qui dixerit:
Domine, filius meus nullo est timore dei praeditus, nullo afficitur pietatis studio, unde
intelligo ilium de animae salute periclitari, succurre quaes?"
94. Ibid.
95. Ibid.: "Poterat dicere: Credisne me etiam absentem posse curare? Quid opus est,
ut tecum descendam? Deinde etiamsi moriatur filius, non credis me posse mortuum vitae
restituere?"
96. Ibid., p. 153.
97. Ibid.
 Notes to Pages 45-49 199

98. Cyril, Commentary on John, p. 234; Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:350.

99. Augustine, Tractates on John, FC 79:104.
100. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 153.
101. Ibid.
102. Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:350.
103. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 153.

CHAPTER T H R E E

1. See, for example, LC (1560), pp. 429, 565.

2. Ibid., pp. 39, 40, 190, 374, 430, 435, 667, 704, 706, 726.
3. Ibid., p. 286. Musculus lists the following disputed questions: "Dum disputant, sit
ne Theologia de Deo, ut de subiecto, ratione infiniti, vel attributali: an Theologia sit scientia,
sub alternata ne, vel in lumine medio, practica vel speculativa, vel affectiva? an in divinis
sit aliqua productio intrinseca, utrum ens dicatur univoce de Deo & creatura, an habeat
proprium conceptum, an sit analogum, an quidditas rei materialis sit primum obiectum
intellectus ex natura potentiae, an oporteat ponere speciem in intellectu, an essentia divina
generet vel generetur, utrum unitas divinarum personarum sit collectiva, an filius sit de
substantia patris quasi de materia, an essentia divina generetur subiective: an productio
filij sit ex voluntate patris, vel ex necessitate, & naturalis: utrum generatio divina sit univoca
vel aequivoca, an in Deo sit compositio ex materia & forma, utrum spiritussanctus
producatur per actum voluntatis, an pater & filius principient uniformiter spiritum sanc-
tum, utrum personae divinae sint aequales secundum magnitudinem, an aequalitas in
divinis sit relatio realis, an Deus potuerit facere mundum meliorem: & innumera alia, de
quibus inter se cententiosissime & acerbe digladiantur."
4. Ibid., p. 198: "An sit incarnatio verbi res possibilis, quid addat persona vel suppositum
supra naturam, an una persona possit incarnari sine alia, quae sit formalis ratio terminandi
incarnationem, utrum tres personae possint assumere eandem naturam numero: an Deus
incarnatus fuisset, si homo non peccasset,... an Deus possit assumere naturam rationalem,
an corpus Christi fuerit subito ac in instanti formatum, utrum B. Virgo operata sit aliquid
active in conceptione filii sui, utrum persona possit assumere personam, an in Christo sint
plura esse, an in Christo sint duae filiationes reales, utrum Christus secundum quod homo
sit, sit persona, an Deus potuerit aliunde assumere hominem quam de genere Adae, &
licuerit ne Deo assumere hominem de sexu foemineo, & quae alia consimilis farinae etiam
de anima Christi disputant."
5. Ibid., p. 198: "Inutilis & curiosa Scholasticorum ac Sophistarum argutiae."
6. Musculus quotes from sermons 33 and 67 of the Super Cantica Canticorum on
pp. 465,356 of the LC (1560), respectively. He quotes from In quadragesima de Psalmo "Qui
habitat" in three places: pp. 383,400,657. There are two citations from both In cena Domini
(pp. 405,445) and In annuntiatione dominica (pp. 335, 355) and one reference to Epistola
77 (p. 445).
7. Musculus, LC (1560), pp. 490, 491, 497, 498, 499, 503, 506, 509-510, 515, 516.
8. I have counted at least twenty citations of Lombard in the LC (1560). Occasionally,
when Musculus cites an opinion of the scholastici, he is actually quoting from Lombard (for
 200 Notes to Pages 50-52

example, see pp. 322,365). Sometimes, however, Musculus distinguishes Lombard from the
opinions of "quidam scholastic!" (see p. 724). For additional citations of Lombard, see
pp. 320, 324, 363, 366,404,405,407,409, 422,431,443, 565-566, 572, 573, 591, 666, 708.
9. In the order listed above, the topics appear in the 1C (1560) on pp. 324, 350, 363,
365, 572, 573, 591, 595.
10. See, for example, Musculus's treatment of the question "An semper sit malum, quod
est novum" on p. 528 of the 1C (1560).
11. Musculus, LC (1560), pp. 565-566.
12. Ibid., p. 324.
13. Musculus, In epistolas apostoli Pauli ad Galatas et Ephesios commentarii (Basel:
Johann Herwagen, 1561), p. 153.
14. Musculus, In Esaiam prophetam commentarii locupletissimi ac recens editi (Basel:
Johann Herwagen, 1557), p. 493: "Contempto historico sensu, recta ad mysteria regni
Christi trahuntur."
15. Ibid.: "Quod illorum studium quamvis haud in se culpandum sit, plurimas tamen
tenebras simplicitati historicae offundit, & valvas aperit Scripturarum sensus pro cuiusvis
ingenii acumine in mille formas transformandi, id quod cordatis hominibus ludus magis
quam recta & sincera Scripturarum expositio esse videtur. Plurimum in eo errant, quod
putant hac ratione Christi servatoris mysteria explicari, regnumque illius illustrari. Sic enim
dum subtiliter omnia transformant, omnem Scripturarum expositionem ... suspectam
reddunt."
16. Musculus, In Davidis Psalterium Sacrosanctum commentarii (Basel: Sebastian Henric-
petri, 1599), p. 166.
17. Ibid.: "Haud enim temere confugiendum est ad allegorias in exponendis Scripturis
. . . nisi evidens cogat necessitas."
18. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 208: "Quando ipsa scripturae verba ultra literae sensum
penitius introspiciuntur, ut sensus spiritus eruatur, id quod in parabolis, allegoriis,
metaphoris & figuris mysticis est faciendum."
19. Ibid.
20. In the preface to his Genesis commentary, In Mosis Genesim plenissimi commentarii,
in quibus veterum & recentiorum sententiae diligenter expenduntur (Basel: Johann Herwagen,
1554), Musculus argues that "the greatest advantage of sacred reading" (potissimum sacrae
lectionis emolumentus) lies in the moral exposition of the biblical text.
21. In his commentaries on Matthew, John, Genesis, and the Psalms, Musculus struc-
tures his comments according to this basic pattern. His Genesis commentary, however,
also adds separate sections entitled "quaestiones" in which he addresses troublesome ques-
tions raised by the text. In his Psalms commentary, Musculus includes sections entitled
"lectio" in which he offers Hebrew, Septuagint, Vulgate, and patristic renderings of selected
lemmata. In his commentaries on 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians, the breaks for
observations are much less frequent, and in his commentaries on Isaiah, Philippians,
Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and 1 Timothy, there are no separate sections of
observations. The moral observations have simply been absorbed into the "explanatio"
sections. Only the Genesis commentary corresponds to the description of Musculus's com-
mentaries given by Basil Hall in The Cambridge History of the Bible III: The West from the
Reformation to the Present Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), p. 91.
 Notes to Pages 52-55 201

22. Musculus, In Esaiam, p. 29: "In cortice illius haerebunt, & ad nuclei suavitatem
pertingere non poterunt."
23. Possible choices include the Glossa Ordinaria and the commentaries of Alcuin,
[pseudo-] Bede, Rupert of Deutz, Theophylact, Hugh of St. Cher, Thomas Aquinas,
Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, Nicholas of Gorran, Euthymius Zigabenus, Nicho-
las of Lyra, Simon (Fidati) of Cascia, Lorenzo Valla, and Denis the Carthusian. See the
appendix "Commentaries on the Gospel of John, 1470-1555," in Timothy Wengert's Philip
Melanchthon's Annotationes in Johannem in Relation to Its Predecessors and Contemporar-
ies (Geneva: Librairie Droz S. A., 1987), pp. 236-254.
24. From 1470 to 1544, Lyra's postils were printed at least thirty-seven times, being trans-
lated into Low German in 1478 and French in 1480. Theophylact's commentary on the
fourth gospel was first published in 1524 in a Latin translation by CEcolampadius. It was
printed a total of fifteen times in the period 1524-1543.
25. I have counted four citations of Lyra in Musculus's commentary (Comm. 1, pp. 375,
380; Comm. II, pp. 142, 461). Five quotations of Theophylact were found (Comm. I,
pp. 368,376,380,422; Comm. II, p. 178). One of Musculus's quotations from Theophylact
is given in Greek (Comm. I, p. 376), indicating that he may have used the Blado edition of
1542. Theophylact repeats much of the exegesis of Chrysostom, a fact that Musculus him-
self recognizes. See Comm. I, p. 422, where Musculus, after citing Chrysostom, remarks:
"Hunc sequitur pro suo more Theophylactus."
26. The commentaries of Thomas and Hugh were both published at least eight times
in the period 1470-1537. Robert E. Lerner has recently argued that Hugh's postils on
the Bible were actually produced by a consortium of exegetes at St. Jacques and that
"Hugh of St. Cher, the great Dominican commentator on Scripture, is a figment of bib-
liographers' imaginations." See "Poverty, Preaching, and Eschatology in the Revelation
Commentaries of 'Hugh of St. Cher,'" in The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in
Memory of Beryl Smalley, ed. Katherine Walsh and Diana Wood (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1985), pp. 157-189.
27. First published in 1532, Denis's commentary was reissued in 1542 and 1543.
28. The only other early medieval John commentaries are those of [pseudo-] Bede and
Alcuin, both of which are heavily dependent on Augustine's Tractates. While Musculus
does not refer explicitly to Rupert's John commentary, he does quote Rupert's Matthew
commentary on p. 318 of his Comm. II. He also refers to an opinion of the Gloss at Comm.
II, p. 142.
29. Rupert of Deutz, Commentaria in Evangelium Sancti lohannis, CCSL 9:300-301,
hereafter cited as Comm. in Evang. lohannis.
30. Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 322r.
31. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 218.
32. Ibid.; Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:301; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem,
fol. 322r; Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 382.
33. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 218; Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 382.
34. Musculus, Comm. I, pp. 218-219; Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 382; Biblia sacra
cum glossis, interlineari et ordinaria, Nicolai Lyranipostilla (Venice, 1588), 5:203b, hereaf-
ter cited as Postilla for Lyra and Glossa for the Glossa ordinaria; Thomas, Commentary on
John, p. 340; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 322r; Theophylact, Enarratio in Evangelion
 202 Notes to Pages 55-59

joannis, PG 123:1284, hereafter cited as Enar. in Evang. Joannis; Chrysostom, Homilies on

John, FC 33:424.
35. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 219: "Certa quadam ac destinata dispensatione sit exequutus."
36. Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:303.
37. Theophylact, Enar. in Evang. Joannis, PG 123:1284; Thomas, Commentary on John,
p. 341. Chrysostom argues that their following of Jesus "was not an indication of a very
stable mental attitude." They should have followed Jesus because of his teaching (Homi-
lies on John, FC 33:424).
38. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 219.
39. Lyra, Postilla, p. 203b.
40. Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 322v; Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 382: "Et
quoniam Dominus lesus etiam secundum corpus speciosus valde et eloquentissimus fuit
.. . verisimile est quod multi sequenbantur eum delectati specie et eloquentia eius."
41. Lyra, Postilla, p. 203b.
42. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 220.
43. Ibid.: "Lupi ululatum intellexerit: & scapulam ovis in mensa loquentem sibi, ne se
ederet, eo quod venenum haberet, audiverit: et quod noctu in coelum ascendent: item quod
orbem Lunae diviserit, & rursus integrant." Musculus is in fact recounting authentic leg-
ends that developed in popular Islam. The disputations with Christians gave impetus to
this tendency to apotheosize the Prophet. See Annemarie Schimmel, Und Muhammed ist
Sein Prophet: Die Verehrung des Propheten in der islamischen Frommigkeit (Diisseldorf:
Eugen Diedrichs, 1981), pp. 51-85.
44. Lyra, Postilla, p. 203b; Theophylact, Enar. in Evang. Joannis, PG 123:1284; Denis,
Enarratio in Joannem, p. 383; Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 341. According to Chryso-
stom, the mountain is a suitable place for solitude and prayer (Homilies on John, FC 33:425).
45. Theophylact, Enar. in Evang. Joannis, PG 123:1284.
46. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 221.
47. Ibid. Chrysostom also argues that when Christ sat with his disciples, it was for a
lofty purpose, "perhaps to explain something to them, or to teach them, or to attract them
to himself" (Homilies on John, FC 33:425).
48. Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 383: "Nam, sicut saepe observavit legalia, ostendendo
se hominem verum factum sub lege; sic interdum praetermisit ea, ostendens se verum
Deum ac legislatorem supra legem."
49. Theophylact, Enar. in Evang. Joannis, PG 123:1284; Thomas, Commentary on John,
p. 342; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 322v. Perhaps these commentators take their cue
from Chrysostom, who claims that Jesus avoided the Passover festival in order to show
that "in future He would be gradually breaking away from the Law, taking occasion from
the perversity of the Jews" (Homilies on John, FC 33:425).
50. Lyra, Postilla, p. 203b.
51. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 222: "Quomodo contra legem dei faciebant, & non magis
hanc adimplebant, qui relicto paschate illo umbratili ac figurali verum pascha Christum
sequebantur?"
52. Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:305; Theophylact, Enar. in Evang. Joannis,
PG 123:1286; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 323r; Thomas, Commentary on John,
p. 343; Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 383.
 Notes to Pages 59-64 203

53. Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:305.

54. Theophylact, Enar. in Evang. Joannis, PG 123:1286; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem,
fol. 323r; Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 343; Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 383. These
commentators are reiterating the basic interpretation of Chrysostom in Homilies on John,
FC 33:426.
55. Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 383.
56. Theophylact, Enar. in Evang. Joannis, PG 123:1286; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem,
fol. 323r; Lyra, Postilla, p. 204a.
57. Musculus, Comm. I, pp. 224-225.
58. Ibid., p. 225.
59. See, for example, Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fols. 323r-323v. The distinction be-
tween Philip and Andrew owes its inspiration to Chrysostom, who argues that Philip "most
needed instruction" and that Andrew "had a more exalted view than Philip" (Homilies on
John, FC 33:426-428).
60. Musculus, Comm. I, pp. 225-226.
61. Ibid., p. 226: "Ne putemus ingentes fuisse hos pisces, quales plerunque in mari
capiuntur."
62. Ibid., p. 227: "Et ob earn causam aedita sunt miracula, ut humana ratio in stuporem
& admirationem adducta divinae virtutis cognitioni ac fidei locum facial."
63. Ibid.: "In credentibus non extinguat, sed inconcussum retineat, illoque hactenus
utatur, ut admirationi operum dei serviat."
64. Theophylaet, Enar. in Evang. Joannis, PG 123:1288; Thomas, Commentary on John,
p. 346; Lyra, Postilla, p. 204a; Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 384.
65. Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 346.
66. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 229.
67. Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 324r; Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC33:429-430.
68. Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 347; Theophylact, Enar. in Evang Joannis, PG
123:1288.
69. Lyra, Postilla, p. 204a.
70. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 233: "Respondeo: Si solam divinam in Christo naturam
inspicias, non invenies, qua ratione Christo convenerit patri gratias agere."
71. Ibid., pp. 233-234.
72. Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 347.
73. Theophylact, Enar. in Evang. Joannis, PG 123:1288. His version reads:

74. Musculus and Erasmus both translate verse 11 as: "Accepit autem panes lesus,
cumque gratias egisset, distribuit discipulis: discipulis vero discumbentibus." See Desiderius
Erasmus, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: The Gospels, ed. Anne Reeve (Lon-
don: Duckworth, 1986), p. 240.
75. Theophylact, Enar. in Evang. Joannis, PG 123:1288; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem,
fol. 324v; Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 347. Chrysostom writes that the excess "was
not an empty display of power, but was intended that the miracle might not be thought an
illusion" (Homilies on John, FC 33:430).
76. Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:309; Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 385.
77. Lyra, Postilla, p. 204a.
 204 Notes to Pages 64-69

78. Theophylact, Enar. in Evang. Joannis, PG 123:1288; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem,
fol. 324v; Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 347; Lyra, Postilla, p. 204a. See also Chrysostom,
Homilies on John, FC 33:431.
79. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 235.
80. Glossa, p. 204a.
81. Lyra, Postilla, p. 204a. Augustine makes the opposite point, arguing that because of
their carnal understanding, they confessed Jesus to be a prophet without realizing that he
was the special prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18 (Tractates on John, FC79:237). Chryso-
stom praises the confession itself but decries the fact that it was prompted by their full bellies
(Homilies on John, FC 33:431^32).
82. Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 324v; Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 349; Denis,
Enarratio in Joannem, p. 385.
83. Thomas, Commentary on John, pp. 348-349.
84. Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, pp. 385-386: "Quamvis vero intellectualis cognitio Christi
fuit perfecta, non proprie prophetalis, tamen secundum notitiam imaginativae potentiae,
habuit convenientiam cum Prophetis, quia in imaginatione animae Christi formari poterant
formae sensibiles, per quas occulta atque futura repraesentabantur animae suae."
85. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 238.
86. Ibid., p. 239: "Diversis respectibus idem Christus & propheta est, & Dominus
prophetarum, & rex, & sacerdos, & pastor, & doctor, & servus, & dominus, & homo, &
Deus, & caro, & verbum, & films Dei 8c apostolus, etc. Non ergo negatur dominus esse
prophetarum, si quando propheta vocatur sicuti non negatur esse films Dei, quando servus
& minister, & apostolus, 8c sacerdos vocatur, neque Deus negatur, quando homo & filius
hominis nominatur. In his appellationibus nemo errabit, nisi qui duas in Christo naturas,
& rationem susceptae dispensationis non intelligit."
87. Ibid., pp. 239-242.
88. Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:312; Thomas, Commentary on John,
p. 349; Lyra, Postilla, p. 204b; Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:432-433.
89. Musculus, Comm. I, pp. 242-243, 245.
90. Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 386.
91. Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 344.
92. Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 384: "Condemnata est ergo deliciositas, gulositas
atque carnalitas nostra." See also Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:428.
93. Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 323v.
94. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 228: "Animos mortalium non satiant ingentes pecuniarum
& opum cumuli."
95. Ibid.: "Stomachus modico cibo, necessario videlicet, assuetus, & facile satiatur &
minus adfert molestiae, luxui vero deditus, 8c multa poscit, nee quiescit, nisi solitam adeptus
abundantiam."
96. Ibid. In his discussion of this via media, Musculus recounts an interesting event that
took place at the Colloquy of Worms (1540), which he attended as a delegate from
Augsburg. A Catholic delegate, Musculus claims, publicly attacked Philip Melanchthon
for neglecting the importance of fasting. Yet this same man (whose name Musculus does
not mention) had only the day before feasted extravagantly and was "red and swollen by
Bacchus" (ruber atque inflatus lacho). Musculus defends Melanchthon as one who exhib-
 Notes to Pages 69-74 205

ited temperance and frugality of life "by his very appearance and by his body, thinned in
a wonderful way" (ipso aspectu, corpore mirum in modum extenuate).
97. See, for example, Hugh's remark that "per hoc vult ostendere, quod qui comestionem
incipiunt, gratias agere Deo oportet" (Postilla super Joannem, fol. 324r). Chrysostom also
remarks that Jesus' prayer teaches "that those who are beginning to partake of food ought
to give thanks to God" (Homilies on John, FC 33:430).
98. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 232: "Ut nee agnitio beneficii sine laude ac benedictione Dei,
nee benedictio dei sine agnitione beneficii, gratiarum actionem constituat."
99. Ibid., pp. 232-233.
100. Ibid., pp. 233-234.
101. Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:309; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol.
324v; Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 385.
102. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 235.
103. Ibid., p. 236: "Quomodo miraculoso isto pastu, quasi in tabella quadam convivium
spiritualis ac coelestis alimoniae depictum sit, quo non corpora sed animae, non temporaria
sed sempiterna pascuntur alimonia."
104. Ibid.
105. Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:310; Theophylact, Enar. in Evang.
Joannis, PG 123:1289; Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 385.
106. Glossa, p. 204a; Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:306-307; Thomas, Com-
mentary on John, pp. 344-345. The equation of the loaves with the five books of Moses
owes its inspiration to Augustine, Tractates on John, FC 79:234.
107. Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 324r.
108. Ibid., fol. 323v.
109. Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, pp. 387-388.
110. Musculus, Comm. 1, p. 236.
111. Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 323v.
112. Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:307: "At illae Scripturae secundum
litteralem sensum non ualde magnae sunt."
113. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 236.
114. Ibid., pp. 236-237: "Negociosos ac tumultuantes animos non saginat haec mensa,
sed discumbentes ac quietos."
115. Glossa, p. 204a; Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:308; Thomas, Commen-
tary on John, p. 346; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 323v; Denis, Enarratio in Joannem,
p. 388. These commentators are following Augustine, who writes that "they were reclin-
ing in the grass; therefore they understood carnally and rested in carnal things. For all flesh
is grass" (Tractates on John, FC 79:236).
116. Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:308; Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 324r.
117. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 237.
118. Ibid.: "Etiam in hoc anagogico sensu ratione non caret, quod dominus panes istos
in manus suas accepit, gratias egit, fregit ac distribuit discipulis, 8c per discipulos turbis.
Hac imagine delineatum est verbi ministerium."
119. Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:308-309.
120. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 237: "Potest sine verbo, & sine ministris abunde instruere
8c pascere mortalium mentes, verum & verbo 8c ministris utitur."
 206 Notes to Pages 74-78

121. Ibid.: "Repudiata ministrandi humilitate, magisterii ac dominii fastigium tanquam

veri antichristi ad se rapiunt."
122. Ibid.: "Nee philosophia, nee lex, famen mentium tollere potuerunt, sed hanc magis
auxerunt, solus vero convivator iste Christus pabulo verbi sui, credentium mentes recreat,
satiat, & pacificat."
123. Ibid.: "Praepostera securitas conscientiae, vel ex impietate, vel ex falsa fiducia
meritorum propriorum vel alienorum, aut ex persuasione misericordiae dei, sine vera
resipiscentia et renovatione mentis."
124. Ibid., pp. 237-238: "Saturis obrepat fastidium coelestis alimoniae, & irreverentia
quaedam erga verbi Christi copiam & abundantiam."
125. Glossa, p. 204a; Theophylact, Enar. in Evang. Joannis, PG123:1289; Denis,Enarratio
in Joannem, p. 385; Augustine, Tractates on John, PC 79:236.
126. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 238: "Ne proteratur contemptim, nee altercandi libidine
discerpatur, sed intactum & illibatum cum reverentia in promptuarium spiritus sancti,
futuris usibus servandum reponatur."
127. Ibid.
128. Ibid., pp. 221-222: "Sedet cum suis dominus, quos ex humili hoc depressoque
mundi huius deserto, ad verae fidei, pietatis, coelestisque conversationis sublimitatem
elegit."
129. Rupert, Comm. in Evang. lohannis, CCSL 9:302-303; Thomas, Commentary on John,
p. 340; Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 386.
130. Thomas, Commentary on John, p. 341.
131. Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 382: "Christus enim propter sanctissimae vitae
excellentiam, propter miraculorum eminentiam, propter contemplationis celsitudinem,
propter caritatis omniumque virtutum incomparabilem sublimitatem, mons appellatur."
132. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 222: "In vanitatibus huius mundi, nee sedent, nee vivunt,
sed in monte regni dei, in quo Christus sedet."
133. Ibid.: "Quae in hac vita orditur, in futura plenitudinem ac perfectionem suam
acquiret, postquam ex hac miseriarum valle, ex omnibus huius vitae molestiis erepti mortis
beneficio, & interventu ad coelestia migraverimus, ubi cum Christo in sempiternum
sedebimus & quiescemus."

CHAPTER FOUR

1. In addition to his quotations of Church Fathers, Musculus quotes Plato, Plutarch,

Pythagoras, Thales of Miletus, Menander, Euripides, Cato, Persius, Cicero, Virgil, Livy,
and Valerius Maximus.
2. It is not my intention here to enter the longstanding debate regarding the nature and
definition of Renaissance humanism. I am using the terms "humanist" and "humanism"
in their broadest sense to designate the movement that developed in Italy in the early four-
teenth century and spread north of the Alps in the fifteenth century. I understand this
movement generally in the way it has been described by Paul Oskar Kristeller as a broad
cultural, literary, and educational movement devoted to a renewed study of classical lit-
erature, the studia humanitatis, and the ideal of eloquence (Renaissance Thought: The Classic,
 Notes to Pages 78-80 207

Scholastic, and Humanist Strains [New York: Harper, 1961], pp. 3-22). By using this broad
definition, I omit in this chapter other sixteenth-century exegetes who qualify as humanists.
Melanchthon, for example, undoubtedly remained committed throughout his life to the
humanist approach to the study of texts that emphasized history, rhetoric, and philology.
However, the content of Melanchthon's commentary on John is shaped primarily by the
Wittenberg theology. Timothy Wengert (Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes injohannem
in Relation to Its Predecessors and Contemporaries [Geneva: Librairie Droz S. A., 1987],
pp. 139-141) has demonstrated that except for certain methodological concerns (i.e., his
use of "loci communes"), Melanchthon's commentary is remarkably free of the influence
of northern humanism. Therefore, I have treated Melanchthon together with other repre-
sentatives of the Wittenberg theology in chapter 6.
3. The Complutensian Greek New Testament was printed in 1514 but was not bound
and published until the editors received a papal license in 1520. The first edition of
Erasmus's work is available in a modern facsimile edition: Novum Instrumentum (Stuttgart-
Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1986).
4. Erasmus's Annotationes on the four gospels are available in a modern facsimile edi-
tion of the 1535 text, collated with all four earlier editions: Anne Reeve, ed., Erasmus' An-
notations on the New Testament: The Gospels (London: Duckworth, 1986). References to
the Annotationes are to Reeve's edition. For studies on the Annotationes, see especially Erika
Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986); Jerry H. Bentley, "Erasmus' Annotationes
in Novum Testamentum and the Textual Criticism of the Gospels," Archiv fur Reforma-
tionsgeschichte67 (1976): 33-53; Albert Rabil, Jr., Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mind
of a Christian Humanist (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1972).
5. For studies on the paraphrases, see Jacques Chomarat, "Grammar and Rhetoric in
the Paraphrases of the Gospels by Erasmus," Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook One
(1981), pp. 30-68; Albert Rabil, Jr., "Erasmus' Paraphrase of the Gospel of John," Church
History 48 (1979): 142-155; Albert Rabil, Jr., "Erasmus" Paraphrases of the New Testament,"
in Essays on the Works of Erasmus, ed. Richard L. DeMolen (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1978), 145-161; Roland H. Bainton, "The Paraphrases of Erasmus," Archiv fur Refor-
mationsgeschichte57 (1966): 67-75; Joseph Coppens, "Les idees reformistes d'Erasme dans
les Prefaces aux Paraphrases du Nouveau Testament," in Scrinium Lovaniense, ed. Etienne
van Cauwenbergh (Louvain: Editions J. Duculot, S. A. Gembloux, 1961), 344-371; Rudolf
Padberg, "Glaubenstheologie und Glaubensverkilndigung bei Erasmus von Rotterdam
dargestellt auf der Grundlage der Paraphrase zum Romerbrief," in Verkundigung und
Glaube: Festgabe fur FranzX. Arnold, ed. T. Filthaut and J. A. Jungmann (Freiburg: Herder,
1958), pp. 58-75; and Hermann Schlingensiepen, "Erasmus als Exeget auf Grund seiner
Schriften zuMatthaus," Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte48 (1929): 16-57.
6. Four significant editions of the Greek New Testament were available to Musculus as
he worked on his commentary: the 1516 and 1527 Erasmus editions, the 1522 Complu-
tensian edition, and the 1534 edition of Colinaeus. T. H. L. Parker, Calvin's New Testa-
ment Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), pp. 93-123, gives a very helpful
analysis of the different editions of the Greek New Testament that were published in the
first half of the sixteenth century.
7. Analyzed on a verse-by-verse basis, Musculus's deviations from the Erasmus trans-
 208 Notes to Pages 80-87

lation average about six verses per chapter. The range is quite high, with only one devia-
tion occurring in chapters 2 and 13 and eighteen deviations occurring in chapter 6.1 have
collated Musculus's text with a 1520 printing of Erasmus's Latin text taken from the 1519
edition—Novum Testamentum totum Erasmo interpraeteper eum castigatis aliquot locis, in
qtlibus operatum incuria, fuerat erratum, adiecta et nova illius praefatione (Antwerp: Michael
Hillenius, 1520)—and with a 1555 printing of Robert Estienne's Vulgate based on his 1540
edition—Biblia (Paris: Conrad Badius, 1555). References to Erasmus's Latin and to the
Vulgate in the analysis that follows will be based on these editions. Greek citations are from
Erasmus's Novum Instrumentum omne(Basel: J. Froben, 1516). In order to avoid a tedious
array of notes, I do not indicate the page numbers of citations from these editions, or from
the biblical citations of Musculus. The reader will easily find these citations ad locum indi-
cated by the reference to chapter and verse.
8. Erasmus confesses his inability to decide on the best Latin equivalent of the Greek
phrase in his notes on John 16:23 in his Annotationes. The expression in nomine meo, he
argues, is precise but inelegant, while nomine meo is elegant but less precise. Sub nomine
meo is also possible, he suggests, but "it does not express exactly the same thing" (non
prorsus idem exprimit). At John 17:11 Erasmus translates as per nomen
tuum. Musculus adopts this rendering in his own translation but argues that in nomine
tuo, as the Vulgate has it, "squares better with the mind of Christ, than that which Erasmus
translates, per nomen tuum" (rectius ad mentem Christi quadrat, quam quod Erasmus vertit,
per nomen tuum).
9. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 288: "Erasmus, magis Latini sermonis structurae consulturus,
quam mentem verborum domini expressurus."
10. Ibid.: "Non animarum tantum, sed & corporum, ut ne corpora quidem electorum,
quamvis morte absorpta & pulveri commissa, imo in pulverem conversa, peritura sint."
11. Ibid.: "Satius est ut simpliciter sicut verba habent, cum vulgata aeditione legamus."
12. Erasmus, Annotationes, on 2 Cor 11, n. 22. This is noted in Rummel, Erasmus'An-
notations on the New Testament, pp. 91-92.
13. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 178: "Nemini praeiudicio, sed quid mihi videatur simpliciter
dico. Quoniam verba Domini non habent jcepiaooTepov, id est abundantius, sed simpliciter
quae dictio abundantiam, copiam, & affluentiam significat: arbitror Dominum
loqui de omnis generis copia & abundantia coelestis gratiae & benedictionis, quam una
cum vita habeant in ipsum credentes, ita ut non vitam modo credentibus in se polliceatur,
sed & veram illam felicitatem & omnium bonorum exuberantiam, quae veram vitam in
regno Dei comitatur, ac si germanice dicat, ich aber bin komen da|3 sie leben und alles ubrig
gnug habend."
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., p. 194.
16. Musculus, Comm. I, pp. 89-90.
17. Ibid., p. 351; cf. ibid., p. 350.
18. C. A. L. Joirrot, "Erasmus' In Principio Erat Sermo: A Controversial Translation,"
Studies in Philology6l (1964): 35-40.
19. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 5: "Erasmi versio quae habet, Hie erat in principio apud
deum. Amphibola est, ut & de deo & de verbo eius exponi possit demonstratio, hie, & tarn
intelligi quod deus in principio fuerit apud deum, quam sermo. Monui autem supra non
 Notes to Pages 87-91 209

absque singular! cautione Evangelistam non dicere, & deus erat apud deum: sed & verbum
erat apud deum. Proinde malo iuxta veterem versionem legere. In principle erat verbum."
20. See, for example, John 4:27,5:45,8:23. In each of these places, Musculus rejects the
translation of Erasmus for another rendering given in the Annotationes.
21. See, for example, his comments on John 14:1, 14:2, 21:22.
22. See, for example, his argument concerning the meaning of the verb oc6£ea9ca at John
10:9. Erasmus does not gloss the word in the Annotationes. Yet in Erasmian fashion, Musculus
offers a lengthy explanation of the word's meaning, supported by a quotation from Virgil.
23. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 10: "Illud annotavit Erasmus, quod Graeca dictio dvaudpTnto^
non eum notet qui nihil peccarit, sed eum qui ne possit quidem peccare."
24. This would indicate that Musculus is using the 1535 edition of the Annotationes since
Erasmus's definition does not occur in any of the earlier editions.
25. Musculus, Comm. I, pp. 21-22: "Duriusculum quidem est, quod non dicit plenem,
ut ad gloriam, vel pleni, ut ad unigenitum referatur, sed plenum: quasi haec omnia, et
vidimus gloriam eius gloriam tanquam unigeniti a patre, veluit parenthesis vice inserta
sint, ut baud immerito Erasmus haec verba ad ea, quae de loanne sequuntur pertinere
suspicetur. Verum sequamur receptam lectionem, ut non de loanne, sed de Christo
Evangelistam hie loqui intelligamus."
26. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 50: "Illud quod Erasmus reddidit, in primis,
nihil aliud significat, quam vel praecipue, vel ante omnia, vel in summa.... Arbitror itaque
Evangelistam hunc sensum verborum Domini hac formula exprimere voluisse ... id est,
hoc sum ante omnia & in summa quod vobis iam toties esse me dico. Si quis alia desiderat,
legat Erasmum."
27. Ibid.: "Loquutus est Dominus dubio procul non Graece, sed vel Ebraice, vel Syriace,
ut verisimile sit ilium dixisse vel quod non solum in principio, ut ad
ordinem & seriem rerum sit respiciendum, sed & in summa, & caput, significat." The sus-
picion that Jesus spoke Syriac was common in the sixteenth century. Erasmus himself, in
the preface to his Pamphrasis in loannem, suggests that Hebrew or Syriac was Jesus' spo-
ken tongue.
28. See, for example, his comments on John 1:17 (Comm. I, pp. 27-28), 2:11 (ibid.,
pp. 62-63); 6:50 (ibid., p. 304); 9:37 (Comm. II, p. 263); 15:9 (ibid., p. 350); 15:25 (ibid.,
p. 360), 20:1 (ibid., p. 443).
29. Erasmus farmed out the Hebrew studies of the Annotationes to his editorial assis-
tant, Johannes QEcolampadius.
30. Bethany is in fact the reading of most manuscripts. Erasmus, however, follows the
lead of Origen, who was unable to find a Bethany beyond the Jordan in his travels in Pal-
estine. See C. C. Tarelli, "Erasmus" Manuscripts of the Gospels," Journal of Theological
Studies 44 (1943): 157.
31. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 37: "Vetus translatio mendose habet Bethaniam. Quanquam
iam corrigi coepit, etiam ab illis qui Erasmicam respuunt."
32. Ibid.: "Vicio impressoris, qui pro Bethabara mendosa metathesi reddidit Bethbaara."
33. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 283: "Formatus est hie sermo prophetae in praeterito, more
Hebraeae linguae, leg! tamen potest in future sic, Quis credet auditiui, id est, sermoni
nostro? & brachium Domini cui revelabitur? Loquutus est enim propheta eo capite de
passione ac morte Christi."
 210 Notes to Pages 91-95

34. Ibid.: "Si puncta abijcias in Hebraeo, perinde legere poteris, Quis credet auditui
eius, Christi videlicet: atque, Quis credet auditui nostro. Etenim articulusl] non modo nos,
& nostrum, sed & eum, & eius significat: ut illud aeque, si dages sit in litera, Num,
auditiui eius, atque auditui nostro, legi queat."
35. Ibid.: "Certe lectio pulcherrime proposito Evangelistae quadraret."
36. Ibid., p. 284. Cf. Musculus, In Esaiam Prophetam Commentarii (Basel: J. Herwagen,
1557), p. 719.
37. Musculus, Comm. 1, p. 373: "Chrysostomus omnino non legit id
est, non enim volebat, sed id est,
non enim habebat potestam circueundi in Galilaea. Sed hac de re vide annot. Erasmi."
38. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 325: "Quam possint quadrifariam legi, annotatum est ab
Erasmo."
39. Musculus uses language very similar to Erasmus's in describing the disagreement
between the two Fathers. This similarity of language and the fact that Musculus in numer-
ous places explicitly cites the Annotationes strongly suggests his reliance on Erasmus at this
place. We also find Musculus repeating Erasmus's summaries of patristic opinion at John
1:16,3:8.
40. John B. Payne, Albert Rabil, and Warren S. Smith, "The Paraphrases of Erasmus:
Origen and Character," in Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 42: New Testament Scholarship:
Paraphrases on Romans and Galatians, ed. Robert D. Sider (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1984), pp. xv-xvi.
41. In The Correspondence of Erasmus, vol. 9: Letters 1252 to 1355, trans. R. A. B. Mynors
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), p. 243, no. 1333, "To Archduke Ferdinand."
42. Musculus also frequently offers German paraphrases introduced by the formula "et
nos Germani dicimus" (and we Germans say).
43. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 288 (Jn 6:39); Comm. II, p. 444 (Jn 19:35).
44. Faber, Commentarii initiatorii in quatuorEvangelia (Basel: AndreasCratander, 1523),
fol. 324r, hereafter cited as Comm. init.; Musculus, Comm. I, p. 421. Timothy Wengert,
Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes in Johannem, p. 135, argues that the interpretation of
John 7:28 as an ironical statement originates with Faber's commentary.
45. Melanchthon, Annotationes in loannem, CR 14:1113: "Non puto ironiam esse sed
simplicem sententiam."
46. Bucer, Enarratio in lohannem, p. 300: "Respondit eis per ironiam qua significabat
eos falli, neque id scire quod iactabant."
47. Erasmus, Paraphrasis in Evangelium secundum loannem, ad illustrissimum principem
Ferdinandum, per autorem recognita (Basel: J. Froben, 1534), pp. 137-138, hereafter cited as
Paraphrasis. Chrysostom argues that night had overtaken the disciples when they set out across
the lake. The Evangelist purposefully relates the time to indicate the disciples' willingness to
risk the dangers of a nighttime passage on the lake (Homilies on John, FC 33:436).
48. Faber, Comm. init., fols. 313v-314r: "Nam indefinitum nonnunquam etiam pro
praeterito imperfecto capi solet, maxime ubi materia id exigit, quod hie esse videtur."
49. Erasmus defends this translation in the Annotationes, p. 240.
50. Musculus, Comm. I, pp. 247-248: "Si vespera iam turn fuit, antequam de pascendis
istis turbas consultaretur, quomodo hie noster discipulos ubi vespera facta esset navim
abituros conscendisse dicit? Nam omnino aliquot horas pascendas turbis insumptas fuisse
 Notes to Pages 95-98 211

credendum est." Chrysostom avoids these difficulties by arguing that the synoptic account
relates a different miracle than the one related in John (Homilies on John, PC 33:437-438).
Hugh of St. Cher repeats Chrysostom's argument but notes additionally that "tamen
communiter dicitur ab aliis, quod idem fuit miraculum hie & ibi, sed quod ibi narratum
est, non oportuit Evangelistam hie omnino totum ponere" (Postilla super Joannem, foil. 326r).
Thomas Aquinas also notes Chrysostom's argument but argues for the "better opinion" that
sees John and Matthew as describing the same miracle (Commentary on John, p. 353).
51. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 248: "Est autem vespera non unius tantum horae spacium,
sed complectitur in se vulgariter omne illud tempus, quod a tertia promeridiana est ad
noctis usque tenebras" (reading pomeridiana for promeridiana).
52. Erasmus, Paraphrasis, p. 137.
53. Faber, Comm. init., fol. 314r: "Nam id verisimile non est, quod fuerint Capharnaum,
& deinde redierint ad mare, remigantes iterum unde venerant. Nam si trans fretum fuissent,
illic expectassent dominum."
54. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 248: "Si diligenter expendas nihil erit hie discrepantiae."
55. Thomas argues similarly (Commentary on John, p. 353) that Capernaum and
Gennesaret are neighboring towns on the same side of the lake. The disciples landed some-
where in the vicinity of both towns, and therefore Matthew mentions Gennesaret, while
John mentions Capernaum.
56. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 248: "Forsan commodior esset iliac transitus, vel quod aliud
quid, nobis incognitum, hoc mandate, intenderit."
57. Faber, Comm. init., fol. 314v.
58. Erasmus, Paraphrasis, p. 138: "Ambulantem super indas lacus, perinde quasi solidam
terram calcaret: ut se non terrae solum, sed omnium elementorum dominum declararet."
59. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 252: "Quod super mare dominus idque tempestuosum
ambulavit, declarationem habet divinae illius virtutis ac potentiae, quam inanimata quoque
agnoscere, imo ita vereri coguntur, ut illi etiam contra naturam suam serviant." This point
is practically an exegetical commonplace, rooted in Chrysostom, who argues that Jesus
wanted to show that he controlled the storm (Homilies on John, FC 33:437).
60. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 252: "Quid aliud hoc exemplo venti ac mare proclamant,
quam Christum hunc filium esse dei ac conditorem suum?"
61. Ibid.: "Habet homo quoque in homines imperium, mari vero ac ventis nemo
mortalium, utut potens imperabit, nisi unus hie omnium rex & dominus. Quanto ergo
facilius est Christo imperare mortalibus, quos venti ac mare saepenumero subvertunt ac
perdunt, cum ipsis istis indomitis elementis, mortalium domitoribus, tanta facilitate fre-
num imponat, illisque pro arbitrio suo, contra ipsorum quoque naturam, utatur?"
62. Erasmus, Paraphrasis, p. 139: "His argumentis miraculum hoc diligenter infixum est
animis discipulorum, quorum credulitas omnibus modis erat formanda, confirmandaque."
63. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 249. Musculus's comments here seem indebted to Chrysos-
tom, who mentions various causes for the disciples' fear—namely, the darkness, the rising
sea, their distance from shore, and the unexpected appearance of Jesus (Homilies on John,
FC 33:437). These four reasons are repeated in Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 325v.
64. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 247: "Quid igitur domino faciendum erat aliud, quam ut
singulari & efficaci miraculo hanc cordium eorum obcaecationem excuteret, & virtutis suae
sensum inderet?"
 212 Notes to Pages 98-103

65. Ibid., p. 257: "Credebant eum esse Messiah, in prophetis promissum, & filium
Davidis, sperabantque brevi regnum Israelis occupaturum. Hac ilium fide sequebantur,
esse filium Dei, ne somniabant quidem. .. . Ergo hoc egit isto miraculo Christus, nee egit
solum, sed & effecit, ut discipuli in fide erga se crescerent, seque vere Dei esse filium,
ventorum, maris, & totius universi Dominum cognoscerent."
66. Faber, Comm. init., fol. 314v.
67. Erasmus, Paraphrasis, p. 140.
68. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 257: "Inventumque quando illuc venisset, interrogarunt, qua
certe interrogatione miraculi suspicionem quam ex praemissis conjecturis conceperant,
significarunt." Musculus here follows a great number of commentators, including Augus-
tine (Tractates on John, FC 79:246), Chrysostom (Homilies on John, FC 33:439), Hugh
(Postilla super Joannem, fol. 326r), and Thomas (Commentary on John, p. 354), all of whom
suggest that the multitude had some suspicion that Jesus had miraculously walked across
the lake.
69. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 259: "Malebat, quod & se decebat, & saluti istorum hominum
necessarium magis erat respondendo facere, quam & suae gloriae, & illorum curiositati
servire."
70. Erasmus, Paraphrasis, p. 140.
71. Faber, Comm. init., fol. 314v.
72. Ibid.: "Et ita seipsos respiciebant, & propter seipsos omnia faciebant."
73. Erasmus, Paraphrasis, pp. 140-141: "Caeterum affectum multitudinis, non solum
inconstantem, sed etiam crassum minimeque dignum Evangelica doctrina, corrigit
objurgatione severa, quod quum maiora vidissent miracula, divinam virtutem arguentia,
tamen magis illos commoverit saturitas unius convivii, quam aeternae salutis desiderium."
74. Ibid., p. 141: "Fingit ac format ingenium rude, quibusdam elementis donee ad
exactam artis cognitionem provexerit, ut iam rudimentis illis non sit opus."
75. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 259.
76. Ibid., pp. 249-250.
77. Ibid., p. 249: "Ut enim solis praesentia diem, absentia noctem, ita praes tia Christi,
qui vera lux est, cordium illuminationem, absentia vero obscurationem inducit." For
Augustine, the darkness represents the increase in sinfulness and brotherly hatred as the
end of the world approaches (Tractates on John, FC 79:243), a theme repeated by Thomas,
who suggests that darkness mystically signifies the absence of love (Commentary on John,
p. 351). Hugh gives an extended discussion of how the darkness and the storm represent
various spiritual dangers (Postilla super Joannem, fols. 325r-325v).
78. Erasmus, Paraphrasis, p. 138: "Habet autem etiam in tenebris oculos Evangelica
charitas: & ibi nox non est, ubi adest lesus: nee tempestas illic exitialis est, ubi in propinquo
est is qui serenat omnia."
79. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 250.
80. Ibid., pp. 250-251: "Ad hunc plane modum comparati sunt tyranni huius mundi,
contra doctrinam Christi saevientes. Captivi sunt Satanae, flatibus & impulsibus ipsius
obnoxii. Suapte sponte nee excitantur ad saevitiam, nee demittuntur ad placiditatem ...
nee suum, sed Satanae negocium agunt."
81. Ibid., p. 251: "Quoties igitur sive in nobis sive in aliis, animi motus tumentes ac
saevientes, velut elatos ac ferocientes excitati maris fluctus, viderimus, agnoscamus ventum
 Notes to Pages 103-109 213

hunc adversarium, placiditatem & humilitatem animorum impulsu suo turbantem,

excitantem, extollentem, & ad ferociam abripientem, oremusque dominum, qui & maris
& cordium motus reprimere potest, ut ipse adversario hoc vento represso, sedataque
tempestate, tranquillitatem & submissionem animorum restituat." Thomas writes that
when Christ is present with the faithful, they suppress the swelling pride of the world and
tread upon the waves of tribulation (Commentary on John, p. 353).
82. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 248: "Sola obedientia pios & fideles animos in eo conservat
. . . etiam turn, cum plane consiliorum dei sunt ignari."
83. Ibid., p. 254: "Spectrum enim nihil est aliud, quam illusio, & falsa apparitio, unde
& <])dvTao|j.a Graecis dicitur."
84. Ibid.: "Corporis aegritudo, terrenarum rerum penuria, contemptus in mundo, &
mors ipsa, non sunt vere mala, sed malorum phantasmata. Qui per haec terrentur inanibus
spectris terrentur. Rursus sanitas corporis, opes, gloria, vita diuturna, & caet. non sunt vera
bona, sed bonorum spectra. Qui his delectatur, spectris delectatur."
85. Ibid., p. 251.
86. Ibid., p. 252. Thomas writes similarly that the Lord does not immediately rescue
the faithful from their troubles but allows them to struggle for a while in order to test their
virtue (Commentary on John, p. 352).
87. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 251: "Non solum scire Christum, & videre tentationes nostras
... conservare ne pereamus, sed etiam opportuno tempore summa cum consolatione &
gratia accurrere, & laborantes liberare."
88. Ibid., p. 253.
89. Erasmus, Paraphrasis, p. 139.
90. Augustine argues that the boat prefigures the Church of Christ (Tractates on John,
PC 79:242), and this interpretation is repeated throughout the medieval exegetical tradition.
91. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 258: "Una est igitur Christi navicula, una est item vera illius
ecclesia. Quae ilia? In qua videlicet Christus cum suis vehitur, in qua sunt qui verbo Christi
obsequuntur, & ad iussum illius navigant, in qua Christus verus dei filius agnoscitur, 8c
adoratur. Quae Christo, verbo & apostolis caret, in qua Christus nee cognoscitur rite, nee ut
par est adoratur, ecclesiae Christi nomine non censeri, sed inter mercenarias deputari debet."
92. Ibid.: "Videmus hie imaginem carnalium Christianorum, quibus princeps huius
mundi nihil negocii facessit." For Thomas, the boats of the multitude represent various sects
of heretics who are separated from the true Church of Christ (Commentary on John, p. 355).
93. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 260: "Probet ergo se quisque, quo animo, quove fine verbum
& evangelion Christi audiat."
94. Faber, Comm. init., fols. 314v-315r. Faber echoes Augustine' s remark that Jesus
must be sought for his own sake, not for the sake of something else (Tractates on John, FC
79:247).

CHAPTER FIVE

1. Evangelia cum commentaries (Venice: L. A. luntae, 1530). My discussion of Cajetan

is based upon the following works: J. F. Groner, Kardinal Cajetan: Eine Gestalt aus der
Reformationszeit (Freiburg: Societe Philosophique, 1951); Thomas Aquinas Collins, "Car-
 214 Notes to Pages 109-110

dinal Cajetan's Fundamental Biblical Principles," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955): 363-
378; Theologische Realenzyklopadie VII, ed. Gerhard Krause and Gerhard Miiller (Berlin:
Walther de Gruyter, 1981),pp. 538-546; Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Regis-
ter of the Renaissance and Reformation, ed. Peter G. Bietenholz (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1985), 1:239-242.
2. Cajetan's indebtedness to the humanists is seen in three main areas. First, he argued
for exegesis based upon the original Greek and Hebrew. Although he lacked the necessary
skills for independent linguistic analysis, Cajetan compensated for his deficiencies by
employing assistants to help him understand the meaning of the original languages. Sec-
ond, Cajetan purposefully limited himself to a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible.
While he did not assert that the spiritual levels of meaning were entirely invalid, he be-
lieved that misguided interpretations of the Bible had often been introduced under the
guise of spiritual exegesis. Third, Cajetan published opinions that were rooted in the tex-
tual and canon criticism of the humanists. Thus, he doubted the authenticity of passages
lacking a strong textual witness (Mk 16:9ff., Jn 8:1-11), and he expressed suspicion con-
cerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 John, and Jude. Cajetan also argued that
the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament should be placed on a level of second-
ary authority.
3. The controversy is treated in Josef Schweizer, Ambrosius Catharinus Politus (1484-
1553) ein Theologe des Reformationszeitalters (Munster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen
Buchhandlung, 1910), pp. 43-63; Thomas Aquinas Collins, "The Cajetan Controversy,"
American Ecclesiastical Review 128 (1953): 90-100; Ulrich Horst, "Der Streit um die hi.
Schrift zwischen Kardinal Cajetan und Ambrosius Catharinus " in Wahrheit und Verkun-
digungl, ed. Leo Scheffczyk et al. (Munich: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1967), pp. 551-557.
4. Because of the controversy surrounding Cajetan, Luther ironically remarked around
1532 that "Cajetan has finally become a Lutheran" (Cajetanus postremo factus est Lutheranus)
(D. Martin Luthers Werke: Tischreden [Weimar: Hermann BohlausNachfolger, 1912-1921],
2.2668).
5. In quatuor Evangelia expositiones luculentae et disquisitiones et disputationes contra
haereticos plurimae, praemisso serie literarum indice, et additis ad finem operis quatuor
quaestionibus non impertinentibus (Paris: Josse Bade, 1529), hereafter cited as In Evang.
exposit. The work was never reprinted.
6. The sources for this discussion of Major are John Major, A History of Greater Brit-
ain, trans. Archibald Constable, with a biography of Major by Aeneas J. G. Mackay
(Edinburgh: Scottish History Society, 1892); John Durkan and James Kirk, The University
of Glasgow (Glasgow: University of Glasgow Press, 1977), of which chap. 9 is a sketch of
Major's life with a review of modern scholarship on Major; and James K. Farge, Biographical
Register of Paris Doctors of Theology, 1500-1536 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval
Studies, 1980).
7. For a bibliography of Major's writings, see Farge, Biographical Register, pp. 308-311,
and John Durkan, "The School of John Major: Bibliography," Innes Review 1 (1950):
140-146.
8. Alexander Broadie, The Circle of John Mair: Logic and Logicians in Pre-Reformation
Scotland (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985).
9. Scholars have speculated concerning the students Major may have influenced dur-
 Notes to Pages 110-111 215

ing his second tenure in Paris, such as John Calvin, Ignatius Loyola, Reginald Pole, Francois
Rabelais, and George Buchanan. Thomas F. Torrance, The Hermeneutics of John Calvin
(Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988), pp. 80-95, is the most recent attempt to prove
a direct influence of Major upon Calvin's thought.
10. To what extent Major maybe termed a nominalist is a subject of speculation. Some
scholars call him a Scotist, others an Ockhamist. But a definitive study on Major's thought
has yet to be written.
11. Francis Oakley, "Almain and Major: Conciliar Theory on the Eve of the Reforma-
tion," American Historical Review 70 (1965): 673-690; Francis Oakley, "From Constance
to 1688: The Political Thought of John Major and George Buchanan," Journal of British
Studiesl (1962): 12-19.
12. Arguing for the permissibility of marital sexual pleasure, Major wrote: "Neither rea-
son nor the Bible show me to be in error, and consequently even though the doctors and
the saints may be opposed to this opinion, they are wrong on this point." Quoted in Farge,
Biographical Register, p. 307. See also Louis Vereecke, "Mariage et sexualite au d£clin du
moyen-age," Supplement 56, no. 14 (1961): 119-225.
13. The French humanist Francois Rabelais wrote ironically in his Pantagruel (chap.
7) that Major authored a treatise entitled De modo fadendi boudinos (How to make pud-
dings). Farge, Biographical Register, p. 306.
14. In quatuorEvangelia enarrationum, nuncprimum ex ipso archetype excerptarum, opus
praedarum, in duaspartes divisum (Cologne: P. Quentel, 1539), hereafter cited as In Evang.
enar. Quentel published two different editions of the work: a deluxe single-volume folio
printing and a more affordable two-volume octavo printing.
15. The debate is summarized in Benjamin De Troeyer, Bio-bibliographia Franciscana
Neerlandica Saeculi XVI, 2 vols. (Nieuwkoop: B. De Graaf, 1969-1970), 1:107-117. This
remains by far the best and most recent study of Broickwy's life and work. It is the basic
source for the discussion that follows. But see also Wolfgang Schmitz, Het Aandeel der
Minderbroeders in Onze Middeleeuwse Literatur: Inleidung tot een Bibliografie der Nederlandse
Franciscanen (Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1936), pp. 96-97.
16. De Troeyer includes him in his survey of Dutch authors because he spent his last
years in Nijmegen.
17. Concordantiae breviores rerum optimarum, magisque memorabilium ex sacris bibliorum
libris diligenter collectae et in ordinem redactae alphabeticum (Cologne: P. Quentel, 1529).
For a complete bibliography of Broickwy with all printings noted, see De Troeyer, Bio-
bibliographia, 2:32-52.
18. In addition to his commentary on the gospels, Broickwy also published a commen-
tary on Romans and on the Passion according to the four gospels.
19. Elucidatio paraphrastica in sanctum Christi Evangelium secundum loannem, cum
annotationibus in aliquot capita (Antwerp: Simon Coquus, 1543), hereafter cited as Elucid.
paraphr. in loannem. The commentary was issued again in 1556 and was printed with his
Matthew commentary in seven printings from 1545 to 1556.
20. In addition to his paraphrastic commentary on John, he wrote commentaries on
the apostolic epistles (1528), Psalms (1530), Ecclesiastes (1536), Matthew (1545), Job
(1547), and the Song of Songs (1547).Titelmans also authored a work on Romans (1529),
which is not strictly speaking a commentary but a polemical treatise directed against hu-
 216 Notes to Pages 112-113

manist exegesis on the epistle. In similar fashion, Titelmans wrote a treatise on the Apoca-
lypse in which he attempts to defend its authority and apostolic authorship against the
doubts expressed by Erasmus. Titelmans's philosophical works were very popular in the
sixteenth century. His Libri duodedm de consideratione rerum naturalium (1530) went
through thirty-six printings in the sixteenth century alone. His book on Aristotle's logic
(1533) was printed thirty-eight times. Among his theological works are an exposition of
the Mass, a study on the Trinity, and a Summa of Christian mysteries. At least 197 dif-
ferent sixteenth-century editions are known of his works. By 1557 several of his books
had found their way as far as the Jesuit mission in Japan (F. Verwilghen, "De werken
van Frans Titelmans O.F.M. in Japan [1556])," Frantiscana 16 [1961]: 113-119). For a
complete bibliography of Titelmans, see De Troeyer, Bio-Bibliographia, 2:278-365. The
discussion that follows is based largely on ibid., 1:87-100, and Jerry H. Bentley, "New
Testament Scholarship at Louvain in the Early Sixteenth Century," Studies in Medieval
and Renaissance History, n.s., ed. J. A. S. Evans (Vancouver: University of British Co-
lumbia, 1979), 2:53-79.
21. Antwerp: Willem Vorsterman, 1529. In the preface to the work, Titelmans de-
nounces the textual emendations of the humanists, whose biblical scholarship serves to
weaken the Catholic response to the errors of Protestantism. See Erika Rummel, Erasmus
and His Catholic Critics II (1523-1536) (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1989), p. 17.
22. John Major, In Evang. exposit., dedicatory letter to James Beaton: "Quocirca Theophilacti
Bulgarorum episcopi evangeliorum explanationes, ubi ab orthodoxorum sententia aberrarre
visae sunt, refellimus. Witclevistarum item & Hussitarum & eorum sequacium Lutheranorum
pestiferas zizanias e bono dominici agri semine, quantum potuimus, evellimus."
23. See, for example, ibid., fols. 247r-247v, where Major rejects the views of "neoterici"
who prefer "Bethabara" to "Bethany" at John 1:28. He rejects this modern reading because
"receptissimus usus ecclesiae Bethaniam habet." See also ibid., fols. 312r-312v. However,
on fols. 284r-284v, Major repeats without acknowledgment a view of Erasmus concern-
ing John 7:38. This is the only place I have found where Major makes positive use of
Erasmus's Annotationes. Therefore, I would concur with the judgment expressed by Tho-
mas F. Torrance in The Hermeneutics of John Calvin (pp. 94-95) that "Major shows evi-
dence of having studied it [humanist scholarship], but shows little evidence of having al-
lowed it to influence his interpretation of the Gospels."
24. Major, In Evang. exposit., fols. 274r-279v, 321v-323r, 337r-339v.
25. For example, ibid., fol. 256r: "Non impertinenter haeres, an infidelis, actus moraliter
bonos elicere queat." The status of good works done in and outside a state of grace is a
standard area of discussion in scholastic theology. The scholastic formal of Major's com-
mentaries has led to a rather harsh judgment by the modern scholar Alexandre Ganoczy.
He dismisses Major's commentary on Matthew as a worthless attempt at exegesis: "I must
say that the book is more a collection of scholastic speculations in reference to passages
from Matthew than a clearly exegetical work. . . . The reader who seeks primarily to
understand the biblical text itself will not find it discussed." The Young Calvin, trans. David
Foxgrover and Wade Provo (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), p. 176. Ganoczy's charac-
terization of Major's Matthew commentary is, I suspect, unfair; it certainly does not re-
flect Major's work on John.
26. At various points, Major praises Aristotelian teaching as harmonious with Chris-
tian doctrine. He concedes that Aristotle was mistaken regarding the eternity of the world,
 Notes to Pages 113-118 217

but this error, Major argues, does not detract from the overall usefulness of his philoso-
phy. For example, see Major, In Evang. exposit, fol. 294v: "Plus philosopho attribuendum
quam mille nugis plutarchi & caeterorum gentilium in philosophia minus educatorum.
Quare non miror si nostri prisci theologi Aristotelicam doctrinam sunt amplexi. Con-
sonantissime enim ad veritatem docet."
27. Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fols. 202r-202v, 226v, 227v, 228v-229r, 265v-267v, 281r.
28. It is possible, however, to interpret some of his refutations of classical heresies as
synecdochial references to Protestant teachings.
29. Erasmus's name never appears in the commentary, but Broickwy was clearly familiar
with the Annotationes because there are places where he repeats information (sometimes
verbatim) from that source without acknowledgment. The information he borrows from
Erasmus is always rather innocuous, usually dealing with questions of word etymologies
or patristic interpretations. He never makes use of Erasmus regarding textual problems
or the adequacy of the Vulgate. For examples of his borrowings from Erasmus, see In Evang.
enar., fols. 200r, 205r, 206v-207r, 210v, 227v, 239v, 261v.
30. DeTroeyer, Bio-Bibliographia, 1:107.
31. Other favorites of Broickwy include Origen, Jerome, Gregory, Bede, Anselm, Ber-
nard, and Bonaventure.
32. Jean Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic
Culture, trans. Catharine Misrahi (New York: Fordham University Press, 1982), pp. 182-
184.
33. Major, In Evang. exposit., fol. 264r: "Erat lacus quidem quo oves ac pecora lavabantur.
... Exenteratae oves ad sacrificium aptae illic purgabantur."
34. Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol. 220r; Titelmans, Elucid. paraphr. in loannem, fol. 37r.
35. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 154: "Simplicius est, ut intelligamus locum fuisse Hiero-
solymis, ovibus vel conservandis vel vendendis, vel lavandis destinatum, quem pro usu
ipsius vocarint."
36. Major, In Evang. exposit., fol. 264r. Major himself concedes the scholastic nature of
this kind of question: "Haec obiectiuncula sorbonicum cavillum sonat."
37. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 155.
38. Ibid., pp. 155-156.
39. Tertullian and Chrysostom both suggested the baptismal symbolism of the pool;
and in the early Church, the story served as one of the readings for preparing catechumens
for baptism. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (New York: Double-
day, 1966), p. 211; Chrysostom, Homilies on John, FC 33:352.
40. Titelmans, Elucid. paraphr. in loannem, fol. 37v: "Experientia enim antiqua certo
edocti, aquam piscinae hostiarum caeremonialium sanguine permixtam, angelo operante,
ab omni infirmitate intinctos curare, disponebantur ad credendum quod in baptismali
lavacro, per aquam sanguine verae illius hostiae pro totius mundi salute immolandae
commixtam, operante spiritusancto, omnium omnino peccatorum plena conferretur
remissio, & perfecta ipsi animae sanitas redderetur."
41. Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol. 220r. Broickwy here clearly echoes Chrysostom's ex-
egesis (Homilies on John, FC 33:353).
42. Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol 220v. A similar discussion of the various kinds of sins
represented by those who were awaiting healing at the pool is offered by Thomas, Com-
mentary on John, pp. 283-284. See also Hugh, Postilla super Joannem, fol. 312r.
 218 Notes to Pages 118-122

43. Major, In Evang. exposit., fol. 264r. Thomas also lists the differences between bap-
tism and the pool in Commentary on John, p. 285.
44. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 155: "Quis enim ita insanit, ut elementum aquae, quo
corpus tingitur, virtute sua animam quam tangere nequit, purgare ac renovare posse putet?"
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid., p. 156: "Quis enim aegrotus non cupit sanus fieri? Praesertim tarn diuturno
morbo adflictatus?"
47. Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol. 220v; Titelmans, Elucid. paraphr. in loannem, fol. 37v.
48. Musculus echoes here the comments of Augustine, who argues that the miracle was
intended more for the salvation of souls than for the healing of the man's body (Tractates
on John, FC 79:109).
49. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 156: "Libera dispensatione divinae providentiae administrari,
sive id miraculo fiat, sive per artem medicam."
50. Major, In Evang. exposit., fol. 264v; Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol 220r.
51. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 157: "Huiusmodi loquutiones affectum commiserationis
resipiunt, ex intenta & singulari praesentis alicuius miseriae consideratione natum."
52. Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol. 220r.
53. Titelmans, Elucid. paraphr. in loannem, fols. 37v-38r. Chrysostom also lists the
things the paralytic did not do and suggests that he was making a tacit request to be helped
into the water (Homilies on John, FC 33:360).
54. Major In Evang. exposit., fol. 264v.
55. Ibid.: "Quaeritur hie obiter an flagella nobis illata, utpote nephretis, cholica, 8c
caetera id genus, sint pro nostris lapsibus satisfactoria. "
56. Major, In Evang. exposit., fols. 264v-265r. Thomas also argues that by his patience
the paralytic made himself worthy of being cured (Commentary on John, p. 286). Cf. Tho-
mas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, 95, 4 ad 2: "Quod sit satisfactoria pro peccto."
57. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 157.
58. Ibid.: "Certa & conspicua verae & indubitate sanitatis illi praecipit indicia, quae ad
divinae virtutis illustrationem in omnium erat oculis factura."
59. Major, In Evang. exposit., fol. 264v; Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol. 220r; Titelmans,
Elucid. paraphr. in loannem, fol. 38r.
60. Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol. 220v. My translation of his quotations is based on
his own wording, which reflects the Vulgate. Medieval commentators frequently inter-
pret the commands in this way. Thomas, for example, interprets the three commands
as the three stages in the justification of the sinner—namely, repentance, satisfaction,
and progress in virtue (Commentary on John, p. 288). See also Hugh, Postilla super Joan-
nem, fol. 313v.
61. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 158: "Ubi per spiritum Christi mentibus nostris dicitur: dilige
Deum, diligemus Deum, dilige proximum, diligemus proximum, time dominum, timebimus
dominum."
62. Ibid.: "Si curati sumus a morbo interioris hominis per virtutem et spiritum Christi,
non competit nobis, ut impossibilia nobis per verbum Christi praecipi dicamus. Neque
hie aegrotus dicebat: praecipis mihi quae praestare nequeo, sed confestim virtute verbi
Christi senatus surrexit, grabatum abstulit, & ambulavit, hoc est, verbo Christi obedivit
eaque praestitit, quae ut sanorum tantum sunt, ita impossibilia paralyticis."
 Notes to Pages 122-129 219

63. Ibid.: "Donee in hac corruptione & peccati servitute detinemur, impossibilia nobis
sunt quae divinitus praecipiuntur."
64. Ibid., p. 159: "Non satis est a peccatis per poenitentiam surgere, & corpus circumferre
rego peccati non amplius serviliter obnoxium, sed exigitur etiam, ut ambulemus, hoc est,
ut iter ad coelestem patriam per studium verae pietatis solida fide & dilectione instituamus."
65. Ibid., pp. 159-160.
66. Ibid., p. 160: "Imaginem habet humani generis, in peccati servitute detenti, & opus
Christi... imaginem redemptionis humanae expressit."
67. Ibid.
68. Major, In Evang, exposit., fol. 265r; Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol. 220v; Titelmans,
Elucid. paraphr. in Ioannem, fol. 38r.
69. Augustine makes the same point (Tractates on John, FC 79:118).
70. Musculus, Comm. I, pp. 160-161.
71. Titelmans, Elucid. paraphr. in loannem, fols. 38r-38v; Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fols.
220v-221r; Major, In Evang. exposit., fol. 265r.
72. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 161: "Qui me sanum fecit, imo qui me sanguine suo redemit,
is mihi quod facio, praecepit."
73. Titelmans, Elucid. paraphr. in loannem, fol. 38v; Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol. 221r;
Major, In Evang. exposit., fol. 265r; Musculus, Comm. I, p. 162. In addition to these two
explanations, Broickwy and Titelmans each offer a third reason for Jesus' departure: Jesus
left the scene because he did not want to prejudice the testimony of the healed man. Since
Jesus was absent, no one could suspect that the man was simply trying to please Jesus by
his testimony. This third explanation is one of the reasons offered by Chrysostom for Jesus'
disappearance (Homilies on John, FC 33:364).
74. The Vulgate reads: "Ecce sanus factus es; iam noli peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid
contingat."
75. Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol. 22 1r; Musculus, Comm. I, p. 263.
76. Titelmans, Elucid. paraphr. in Ioannem, fol. 39r.
77. Much of their discussion follows the general course of Chrysostom's exegesis, which
distinguishes various causes for human sickness (Homilies on John, FC 33:293-294).
78. Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol. 221r.
79. Major, In Evang. exposit., fol. 265v: "Secundo orthodoxam fidem non recipientes
interdum temperanter vitam degunt minus fraudant proximum quam multi nos-
tratium."
80. In his discussion of the relationship between sin and suffering, Chrysostom also
argues that some sicknesses arise as a natural consequence of gluttony, drunkenness, and
sloth (Homilies on John, FC 33:369).
81. Major, In Evang. exposit., fol. 265r.
82. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 263.
83. Ibid., p. 264: "Neque enim credibile est, ob leve aliquod delictum, tarn gravem ac
diuturnum illi morbum fuisse divinitus inflictum."
84. Broickwy, In Evang. enar., fol. 221r; Major, In Evang. exposit., fol. 265v; Titlemans,
Elucid. paraphr. in Ioannem, fol. 39r.
85. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 164: "Nunquam procliviores sumus ad peccandum, quam
dum sani & extra adflictionem sumus."
 220 Notes to Pages 132-137

CHAPTER SIX

1. The only exception I have found to this is a single cit on of Osiander's Harmoniae
Evangelicae (Comm. II, p. 323).
2. Musculus, Comm. I, "Wolfgangus Musculus Lectori S. in Domino," n.p.: "Quibus quisque
secundum gratiam quam a Domino accepit veritatis sensum aliis placide sine ullo stomacho
criminosaque ac proterva aliorum ingeniorum insectatione tradit." Musculus concedes that
there may be "some use" for contentious writings but only "if moderation is added."
3. It is, of course, anachronistic to speak of a commentary written in the 1520s as
"Lutheran." The term is used loosely to refer to those commentators who clearly saw them-
selves aligned with Martin Luther and the reform movement in Wittenberg.
4. The work was published eleven times in 1523 alone, three times in 1524, and once
in both 1541 and 1542. See Timothy J. Wengert, Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes in
Johannem in Relation to Its Predecessors and Contemporaries (Geneva: Librairie Droz S. A.,
1987), pp. 43-54.
5. Musculus, Comm. I, p. 26: "Recentiores quidam priorem gratiam earn intelligunt, quae
patris est erga filium, posteriorem vero qua nos filii gratia patri grati facti sumus & accepti."
6. Melanchthon, Annotationes in loannem, CR 14:1065: "Gratiam pro gratia nos co
secutos esse; gratiam, id est remissionem peccatorum; pro gratia, quia pater Christum
amat.... Gratiam pro gratia, i.e. ut filius diligitur, ita diligimur et nos, qui in filio sumus
per fidem." Brenz, In D. Iohannis Evangelion, lohannis Brentii exegesis, per authorem iam
primum diligenter reuisa, ac multis in locis locupletata (Haguenau: J. Setzer, 1530), fol. 14v:
"Accepimus gratiam, id est, Deus pater nobis favet. Pro gratia, id est, propterea quod
Christo filio suo, cuius nos fratres sumus, & in quem credimus, faveat"; hereafter cited as
Exegesis in Ioh. Evang.
7. Sarcerius, In Ioannem Evangelistam iusta scholia summa diligentia, adperpetuae textus
cohaerentiae filium, per Erasmum Sarcerium Annemontanum conscripta (Basel: Bartholo-
ma'us Westheimer, 1541), pp. 381-382, hereafter cited as Scholia in Ioannem. Cf. Brenz,
Exegesis in Ioh. Evang., fols. 171v-172r; Melanchthon, Annotationes in Ioannem, CR 14:1129.
8. Melanchthon, Annotationes in Ioannem, CR 14:1129: "Ratio sic colligit: hic affligitur,
ergo peccator est et a Deo reiectus; hic fortunatus est, ergo pius est, et Deo charus."
9. Brenz, Exegesis in Ioh. Evang., fols. 171v-172r; 171v: "Nam propter peccatum intro-
iverunt in mundum, maledictiones, infirmitates, plagae, calamitates, adeoque ipsa rnors."
10. Sarcerius, Scholia in Ioannem, pp. 381-382: "In impiis perpetuo verum est, eos adfligi
propter peccata sua. In piis non semper verum est."
11. Brenz, Exegesis in Ioh. Evang., fols. 172r-172v.
12. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 126: "Si huiusmodi erumnae sunt divinae ultiones propter
peccata inflictae, quid de caeco hoc dicemus, qui caecus natus est antequam peccant? Cuius
nam peccatis tribuemus hanc caecitatem? Caeci ne? At hoc videtur absurdum. Quomodo
nanque peccasset nondum natus? Sed qua aequitate puniretur infans propter peccata
parentum, cum scriptum sit, filium non portare delicta parentum?"
13. Musculus does not cite the source, claiming simply that "Augustine says somewhere."
14. Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 126-127. In addition to Romans 9:20, Musculus also quotes
Job 25:4 ("How can a man be justified to God or to appear clean, born of a woman?") and
Job 14:4 ("Who can make those conceived of unclean seed clean?").
 Notes to Pages 137-142 221

15. Melanchthon, Annotationes in Ioannem, CR 14:1130; Brenz, Exegesis in Ioh. Evang.,

fol. 172v; Sarcerius, Scholia in Ioannem, p. 384.
16. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 127. Musculus presents a variant reading of Chrysostom,
which adds "that he should be born blind" to the words "neither this man nor his parents
sinned." In fact, Chrysostom merely states that Jesus added the words "by implication." It
is Theophylact, not Chrysostom, who proffers the variant reading (Enar. in Evang. Joannis,
PG 124 ad locum).
17. Melanchthon Annotationes in Ioannem, CR 14:1130.
18. Sarcerius, Scholia in Ioannem, p. 384.
19. Brenz Exegesis in Ioh. Evang., fol. 173r: "Cum enim eos deijciat in extremam miseriam,
& postea eripiat, hunc titulum refert, quod sit DEUS LIBERATOR, ET ADIVTOR IN NECESSITATIBUS
(eyn nothelffer) qui est titulus magnificentissimus, & omnes homines ad Deum invocandum
invitans."
20. Ibid., fols. 173r-173v.
21. Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 128-129: "Ad hunc modum itaque modum infirmitatibus
nostris gloriae Dei servimus, quam dum sani sumus, magis obscuramus."
22. Melanchthon, Annotationes inIoannem, CR 14:1130; Brenz, Exegesis in Ioh. Evang.,
fol. 171v; Sarcerius, Scholia in Ioannem, p. 382.
23. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 128. Musculus cites Psalms 89:32 and the examples of the
paralytics in Matthew 5 and John 5.
24. Ibid.: "Fides in tribulationibus augescit, oratio redditur ferventior, animus humiliatur,
vivitur sobrie: & in summa mortificatur vetus homo, & novus grandescit."
25. Ibid., pp. 141-143.
26. Ibid., pp. 144-146.
27. Ibid., pp. 157-158.
28. Brenz argues that there is a twofold communion and a twofold excommunication—
namely, internal and external (Exegesis in Ioh. Evang., fol. 177r).
29. In a sermon on John 9, Brenz gives an extended discussion of the "causae calamitatum"
similar to that of Musculus. But the significant fact is that Brenz omits such a discussion in
his formal co mentary on the chapter. See Operum . . . D. Ioannis Brentii (Tubingen: George
Gruppen c , 1576- 90), vol. 6: In Evangelion Ioannis Homiliae, p. 397.
30. Melanchthon, nnotationes in Ioannem, CR 14:1131: "Damnatur igitur quicquid
ratio potest non illuminata verbo Dei."
31. Sarcerius, Scholia in Ioannem, p. 386: "Christus esse mundo lucem, quandiu eum
fide retinet: ubi vero cessat fides in Christum ibi non est amplius Christus lux mundi."
32. Brenz, Exegesis in Ioh. Evang., fols. 173v-174r: "Me veram esse lucem mundi, quam-
quam nihil minus in cruce, ministerio meo cessante & potestate tenebrarum praevalente,
videbitur."
33. he view is expressed by Bucer, Enarratio in Iohannem p. 329: "Ea nox Iudaeis venit
cum et ab ipso et apostolis deserti fuere."
34. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 1 : "Similitudines Christi simplici sensu capiendae sunt,
nec trahendae ultra propositum."
35. Ibid., pp. 127-128.
36. Sarcerius, Scholia in Ioannem, p. 387: "Commendatur etiam nobis hic obiter
medicinae studium, quod Deus de coelo creavit, & quod vir sapiens [non] spernet."
 222 Notes to Pages 142-147

37. Ibid., p. 388.

38. Brenz, Exegesis in Ioh. Evang., fol. 174v: "Deus enim non vult nobis sua bona
distribuere, his mediis, quae nos elegimus, sed quae ipse elegit."
39. Ibid., fols. 174v-175r: "Ita & hoc loco Christus sanat caecum, malagmate ex luto &
sputo facto, primum, ut huius malagmatis novitate, miraculum & Verbi sui potentia
celebriora fierent. Dein mittitur caecus ad piscinam Siloe, ut longiore via, caeci fides
interim exerceretur." Brenz here clearly echoes Chrysostom, who writes: "Christ first of all
made certain by the long journey to Siloe that there would be many witnesses, and by the
strangeness of the sight He made those who witnessed it keenly attentive." Homilies, FC41:97.
40. Musculus, Comm. II, pp, 130-131.
41. Ibid., p. 131: "Quod mysterium concernit, dicam sine cuiuspiam praejudicio quid
mihi videatur."
42. Ibid.: "Quam sunt ergo insani, qui sibiipsis terrestre hoc lutum summo studio
cumulant, & mentis oculis illinunt, quasi inde sint futuri perspicaciores ad cognoscendam
Christi veritatem? Hoc lutum magnis sumptibus ex scriptis philosophorum petunt, unde
magis excaecantur quam illuminantur. Det Dominus ut ad piscinam Siloae vadant, ibique
mentis oculos lavent, & a luto terrestris sapientiae repurgent."
43. Ibid.: "Neutra expositio impia est, utram vero accipias, tuo lectorjudicio committo."
44. Sarcerius, Scholia in Ioannem, pp. 380-381: "Locus hic est de causis salutis nostrae,
quae non sunt haec aut illa merita, sed gratia & misericordia Christi, quae causae omnia
nostra merita praecedunt." The fact that Jesus, without even being asked, takes the initia-
tive in healing the blind man demonstrates the nature of prevenient grace in accomplish-
ing human salvation.
45. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 126: "Quae nativitas illa est, quae caecos gignit? Carnis
nativitas, quae ex Adam est, non producit videntes, sed caecos. Nativitas spiritus non caecos,
sed videntes generat. Sunt animantia quaedam quae caeca quidem nascuntur, sed post
aliquot dierum spacium oculos aperiunt, ut videant: at posteritas Adae ita caeca nascitur,
ut nisi regeneretur spiritu, lucem veritatis haudquaquam videat."
46. Ibid., p. 131.
47. Ibid., p. 130.
48. Ibid., p. 132: "Est ergo lavari in aquis Siloae, hoc est, baptismatis Christi fluentis,
idem quod illuminari."
49. Sarcerius, Scholia in Ioannem, p. 388.
50. Brenz, Exegesis in Ioh. Evang., fol. 175r.
51. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 131: "Jussui illius prompte obedivit, etiamsi cuncta haec
rationi humanae viderentur ridicula."
52. Ibid.: "Sic iam occinunt, quid poterit aqua, quid panis, quid vinum?"
53. Ibid., p. 132: "Stulti non intelligunt, nec aquam, nec panem, nec vinum, nec aeneum
serpentem quicquam per se conferre posse, sed vim sanationis esse verbi Dei fide
apprehendendi."
54. Ibid., p. 131: "Notent istam obedientiam caeci nostrorum temporum haeretici."
55. This is an especially noteworthy fact since the rejection of allegory has been seen as
characteristic of the Reformed tradition. Wengert, Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes in
Johannem, p. 110, argues that this rejection of allegory "in many ways becomes the hall-
mark of Reformed, but not Lutheran or Roman Catholic, exegesis."
 Notes to Pages 147-149 223

56. John Calvin, Calvin: Commentaries, trans, and ed. by Joseph Haroutunian and Louis
P. Smith, Library of Christian Classics 23 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1958), p. 75.

CHAPTER SEVEN

1. It has in fact been suggested by Bernard Roussel (Le temps des Reformes et la Bible,
ed. Guy Bedouelle and Bernard Roussel, La Collection Bible de Tous les Temps [Paris:
Beauchesne, 1989], 5:215-252) that Musculus should be considered a late representative
of a "Rhenish school" of exegesis (in distinction to the "Wittenberg group") that was cen-
tered in Strasbourg, Basel, and Zurich, and flourished around 1525-1540. Although most
of the biblical scholars in this "school" are Reformed theologians (C. Pellikan, S. Munster,
J. (Ecolampadius, U. Zwingli, W. Capito, M. Bucer, H. Bullinger, J. Calvin, and others),
Roussel also includes the Lutheran J. Brenz, whose exegesis represents the emphases of
the Rhenish school. Some of the common features of the school are the influence of
humanist linguistic studies, an emphasis on Old Testament studies that make use of Jew-
ish exegesis, a predilection for typological exegesis, avoidance of allegories, and a propen-
sity to search the Scriptures for ethical, disciplinary, and liturgical rules. Roussel has
developed an interesting hypothesis, but his use of the term "school" is, I believe, misleading
since it suggests a common, explicit, and programmatic approach to biblical interpreta-
tion. Roussel himself uses the term loosely to describe "a dense network of relationships
[and] of analogous activities" (ibid., p. 215), but the fact that some of these scholars were
friends who read each other's works is not enough evidence to prove a school of exegesis.
Certainly, there are similarities of approach and emphasis, as Roussel admirably demon-
strates. But even here, generalizations often break down. Roussel admits, for example, that
Zwingli may not share the aversion of the school to allegorical interpretation (p. 226). My
research shows that Musculus and OEcolampadius (unlike Bucer) do not systematically
oppose allegorical exegesis.
2. Bucer offered private lectures on John in 1523, but it remains impossible to ascer-
tain to what degree he incorporated these into his formal commentary since no manu-
script of the lectures has survived. See Irena Backus's "Introduction" to her modern criti-
cal edition of Bucer's Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), p. xii.
3. For a description of the major alterations between the three versions, see Backus,
"Introduction," pp. xxxiii-xlii. The commentary was printed once more (Geneva, 1553)
as part of Robert Estienne's edition of Bucer's commentaries.
4. Johannis CEcolampadius, Annotationes piae ac doctae in EvangeliumIoannis (Basel:
Andreas Cratander and Johann Bebel, 1533). My citations are based on the second and
final printing of the book in 1535, hereafter cited as Annot. in Evang. Ioannis.
5. Ernst Staehelin, Das theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads (Leipzig: M.
Heinsius Nachfolger, 1939), p. 574.
6. In evangelicam historiam de Domino nostro Iesv Christo, per Matthaevm, Marcvm,
Lucam, &Ioannem conscriptam, EpistolasquealiquotPauli, annotationesD. HvldrychiZvinglii
per Leonem Iudae exceptae aeditae (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1539), The commentary ap-
pears in the sixth volume (part 1) ofHuldrici Zuinglii Opera, ed. M. Schuler and J. Schulthess
(Zurich: F. Schulthess, 1836), pp. 682-766. My citations, however, are based on the pagi-
 224 Notes to Pages 149-152

nation of the 1539 printing, hereafter cited as Annot. in Evang. hist. Walter Meyer, "Die
Entstehung von Huldrych Zwinglis neutestamentlichen Kommentaren und Predigtnach-
schriften," Zwingliana 14 (1976): 288-331, argues that the lectures occurred from July
through December of 1528.-Timothy J. Wengert, "The Dating of Huldrych Zwingli's Lec-
tures on John," Zwingliana 24 (1986): 6-10, has argued convincingly for the earlier dating
on the basis of his own inspection of the manuscript materials.
7. My citations are from the 1543 printing: In Divinum Iesu Christi Domini nostri
Euangelium secundum Ioannem, commentariorum libri X (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1543),
hereafter cited as In Evang. comm. Froschauer also published the 1548 and 1556 printings
with the same title. See Heinrich Bullinger Werke, part 1, vol. 1: Bibliographie, ed. Joachim
Staedtke (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972), bib. nos. 153-155, 274, 275.
8. For places where I suspect an influence, see, for example, Musculus and Buce n the
meaning of John 13:20, 16:12, 20:8, 20:19 (Comm. II, pp. 308, 371, 445, 454; Enarratio in
Iohannem, pp. 407, 464-465, 541, 544).
9. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 178. Cf. Bucer, Enarratio in Iohannem, p. 343.
10. For examples, see Musculus and Bucer on the meaning of "night" at John 9:4 and
on the meaning of "propterea" at John 10:17 (Comm. II, pp. 127-128, 196; Enarratio in
Iohannem, pp. 330, 3 5).
11. Over a hundre letters from Musculus to Bullinger and several from Bullinger to
Musculus are extant in autograph or handwritten copies in the Zurich Zentralbibliothek.
See Ernst Gagliardi and Ludwig Forrer, Katalog der Handschriften der Zentralbibliothek
Zurich II: Neuere Handschriften seit 1500 (Zurich: Zentralbibliothek Zurich, 1982). After
the Interim, Musculus fled to Zurich, where he was received by Bullinger, who helped him
acquire his post in Bern. Bullinger wrote letters of recommendation to Bern, attempting
to appease the fears of some who suspected Musculus of being a crypto-Lutheran. See
Rudolf Dellsperger," Wolfgang Musculus (l497-1563)"in Die Augsburger Kirchenordnung
von 1537 und ihr Umfeld, ed. Reinhard Schwarz (Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlaghaus Gerd
Mohn, 1988), p. 104, n. 58.
12. Musculus, In Esaiam prophetam commentarii locupletissimi. .. (Basel: Johann Her-
wagen, 1557). The table immediately follows the dedicatory letter to the Strasbourg city
council.
13. Bullinger's comments run to eight folio-sized pages and CEcolampadius's to thirty
octavo-sized pages. The comments of Bucer fill five folio-sized pages in the 1536 edition
and those of Zwingli fill two folio-sized pages.
14. Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 223-224. Later in the commentary (p. 235), Musculus re-
turns to this allegory, noting in a marginal comment that Lazarus had been dead and
entombed for four days, which symbolize the four ages of the world: the age before the
flood, the age after the flood before Moses, the age from Moses to Christ, and the age from
Christ to the end of the world. Just as Lazarus was raised on the fourth day, so Adam's
posterity, entombed for four ages, is redeemed in the fourth age.
15. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fols. 211v-212r: "Si videmus asinum
errantem, reducimus juxta legem: quanto magis si anima fratris? Et charitas requirit, ut
dominum pro illius salute imploremus."
16. Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fol. 127v; Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 224-225.
17. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 225: "Sequamur hoc exemplum & nos, ut pro fratribus
 Notes to Pages 153-157 225

orantes, plurimi faciamus quod in gratiam Domini sunt assumpti: dicamusque, D ine,
ecce pro quo mortuus es, aegrotat: vel, si in tentationibus sit frater, Domine ecce quem
sanguine tuo redemisti, infestatur a Satana.... Sic dicamus hodie pro Ecclesia orantes:
Domine, ecce sponsa tua, quam unice diligis, premitur, & Antichristi tyrannide vastatur."
18. Ibid.
19. Zwingli.Armot. inEvang. hist, p. 325; CEcolampadius, Annot. inEvang.Ioannis,fol.
212v; Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fol. 127v. Bucer does not comment on the verse.
20. Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 225-226: "Non dicunt . . . Bono animo sitis, potest hunc
Deus erigere ... sed austero vulto, Quid attinet, inquiunt, lugere? moriendum est."
21. Bucer, Enarratio in Iohannem, p. 358: "Ad illustrationem gloriae eius facient... ad
nostram quoque salutem."
22. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 226: "Quae poterit gloria ex mortalium nostrorum corporum
infirmitate ad eum redundare, per quem sumus conditi? An non maior gloria ad eum
rediret, si firmi essemus sicut angeli Dei, quam ex eo quod multis sumus infirmitatibus
obnoxii? Utique operis non infirmitas, sed fermitudo opificis est gloria."
23. Ibid.
24. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang.Ioannis, fol. 213r: "Filii Dei post lapsum multo
ferventiores sunt, & vitam ita instituunt, ut Deus magis per illos glorificetur." Fol. 212v:
"Qui vero filii Dei, postea resurgent, maiori timore vitam instituentes."
25. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 217v; Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fols.
129r-129v.
26. Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 236-237: "Et praecipue quod Christum attinet, imitemur
exemplum hoc Marthae, ut & ipsi venienti illi ad nos occurramus. Dicis, Quo & quomodo?
Quis nollet Christo ad nos venienti occurrere? Sed quomodo ad nos venit? Quomodo illi
occurram? Venit ad nos per evangelium suum, per ministros verbi sui, per membra sua.
Venturus est in fine mundi visibiliter cum gloria. Occurre illi animo veritatis avido,
reverenti, grato, dum es in hac vita. Excipe ilium in verbo, in ministro, & in membris eius:
ut olim in fine mundi obviam ei rapiaris, ac sic semper cum eo regnes in coelis."
27. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 218r; Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fol.
129r; Musculus, Comm. II, p. 236. CEcolampadius and Musculus here follow the lead of
Chrysostom, who argues that by running to Jesus Martha did not express a more fervent
love than Mary, who had not heard the news of Jesus' arrival (Homilies on John, FC41:171).
28. For example, Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in Matthaeum etJoannem Evangelistas,
vol. 10 of Opera Omnia (Parma: P. Fiaccadore, 1852-1873; reprint, New York: Musurgia,
1948-1950), p. 493: "Mystice autem signantur per haec vita activa quae signatur per
Martham, quae occurrit Christo ad exhibendum obsequii beneficium membris eius; et vita
contemplativa, quae per Mariam signatur: quae domi sedet quieti contemplationis et
puritati conscientiae vacans." See also Denis, Enarratio in Joannem, p. 481: "Martha vitam
signat activam, Maria contemplativam."
29. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fols. 21 1v, 218r.
30. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 237: "Est quidem magna commoditas tranquillitatis &
quietis, qua mens hominis a turbulentis curis ac negociis huius seculi avocatur."
31. Bucer, Enarratio in Iohannem, p. 359; Zwingli, Annot. in Evang. hist., p. 325;
CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 218v.
32. Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fol. 129v: "Nihil agit ex animi impotentia, non
 226 Notes to Pages 157-162

obmurmurat, non execratur, non obiurgat quod ad primum nuncium venire distulisset,
non eiulat muliebriter, & prae doloris impatientia decidit & volutat se in pulvere, non crines
evellit & laniat genas, sed mira cum modestia & tolerantia sortem suam deplorat apud
Iesum magistrum fidelissimum." Bullinger's comments here closely follow Chrysostom's
diatribe against the mourning customs of women who "make a show of their mourning
and lamentation: baring their arms, tearing their hair, making scratches down their cheeks."
(Homilies on John, FC 41:174).
33. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 237.
34. CEolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 218v; Bullinger, In Evang. comm.,
fol. 129v; Musculus, Comm. II, p. 237.
35. Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 237-238.
36. Zwingli, Annot. in Evang. hist, p. 325; Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fols. 129v-130f.;
CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 219r: "Etiam qui sciunt futuram resurrec-
tionem, non possunt impetum naturae reprimere, quin lachrymentur." Bucer does not
comment on Martha's confession.
37. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 239: "Ad hunc modum colligamus & nos: Resurgent omnes,
resurgam ergo & ego. Resurgent ad vitam aeternam qui credunt in Christum, igitur & ego,
&c. Parcit Deus propter Christum, & ignoscit poenitentibus & credentibus: parcet igitur
& mihi. Non deserit Deus sperantes in se, ergo nec me deseret."
38. I translate John 6:69 here as Musculus renders it. Although Musculus here refers to this
confession as one made jointly by the apostles, the statement at 6:69 is made solely by Peter.
39. Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 239-240: "Haec est sanctorum infirmitas, quam Christus
in illis tolerat. Cavendum itaque & nobis, ne propter hanc quempiam damnemus."
40. Erasmus defends his translation in the Annotationes (p. 252) as a case where the
Greek perfect is used for present time.
41. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 220r: "Plane credidi iampridem magna
de te, quod sis filius dei, de quo prophetae locuti sunt."
42. Bucer follows Erasmus's translation of "ego credo" but directs the reader's atten-
tion to the sense of the underlying Greek, which literally means "I have believed" (Enarratio
in Iohannem, p. 359). Zwingli, Annot. in Evang. hist., p. 325: "Non ergo dicit, Ego credo
quod te in pane edam corporaliter, sed quod tu sis ille Christus."
43. Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fol. 130v: "Etiam domine, ait, id est maxime & firmis-
sime credo verbis tuis, quod sis vita & resurrectio, qui animas fidelium serves & corpora
resuscites mortuorum. Huic addit iam fundamentum resurrectionis & caput totius fidei
Christianae, Ego credo, inquit, te esse Messiam ilium filium dei vivi, qui . .. veneris in
mundum: id est, credo te esse verum deum & hominem salvatorem & vivificatorem totius
mundi."
44. Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 239, 241.
45. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 220v; Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fols.
130v-131r.
46. Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 241-242: "Ergo exemplum hic habemus humanae rationis,
quae mandata Dei . . . clanculum &. caute obeunda putat, ut impiorum conscientia
fugiatur."
47. Ibid., p. 242: "Admonemur igitur hoc exemplo, ut nec ipsi alium magistrum agnos-
camus quam Christum hunc filium Dei."
 Notes to Pages 162-167 227

48. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. loannis, fol. 220v; Bullinger, In Evang. comm.,
fol. 131r; Musculus, Comm. II, p. 242.
49. Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fol. 131r; CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis,
fol. 22 1r.
50. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 243: "Si hoc animo essemus erga Christum & nos, utique
absque ullo pudore, & omni adversariorum metu rejecto, tanquam germani discipuli verbo
illius adhaereremus."
51. Zwingli, Annot. in Evang. hist., pp. 325-326.
52. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 22 1v.
53. Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fols. 131r-131v: "Non aliam puto caussam fremitus,
conturbationis & lachrymarum domini quam expressam illam a loanne, quod videlicet
singulariter amarit Lazarum totamque familiam, quam cum gravi luctu videret oppressam
ac condolere eiIudaeos omnes & flere largissime, commota fuerint & domini viscera."
54. Ibid., fol. 131v: "Ipsum totis visceribus ita esse commotum atque concussum, ut
vocem ullam ad tempus aedere nequiverit."
55. Bullinger quotes statements of Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, and Basil that inter-
pret Jesus' weeping as a proof of his true humanity (ibid., fol. 131v).
56. Ibid.: "Neque enim ex hominibus lapides aut truncos facit religio Christiana."
57. Ibid., fols. 131v-132r. Bullinger cites Augustine's commentary on John for this
tropological interpretation of Jesus' tears.
58. Bucer, Enarratio in lohannem, p. 361. In her editorial notes on this passage, Irena
Backus notes that by "Marcionites," Bucer here means the novi Marcionitae—that is, the
Lutherans ("Introduction," p. 361, n. 41). She suggests that Bucer particularly has in mind
the exegesis of Brenz, who interprets infremuit spiritu as an expression of divine indigna-
tion. See also ibid., pp. xxiii-xxiv.
59. Bucer, Enarratio in lohannem, p. 359: "Neque enim stupentem a nobis, sed vivam
et ardentem, quae viscera exagitet totoque se corpore prodat, dilectionem Deus requirit."
60. Ibid., p. 360: "Dumque verus vivit in cordibus sanctorum amor fratrum, non pos-
sunt non dolere et lugere mortuos, aut alios afflictos."
61. Backus, "Introduction," p. 360, n. 31, argues that Bucer's remarks are directed
against Karlstadt's treatise Ein Sermon vom Stand der Christglaubigen seelen undfegfeuer,
in which Karlstadt interprets Paul's dictum as an interdiction of mourning.
62. Bucer, Enarratio in Iohannem, p. 360: "Stoici igitur, magis quam Christiani, sunt
nostri Catabaptistae quidam, qui nullum luctum, nullas lachrymas pro mortuis vel alias
afflictis atribus ferunt."
63. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 244.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid. Musculus adds the marginal annotation: "Tam non est damnanda Maria quod
plorasse, quam Martham nemo condemnat quod non plorasse legitur."
66. Ibid.
67. Ibid., p. 245: "Parum decoris habere videtur, si vir gravis, maturus, honestus, sapi-
ens, ac fortis, quamvis acerbe affectus, illachrymetur."
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.: "Est enim omnino aliena a sanctis Stoica ilia quam Anabaptistae
rursus in ecclesiam inducere conantur."
 228 Notes to Pages 167-172

70. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 223r.

71. Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fol. 132r.
72. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 246.
73. This idea is rooted in Chrysostom's commentary on the passage (Homilies on John,
fC41:183-184) and appears with frequency throughout the medieval exegetical tradition.
Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea in quatuor Evangelia, vol. 12 of Opera omnia (Parma:
Fiaccadori, 1852-1873; reprint, New York: Musurgia, 1948-1950), p. 382.
74. Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fol. 132r; CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis,
fols. 223r-223v; Musculus, Comm. II, p. 246.
75. CEcolampadius here presents an interesting variation on the allegory first proposed
by Augustine and appearing throughout the exegetical tradition. For Augustine, the stone
represents the burden of the law (which was inscribed in stone), and the command to
remove the stone represents the command to preach the gospel of grace (Tractates on John,
FC88:255-256). See Jacob Kremer, Lazarus: Die Geschichte einer Auferstehung (Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985), p. 132.
76. Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 246-247: "Ut nos cooperarios operum suorum mirabilium
ac divinorum constituat, quo in cognitione ac fide providentiae ipsius exerceamur."
77. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 223r; Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fols.
132r-132v: "Sanguinem in venis & toto corpore in pus esse resolutum, exta item corrupta,
adeoque & vitalia maxime membra quasi computruisse. Foetor enim e putredine & cor-
ruptione exoritur." Musculus, Comm. II, p. 246.
78. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 247: "Per anagogiam admonemur, quam nullam debeamus
peccatorem, quantumvis putredine peccatorum corruptum & foetidum, sic aspernari, ut
dubitemus eum posse gratia Christi ad resipiscentiam & vitam restitui."
79. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. loannis, fol. 223r; Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fol.
132v; Bucer, Enarratio in lohannem, p. 362; Musculus, Comm. II, p. 247: "Principio obser-
vemus hie exemplum animi non mali quidem, sed interim partim solliciti, partim in fide
non admodum constantis"; "Ergo quantum in fide providentiae Dei deficimus, tantum
curis ac solicitudinibus superfluis divexamur."
80. Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fol. 132v; CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang.Ioannis,fol.
223v: "Nolumus te contristare ut hunc videas: erit enim spectaculum miserum."
81. Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 245-246.
82. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. loannis, fol. 224r.
83. Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fol. 132v: "Memineris ergo Martha verborum meorum,
An excidit quod tibi modo dixi, Si credideris, futurum ut per fratris tui mortem illustretur
gloria dei? An excidit quod tibi promisi, Resurget frater tuus"; "Nihil ergo impediet dei
potentiam foetor, nihil purulentia & cadaveris putredo. Crede modo & experieris deum
esse & veracem & potentem."
84. Ibid.
85. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 247.
86. Zwingli, Annot. in Evang. hist., p. 326; CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. loannis,
fol. 224r; Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fols. 132v-133r; Bucer, Enarratio in lohannem,
pp. 362-363.
87. Musculus, Comm. II, pp. 248-249.
88. Ibid., pp. 248-250.
 Notes to Pages 172-175 229

89. Bullinger, In Evang. comtn., fol. 133v; Bucer, Enarratio inIohannem, p. 363;
CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fols. 224v-225r; Musculus, Comtn. II, p. 248.
90. Zwingli, Annot. in Evang. hist., p. 326: "Quod enim Lazarum voce magna suscitat,
praefigurat nobis tubam illam ultimam, quae personabit in generali ista resurrectione, ad
cuius clangorem omnes mortui excitabuntur."
91. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 225r: "Nos quoque per Christum
salvabimur, ut ille inclamaverit cordibus nostris, & mortificaverit nostra membra, & iusserit
a corporalibus istis abire, ducens ad spiritualia."
92. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 250: "Hodie quoque reipsa experimur, quantum clamoris
requirat ad praedicandum resipiscentiam seculo huic, n quatuor tantum dies, sed multos
annos in peccatis mortuo."
93. Zwingli, Annot. in Evang. hist., p. 326; Bullinger, In Evang. comm., fol. 133v;
CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 225r; Bucer, Enarratio in lohannem, p. 363.
94. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 248.
95. Ibid., p. 251: "Qui in peccatis sunt mortui, & ipsi manus ac pedes habent peccatorum
consuetudine veluti fasciis quibusdam revinctos, ut nee operari, nee ambulare in via Dei: et
faciem ita obvinctam obstinatione, ut nec audire nec videre queant." P. 250: "Ad hanc
imaginem etiam illi qui in peccatis sunt mortui, sic excitantur, ut non solum reviviscant, sed
& vitae conversatione veluti progressu quodam, Christi se virtute vivificatos esse declarant."
96. Kremer, Lazarus, p. 229.
97. Augustine, Tractates on John, PC 88:257.
98. Bucer, Enarratio in Iohannem, p. 363: "Mysticos intellectus fingant hic qui incertis
delectantur"; "Nugentur alii de virtute absolvendi." These polemical statements appear
in the 1528 and 1530 editions but were suppressed by Bucer in the 1536 edition. Backus
argues that Bucer's attack is directed against the exegesis of Brenz, who interprets the fas-
ciae sepulchrales as the remnants of original sin. See Backus, "Introduction," p. xxiv. Bucer
frequently attacks allegorical interpretations throughout his commentary, and at 14:26
introduces a critique of those who continue to be enamored by allegorical modes of expo-
sition. In the margin he adds the title: "Contra eos qui alegoriis, anagogiis et mysteriis ex
Scripturis eruendis intenti sunt, necessaria admonitio" (Enarratio in Iohannem, p. 432).
Bullinger, although not rejecting allegorical interpretation altogether, seems to have con-
sidered it inappropriate in the exposition of the gospels. See T. H. L. Parker, Calvin's New
Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 38.
99. CEcolampadius, Annot. in Evang. Ioannis, fol. 225v.
100. Musculus, Comm. II, p. 251:"Vincula quae sunt in peccatis & morte. . .explicantur
ac soluunter. Itaque in Christo est libertas, in regno satanae vincula & captivitas."
101. Ibid.: "Non soluit ipse vinctum, sed jubet ut solvatur per eos qui testes resur-
rectionis huius adstabant. Imaginem hic habes ministerii ecclesiastici, per quod a peccatis
soluuntur, qui voce Christi ad vitam excitantur."
102. Ibid.
This page intentionally left blank
Selected Bibliography

P R I M A R Y SOURCES

Augustine of Hippo. Tractatus CXXIVin Joannem. Vol. 36 of Corpus Christianorum.

Turnholt: Brepols, 1954.
. On the Gospel of John. Translated by John W. Rettig. Vols. 78, 79, and 88 of The
Fathers of the Church. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1988.
Bible. Latin. Biblia sacra cum glossis, interlineari et ordinaria, Nicolai Lyrani postilla, ac
moralitatibus, Burgensis additionibus, & Thoringi replicis. 6 vols. in 5. Venice, 1588.
. Biblia. Edited by Robert Estienne. Paris: Conrad Badius, 1555.
Bonaventure. Opera omnia. 10 vols. Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1882-1902.
Brenz, Johannes. In D. lohannis Evangelion, Iohannis Brentii exegesis, per authorem iam
primum diligenter reuisa, ac multis in locis locupletata. Haguenau: J. Setzer, 1530.
Briefivechsel der Briider Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer, 1509-1567. Edited by Traugott
Schiefi. 3 vols. Freiburg: Friedrich Ernst Fehsenfeld, 1908-1912.
Broickwy von Konigstein, Antonius. In quatuor Evangelia enarrationum, nunc primum
ex ipso archetypo excerptarum, opus praeclarum, in duaspartes divisum. Cologne: P.
Quentel, 1539.
Bucer, Martin. Enarratio in Evangelion l annis. Vol. 2 of Martini Buceri Opera Latina.
Edited by Irena Backus. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988.
Bullinger, Heinrich. In Divinum lesu Christi Dominis nostri Euangelium secundum
loannem commentariorum libriX. Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1543.
Burgerbibliothek Bern. Cod. 689.
Cajetan, Tommaso de Vio. Evangelia cum commentariis. Paris: J. Badius Ascensian,
J. Parvum & J. Roigny, 1532.
Catalogus graecorum librorum, manuscriptorum, augustanae bibliothecae. Compiled by
Hieronymus Wolf. Augsburg: Michael Manger, 1575.
Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina. Turnholt: Brepols, 1954— .

231
 232 Selected Bibliography

Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John. 2 vols. Vol. 1:

S. John I-VIII. Translated by P. E. Pusey. Oxford: James Parker, 1874. Vol. 2: S. John
IX-XXI. Translated by Thomas Randell. London: Walter Smith, 1885.
Denis the Carthusian. Enarmtio in Evangelium secundum Joannem. Vol. 12 of Opera
omnia, 42 vols. in 44. Monstrolii: S. M. De Pratis, 1901.
Erasmus of Rotterdam. Des. Erasmi Roterodami in Novum Testamentum ab eodem tertio
recognitum, annotationes item ab ipso recognitae, auctario neutiquam poenitendo
locupletatae. Basel: J. Froben, 1522.
. Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: The Gospels. Facsimile of the final
Latin text (1535) with all earlier variants. Edited by Anne Reeve. London:
Duckworth, 1986.
. Novum Instrumentum omne. Basel: J. Froben, 1516. Facsimile. Stuttgart-Bad
Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1986.
. Paraphrase on John. Translated by Jane E. Phillips. Vol. 46 of Collected Works of
Erasmus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.
. Paraphrasis in Evangelium secundum loannem. Basel: J. Froben, 1523.
. Paraphrasis in Evangelium secundum loannem, ad illustrissimum principem
Ferdinandum, per autorem recognita. Basel: J. Froben, 1534.
Faber Stapulensis, Jacobus. Commentarii initiatorii in quatuor Evangelia. Basel: Andreas
Cratander, 1523.
Hugh of St. Cher. Postilla super totam Bibliam. Vol. 6: In Evangelia secundum
Matthaeum, Marcum, Lucam, & Joannem. Venice: N. Pezzana, 1732.
John Chrysostom. Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist. Vols. 33 and 41
of The Fathers of the Church. Translated by Sister Thomas Aquinas Goggin. New
York: Fathers of the Church, 1957-1959.
. Opera D. loannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi constantinopolitani. Basel: Johann
Herwagen, 1539.
John Major. In quatuor Euangelia expositiones luculentae et disquisitiones et disputationes
contra haereticos plurime, praemisso serie literarum indice, et additis adfinem operis
quatuor quaestionibus non impertinentibus. Paris: Josse Bade, 1529.
Melanchthon, Philip. Philippi Melanchthonis opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by
C. G. Bretschneider and H. E. Bindseil. Vol. 14 of the Corpus Reformatorum. Halle
and Brunswick: C. A. Schwetschke and Sons, 1847.
Migne, Jacques Paul, general editor. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graece. 161
vols. in 166. Paris, 1857-1866.
. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina. 221 vols. Paris, 1844—1890.
Musculus, Wolfgang. Adversus libellum Iohannis Cochlaei de sacerdotio et sacrificio novae
legis aeditum. Augsburg: Philip Ulhardt, 1544.
. Ainfrydsams unnd Christlichs Gesprech ains Evangelischen auffainer und ains
Widerteuffers auffder andern seyten so sy des Aydschwiirs halben mitainander thtind.
Augsburg: Philip Ulhardt?, 1533.
. Auffdas Biichlin Johannis Cochlei welche er zur verthudigung Bdpstlichs
Priesterthumbs unnd Messopffers im Jahr 1544 wider die leer des Euangelions inn den
Truck geben hat. Erste Antwort und Ablaynung. Augsburg: Philip Ulhardt, 1545.
. In Mosis Genesim plenissimi commentarii, in quibus veterum recentiorum
sententiae diligenter expenduntur. Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1554.
 Selected Bibliography 233

. Commentariorum in Evangelistam loannem, heptasprima. Basel: Bartholomaus

Westheimer, 1545. Heptas altera, item tertia etpostrema in eundem. Basel: Johann
Herwagen, 1548.
. In Davidis Psalterium Sacrosanctum conimentarii: In quibus et reliqua catholicae
religionis nostrae capita passim, non praetermissis orthodoxorum etiam Patrum
sententiis, ita tractantur, ut Christianus lector nihil desiderare amplius possit. Basel:
Sebastian Henricpetri, 1599.
. In epistolas apostoli Pauli, ad Galatas et Ephesios commentarii. Basel: Johann
Herwagen, 1561.
. In Esaiam prophetam commentarii locupletissimi ac recens editi. Basel: Johann
Herwagen, 1557.
. Loci communes in usus sacrae theologiae candidatorum parati. Basel: Johann
Herwagen, 1560.
. Loci communes sacrae theologiae, iam recens recogniti et emendati. Basel: Johann
Herwagen, 1563.
. Von der zaal und aufttheylung der zehen gebott aufi den alten Lereren g
Bern: Matthew Apiarius, 1551.
New Testament. Latin. Novum Testamentum totum Erasmo interpraete per eum castigatis
aliquot locis, in quibus operatum incuria, fuerat erratum, adiecta et nova illius
praefatione. Antwerp: Michael Hillenius, 1520.
Nicholas of Lyra. Postilla super totam Bibliam. 4 vols. Strasbourg, 1492. Reprint.
Frankfurt: Minerva, 1971.
Nonnus of Panopolis. Paraphrasis in Joannem. Vol. 43 of Migne, Patrologiae. Series
Graece.
CEcolampadius, Johannis. Annotationes piae ac doctae in Evangelium Ioannis. Basel:
Andreas Cratander and Johannes Bebel, 1535.
Rupert of Deutz. Commentaria in Evangelium Sancti Iohannis. Vol. 9 of Corpus
Christianorum. Edited by Rhabanus Haacke. Turnholt: Brepols, 1969.
Sarcerius, Erasmus. In Ioannem Evangelistam iusta scholia summa diligentia, ad
perpetuae textus cohaerentiae filium, per Erasmum Sarcerium Annemontanum
conscripta. Basel: Bartholomaus Westheimer, 1541.
Theophylact. Enarratio in Evangelion Joannis. Vol. 123 of Migne, Patrologiae. Series
Graece.
Titelmans, Francis. Elucidatio paraphrastica in sanctum Christi Evangelium secundum
Ioannem, cum annotationibus in aliquot capita. Antwerp: Simon Coquus, 1543.
Thomas Aquinas. Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Vol. 4 of Aquinas Scripture
Series. Translated by James A. Weisheipl and Fabian R. Larcher. Albany: Magi, 1980.
. Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici Ordinis Praedicatorum opera omnia.
Vol. 10: Commentum in Matthaeum et Joannem Evangelistas. Vol. 12: Catena aurea in
quatuor vangelia. Parma: P. Fiaccadori, 1852-1873. Reprint. New York: Musurgia,
1948-1 0.
Zofingen. Stadtbibliothek. MS, PA 15A.
Zwingli, Ulrich. In evangelicam historiam de Domino nostr esv Christo, per Matthaevmy
Marcvm, Lucam, Ioannem conscriptam, Epistolasque aliquot Pauli, annotationes D.
Hvldrychi Zvinglii per Leonem Iudae exceptae aeditae. Edited by Leo Jud. Zurich:
C. Froschauer, 1539.
 234 Selected Bibliography

SECONDARY SOURCES

General Studies

Adam, Paul. "L'Humanisme a Selestat." In Les lettres en Alsace. Strasbourg: Societe

savante d'Alsace, 1962.
Altaner, Berthold, and Alfred Stuiber. Patrologie. Freiburg: Herder, 1978.
Backus, Irena. Lectures humanistes de Basile de Cesaree (Traductions latines 1439-1618).
Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1990.
Baker, J. Wayne. Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition.
Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980.
Bardenhewer, Otto. Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur. 4 vols. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962.
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. Philadelphia: Westminster, 978.
Benzing, Josef von. Buchdruckerlexikon des 16. Jahrhunderts (Deutsches Sprachgebiet).
Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1952.
Bierma, Lyle Dean. "The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevian." Ph.D. diss., Duke
University, 1980.
Broadhead, Philip. "Politics and Expediency in the Augsburg Reformation." In
Reformation Principle and Practice: Essays in Honour of Arthur Geoffrey Dickens.
Edited by Peter Newman Brooks. London: Scolar, 1980.
Broadie, Alexander. The Circle of John Mair: Logic and Logicians in Pre-Reformation
Scotland. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John I-XII. New York: Doubleday, 1966.
Cappelli, Adriano. The Elements of Abbreviation in Medieval Latin Paleography. Trans-
lated by David Heimann and Richard Kay. Lawrence: University of Kansas Libraries,
1982.
Coppens, Joseph. "Les idees reformistes d'Erasme dans les Prefaces aux Paraphrases du
Nouveau Testament." In Scrinium Lovaniense. Edited by Etienne van Cauwenbergh.
Louvain: Editions J. Duculot, S. A. Gembloux, 1961.
De Troeyer, Benjamin. Bio-bibliographia Franciscana Neerlandica Saeculi XVI. 2 vols.
Nieuwkoop: B. De Graaf, 1969-1970.
Dobschiitz, Detlef von. "Die Geschichte der Kirchengemeinde Heilig-Kreuz und ihrer
Kirche." In Die Evangelische Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche in Augsburg. Augsburg: Evangelisch-
Lutherisches Pfarramt, 1981.
Durkan, John. "The School of John Major: Bibliography." Innes Review 1 (1950):
140-146.
Eells, Hastings. Martin Bucer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1931.
Farge, James K. Biographical Register of Paris Doctors of Theology, 1500-1536. Toronto:
Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1980.
Gerretsen, J. H. Micronius. Zijn leven, zijn geschriften, zijn geestesrichting. Nijmegen: H.
Ten Hoet, 1895.
Groner, J. F. Kardinal Cajetan: Eine Gestalt aus der Reformationszeit. Freiburg: Societe
Philosophique, 1951.
Guggisberg, Kurt. Bernische Kirchengeschichte. Bern: Paul Haupt, 1958.
 Selected Bibliography 235

Harbison, E. Harris. The Christian Scholar in the Age of the Reformation. New York:
Scribner, 1956.
Heppe, Heinrich. Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der reformierten Kirche,
namentlich in der Niederlande. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1879.
. Reformed Dogmatics Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources. Edited by Ernst
Bizer. Translated by G. T. Thomson. London: George Allen, 1950.
Im Hof, Ulrich. "Die reformierte Hohe Schule zu Bern. Vom Griindungsjahr 1528 bis
in die zweite Halfte des 16. Jahrhunderts." In 450 Jahre Berner Reformation. Beitrage
zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel. Bern: Historischer
Verein des Kan tons Bern, 1980.
Jesse, Horst. Die Geschichte der Evangelischen Kirche in Augsburg. Pfaffenhofen: W.
Ludwig, 1983.
Koberlin, Karl. Geschichte des humanistischen Gymnasiums bei St. Anna in Augsburg von
1531 bis 1931. Augsburg: Gymnasium bei St. Anna, 1931.
Kristeller, Paul Oskar. Renaissance Thought: The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist
Strains. New York: Harper, 1961.
Leclercq, Jean. The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic
Culture. Translated by Catharine Misrahi. New York: Fordham University Press,
1982.
Lenk, Loenhard. Augsburger Burgertum in Spiithumanismus und Fruhbarock (1580-
1700). Augsburg: H. Milhlberger, 1968.
Locher, Gottfried W. Die Zwinglische Reformation im Rahmen der europaischen
Kirchengeschichte. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979.
-. "Zwinglis EinfluB in England und Schottland—Daten und Probleme."
Zwingliana 14 (1975): 165-209.
McCoy, Charles S., and J. Wayne Baker. Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger
and the Covenantal Tradition. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991.
McLaughlin, R. Emmet. Caspar Schwenckfeld, Reluctant Radical: His Life to 1540. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
Muller, Richard A. Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed
Theology from Calvin to Perkins. Studies in Historical Theology no. 2. Durham, N.C.:
Labyrinth, 1986.
. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.
. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1: Prolegomena to Theology. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1987. Vol. 2: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.
Oakley, Francis. "Almain and Major: Co iliar Theory on the Eve of the Reformation."
American Historical Review 70 (1965): 673-690.
. "From Constance to 1688: The Political Thought of John Major and George
Buchan " Journal of British Studies 1 (1962): 12-19.
Pettegree, Andrew. Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-Century London.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1986.
Pfister, Rudolf Kirchengeschichte der Schweiz. Vol. 2: Von der Reformation bis zum
zweiten Villmerger Krieg. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974.
Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. 3 vols. Antwerp: Spectrum, 1960.
 236 Selected Bibliography

Ritschl, Otto. Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus. 4 vols. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1908-1927.
Roth, Friedrich. Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte. 4 vols. Munich: Theodor
Ackermann, 1901-1911.
Rummel, Erika. Erasmus and His Catholic Critics II. 1523-1536. Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1989.
Schmidt, Charles. Histoire Litteraire de l'Alsace a la fin du XVe et au commencement du
XVIe siecle. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1966.
Schmitz, Wolfgang. Het Aandeel der Minderbroeders in Onze Middeleeuwse Literatur:
Inleidung tot een Bibliografie der Nederla se Franciscanen. Nijmegen: Dekker & Van
deVegt, 1936.
Schrenk, Gottlob. Gottesreich und Bund im Alteren Protestantismus: vornemlich bei
Johannes Cocceius. Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1923.
Schwarz, W. Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation: Some Reformation Contro-
versies and Their Background. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955.
Schweizer, Alexander. Die Glaubenslehre der evangelish-reformierten Kirche dargestellt
und aus den Quellen belegt. 2 vols. Zurich: Orell, Fussli & Comp., 1844-1847.
Schweizer, Josef. Ambrosius Catharinus Politus (1484-1553) ein Theologe des
Reformationszeitalters. Munster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Buchhandlung, 1910.
Shaw, Duncan. "Zwinglianische Einfliisse in der Schottischen Reformation." Zwingliana
17 (1988): 375-400.
Staehelin, Ernst. Das theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads. Leipzig: M.
Heinsius Nachfolger, 1939.
Strehle, Stephen. Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism: A Study of the Reformed
Doctrine of Covenant. Basler und Berner Studien zur historischen und systematischen
Theologie 58. Bern: Peter Lang, 1988.
Stupperich, Robert. Reformatorenlexikon. Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984.
Vuilleumier, Henri. Histoire de l'Eglise Reformee du Pays de Vaud sous le Regime Bernois.
4 vols. Lausanne: Editions la Concorde, 1927-1933.
Weir, David A. The Origins of Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation
Thought. New York: Oxford, 1990.
Wesel-Roth, Ruth. Thomas Erastus. Ein Beitragzur Geschichte der reformierten Kirche
und zur Lehre von der Staatssouveranitat. Veroffentlichungen des Vereins fur
Kirchengeschichte in der evang. Landeskirche Badens 15. Lahr/Baden: Moritz
Schauenburg, 1954.

On Wolfgang Musculus
Baumlin, Richard. "Naturrecht und obrigkeitliches Kirchenregiment bei Wolfgang
Musculus." In Fur Kirche und Recht: Festschrift fur Johannes Heckel zum 70.
Geburtstag. Edited by Siegfried Grundmann. Cologne: Bohlau, 1959.
Beza, Theodor. Les vrais portraits des hommes illustres en piete et doctrine. Paris: Jean de
Laon, 1581. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine, 1986.
Dellsperger, Rudolf. "Wolfgang Musculus (1497—1563)," In Die Augsburger Kirchenordnung
von 1537 und ihr Umfeld. Edited by Reinhard Schwarz. Schriften des Vereins fur
Reformationsgeschichte 196. Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlaghaus Gerd Mohn, 1988.
 Selected Bibliography 237

Farmer, Craig S. "Wolfgang Musculus and the Allegory of Malchus's Ear." Westminster
Theological Journal 56 (1994): 285-301.
. "Wolfgang Musculus's Commentary on John: Tradition and Innovation in the
Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery." In Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the
Reformation, ed. Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996.
Ford, James Thomas. "The Shaping of a Reformer: An Introduction to the Life and
Thought of Wolfgang Musculus." M.A. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1992.
Grimme, F. "Wolfgang Musculus. Vortrag gehalten in der Sitzung vom 23. Januar, 1894."
Jahr-Buch der Gesellschaft fur lothringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 5 (1893): 1-20.
Grote, Ludwig. Wolfgang Musculus, ein biographischer Versuch. Hamburg: Rauhes Haus,
1855.
Krefiner, Helmut. "Die Weiterbildung des Zwinglischen Systems durch Wolfgang
Musculus." In Schweizer Ursprunge des anglikanischen Staatskirchentums. Schriften
des Vereins fur Reformationsgeschichte no. 170. Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1953.
Lenoir, S. "Wolfgang Musculus—Biographie, 1497-1563." In Le Chretien Evangelique
revue religieuse de la suisse romande. Lausanne, 1883.
Musculus, Abraham. "Historia vitae et obitus clarissimi theologi D. Wolfgangi
Musculus Dusani, S. Litterarum apud Bernates professoris." In festalium
concionum, authore D. Wolfgango Musculo Dusano. Eiusdem vita, obitus, erudita
carmina. Basel: Conrad Waldkirch, 1595.
Romane-Musculus, Paul. "Catalogue des oeuvres imprime'es du theologien Wolfgang
Musculus." Revue D'Histoire et de Philosophic Religieuses 43 (1963): 260-278.
. "Wolfgang Musculus en Lorraine et en Alsace." Societe de I'Histoire du
Protestantisme francais, Oct.-Dec. 1931, 487-501.
Schuler, Manfred. "1st Wolfgang Musculus wirklich der Autor mehrerer Kirchenlieder?"
Jahrbuch fur Liturgik und Hymnologie 17 (1972): 217-221.
Schwab, Paul J. The Attitude of Wolfgang Musculus toward Religious Tolerance. Yale
Studies in Religion no. 6. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933.
Streuber, Wilhelm T. "Wolfgang Musculus oder Muslin. Ein Lebensbild aus
der Reformationszeit. Aus dem handschriftichen Nachlasse des verstorbenen
Dr. Wilhelm Theodor Streuber." In Berner Taschenbuch aufdas Jahr I860. Bern,
1860.
Weber, Rudolf. "Wolfgang und Abraham Musculus. Die Sammler der Zofinger
Humanistenbriefe." Zofinger Neujahrsblatt 69 (1984): 5-19.

History of Exegesis
Aldridge, J. W. The Hermeneutic of Erasmus. Zurich, 1966.
Anderson, Marvin. "Erasmus the Exegete." Concordia Theological Monthly 40 (1969):
722-733.
Bainton, Roland H. "The Paraphrases of Erasmus." Archivfur Reformationsgeschichte 57
(1966): 67-75.
Bedouelle, Guy. Lefevre d'Etaples et l'Intelligence des Ecritures. Geneva: Librairie Droz
S. A., 1976.
 238 Selected Bibliography

Bedouelle, Guy, and Bernard Roussel, eds. Le temps des Reformes et la Bible. La Collec-
tion Bible de Tous les Temps 5. Paris: Beauchesne, 1989.
Bentley, Jerry H. "Erasmus" Annotationes in Novum Testamentum and the Textual
Criticism of the Gospels." Archivfur Reformationsgeschichte 67 (1976): 33-53.
. Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.
. "New Testament Scholarship at Louvain in the Early Sixteenth Century." In
Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History. New series, vol. 2. Edited by J. A. S.
Evans. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1979.
Bouterse, Johannes. De boom en zijn vruchten. Bergrede-christendom bij Reformatoren,
Anabaptisten en Spiritualisten in dezestiende eeuw. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1987.
Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 1: From Beginnings to Jerome. Edited by P. R.
Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. Vol. 2: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation. Edited
by G. W. H. Lampe. Vol. 3: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day. Edited
by S. L. Greenslade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963-1970.
Childs, Brevard S. "The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem."
In Beitrdge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Festschrift fur Walther Zimmerli zum 70.
Geburtstag. Edited by Herbert Donner et al. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,
1977.
Chomarat, Jacques. "Grammar and Rhetoric in the Paraphrases of the Gospels by
Erasmus." Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook One (1981): 30-68.
Collins, Thomas Aquinas. "Cardinal Cajetan's Fundamental Biblical Principles."
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955): 363-378.
. "The Cajetan Controversy." American Ecclesiastical Review 128 (1953): 90-100.
Ebeling, Gerhard. "Die Anfange von Luthers Hermeneutik." Zeitschrift fur Theologie
undKirche48 (1961): 172-230.
. Evangelische Evangelienauslegung: Eine Untersuchung zu Luthers Hermeneutik.
Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1942.
Evans, G. R. The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984.
. The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Road to Reformation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Fatio, Oliver, and Pierre Fraenkel, comps. Histoire de I'exegese au XVIe siecle: Textes du
colloque international tenu a Geneve en 1976. Geneva: Librairie Droz S. A., 1978.
Froehlich, Karlfried. "'Always to Keep the Literal Sense in Holy Scripture Means to Kill
One's Soul': The State of Biblical Hermeneutics at the Beginning of the Fifteenth
Century." In Literary Uses of Typology from the Late Middle Ages to the Present. Edited
by Earl Miller. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977.
Grant, Robert M., and David Tracy. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible. 2d
ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Hendrix, Scott H. "Luther against the Background of the History of Biblical Interpreta-
tion." Interpretation 37 (1983): 229-239.
Horst, Ulrich. "Der Streit um die hl. Schrift zwischen Kardinal Cajetan und Ambrosius
Catharinus." In Wahrheit und Verkiindigungl. Edited by Leo Scheffczyk et al.
Munich: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1967.
 Selected Bibliography 239

Kiimmel, Friedrich. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems.
Translated by S. M. Gilmour and H. C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972.
Lerner, Robert E. "Poverty, Preaching, and Eschatology in the Revelation Commentar-
ies of'Hugh of St. Cher.'" In The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of
Beryl Smalley. Edited by Katherine Walsh and Diana Wood. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1985.
Lubac, Henri de. Exegese medievale: Les auatre sens de I'Ecriture. 4 vols. Paris: Aubier,
1959-1964.
McKee, Elsie Anne. Elders and the Plural Ministry: The Role ofExegetical History in
Illuminating John Calvin's Theology. Geneva: Librairie Droz S. A., 1988.
Margerie, Betrand de. The Greek Fathers. Translated by Leonard Maluf. Vol. 1 of An
Introduction to the History of Exegesis. Petersham, Mass.: Saint Bede's Publications, 1993.
. Saint Augustine. Translated by Pierre de Fontnouvelle. Vol. 3 of An Introduc-
tion to the History of Exegesis. Petersham, Mass.: Saint Bede's Publications, 1991.
Meyer, Walter E. "Die Entstehung von Huldrych Zwinglis neutestamentlichen
Kommentaren und Predigtnachschriften." Zwingliana 14 (1976): 288-331.
Muller, Johannes. Martin Bucers Hermeneutik. Quellen und Forschungen zur
Reformationsgeschichte 32. Gutersloh: Giitersloher Verlaghaus Gerd Mohn, 1965.
Muller, Richard A., and John L. Thompson, eds. Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the
Reformation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Payne, John B., Albert Rabil, and Warren S. Smith. "The Paraphrases of Erasmus:
Origen and Character." In Collected Works of Erasmus. Vol. 42: New Testament
Scholarship: Paraphrases on Romans and Galatians. Edited by Robert D. Sider.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984.
Parker, T. H. L. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.
Preus, James S. From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretations from Augustine to
the Young Luther. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969.
Quinn, Dennis B. "Erasmus as Exegete." Proceedings of the Patristic, Medieval and
Renaissance Conference3 (1978): 59-66.
Rabil, Albert. Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mind of a Christian Humanist. San
Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1972.
. "Erasmus' Paraphrases of the New Testament." In Essays on the Works of
Erasmus. Edited by Richard L. DeMolen. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978.
Rader, William. The Church and Racial Hostility: A History of Interpretation ofEphesians
2:11-22. Beitrage zur Geschichte der Biblischen Exegese 20. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr,
1978.
Rogerson, John, Christopher Rowland, and Barnabas Lindars. The Study and Use of the
Bible. Vol. 2 of The History of Christian Theology. Edited by Paul Avis. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1988.
Roussel, Bernard. "De Strasbourg a Bale et Zurich: une 'Ecole Rhenane' d'Exegese (ca.
1525-1540)." Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 68 (1988): 19-39.
Rummel, Erika. Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to
Theologian. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986.
Schlingensiepen, Hermann. "Erasmus als Exeget auf Grund seiner Schriften zu
MztthSms." ZeitschriftfurKirchengeschichte48 (1929): 16-57.
 240 Selected Bibliography

Simon, Richard. Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament. Rotterdam, 1685. Reprint.

Frankfurt: Minerva, 1967.
Smalley, Beryl. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. 1952. Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1964.
Spicq, Ceslaus. Esquisse d'une histoire de I'exegese latine au moyen age. Paris: Libraire
philosophic J. Vrin, 1944.
Steinmetz, David C. "The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis." Theology Today 37
(1980): 27-38.
, ed. The Bible in the Sixteenth Century. Duke Monographs in Medieval and
Renaissance Studies 11. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990.
Stierle, Beate. "Schriftauslegung der Reformationszeit." Verkundigung und Forschung 16
(1971): 55-88.
Thompson, John Lee. John Calvin and the Daughters of Sarah: Women in Regular and
Exceptional Roles in the Exegesis of Calvin, His Predecessors, and His Contemporaries.
Geneva: Librairie Droz S.A., 1992.
Torrance, Thomas F. The Hermeneutics of John Calvin. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic
Press, 1988.
Walsh, Katherine, and Diana Wood, eds. The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in
Memory of Beryl Smalley. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.

History of Exegesis of the Gospel of John

Boismard, M.-E. Du Bapteme a Cana (Jean 1, 19-2, 11). Paris: Les Editions du Cerf,
1956.
Bresolin, Angelo. "L'esegesi di Giov. 2, 4 nei Padri Latini." Revue des Etudes
Augustiniennes 8 (1962): 243-273.
Cavallera, Ferdinand. "L'interpretation du chapitre VI de saint Jean: Une controverse
exegetique au Concile de Trente." Revue d'Histoire Ecdesiastique 10 (1909): 687-709.
du Manoir, H. "La scene de Cana commentee par Cyrille d'Alexandrie." In De
primordiis cultus Mariani. Acta Congressus Mariologici-Mariani III. Rome, 1970.
Ellwein, Eduard. Summus Evangelista: Die Botschaft des Johannesevangelium in der
Auslegung Luther. Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1960.
Farmer, Craig S. "Changing Images of the Samaritan Woman in Early Reformed
Commentaries on John." Church History 65 (1996): 365-375.
Gabler, Ulrich. "Bullingers Vorlesung iiber das Johannesevangelium aus dem Jahre
1523." In Heinrich Bullinger 1504-1575: Gesammelte Aufsatze zum 400. Todestag.
Edited by U. Gabler and E. Herkenrath. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975.
Heine, Rolf. "Zur patristischen Auslegung von loh. 2, 1-12." Wiener Studien 83 (1970):
189-195.
Joirrot, C. A. L. "Erasmus" In Principio Erat Sermo : A Controversial Translation."
Studies in Philology 61 (1964): 35-40.
Kremer, Jacob. Lazarus: Die Geschichte einer Auferstehung. Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1985,
Lohse, Wolfram. "Die Fufiwaschung (Joh. 13, 1-20). Eine Geschichte ihrer Deutung."
Ph.D. diss., University of Erlangen/Nuremberg, 1967.
 Selected Bibliography 241

Lowenich, Walther von. Die Eigenart von Luthers Auslegung des Johannes-Prologs.
Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1960.
Rabil, Albert. "Erasmus' Paraphrase of the Gospel of John." Church History 48 (1979):
142-155.
Ramos-Regidor, Jose. "Signo y Poder: a proposito de la exegesis patristica de Jn 2,
1-11." Salesianum (1965): 499-562.
Reuss, Joseph. "Joh 2, 3-4 in Johannes Kommentaren der griechischen Kirche." In
Neutestamentliche Aufsatze: Festschrift fur Josef Schmidzum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by
J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, and F. Mussner. Regensburg: Pustet, 1963.
Rivera, A. "Nota sobre el simbolismo del milagro de Cana en la interpretacion
patristica." Estudios Marianos 13 (1953): 62-72.
Sanders, J. N. The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1943.
Smitmans, Adolf. Das Weinwunder von Kana: Die Auslegung von Jo 2, 1-11 bei den
Vatern undheute. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1966.
Weisheipl, J. A. "The Johannine Commentary of Friar Thomas." Church History 45
(1976): 185-195.
Wengert, Timothy J. Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes in Johannem in Relation to its
Predecessors and Contemporaries. Geneva: Librairie Droz S. A., 1987.
. "The Dating of Huldrych Zwingli's Lectures on John." Zwingliana 24 (1986):
6-10.
Wiles, M. F. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early
Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.
This page intentionally left blank
Index

Abraham, 155, 164 Ambrose, 34, 36, 192n1

Active/contemplative life, 156-157 Amerbach, Boniface, 31
Albertists, 49 Ammonius of Alexandria, 189n34
Albert the Great, 189n26, 201n23 Anabaptists, 7, 23, 132, 165, 167
Alcuin, 201nn23, 28 Anagogy, 51-53, 67, 70-75, 77, 179
Alexander of Hales, 201n23 disciples, 74
Alexander of Villa Dei, 31 food, 70-71, 75
Allegory, 9, 26-28, 50-53, 62, 67-68, 77, leftovers, 75
107-108, 131, 146, 148, 155, 175- satiety, 74-75
176, 179-181, 222n55, 223nl, wedding feast, 77
229n98 Anger. See Jesus Christ; anger of; Moral
boat, 106,181, 213nn90, 92 interpretation: anger
darkness, 101-102 Anselm of Canterbury, 217n31
grass, 73 Aquinas, Thomas, 12-14, 17, 19-20, 22-
healing of man born blind, 143-144, 23, 53, 55-59, 62-68, 71, 73, 76,
147 201n23, 211n50, 212nn68, 77,
healing of paralytic, 121-123, 130-131 213nn81, 86, 92, 217n42, 218nn43,
loaves and fish, 71-72, 181 56,60
marriage, 24-26 Aristotle, 110, 113, 216n26
ministry of Word, 71, 180 Arnobius the Younger, 197n57
mountain, 57, 75-77 Astrology, 20
poolofBethesda, 117-118, 181 Athanasius, 32, 36, 227n55
pool of Siloam, 143, 145, 147 Augsburg, 3-4, 6-7, 32-33, 148, 178,
raising of Lazarus, 151-152, 154, 173- 187n33, 193n20
176, 181,224nl4 Augustine, 8, 12, 15, 20-21, 23-24, 27, 29,
shout of Jesus, 172-173, 175-176 33-34, 36-42, 45, 47, 63, 75, 84,
spit and clay, 143-144, 146-147, 181 92, 113, 132-133, 150, 174, 178,
stone on Lazarus's tomb, 168, 228n75 181, 192nl, 197n59, 212nn68, 77,
storm at sea, 101-105, 180, 212n77 213nn90, 94, 218n48, 219n69,
water into wine, 14, 23, 180, 190n76 228n75
Alsace, 30 Authority, spheres of, 21

243
 244 Index

Backus, Irena, 227nn58, 61, 229n98 Capuchins, 112

Baptism, 117-118, 130, 142, 145, 147, Catharinus, Ambrosius, 109
217n39 Cato, 206nl
Baptist of Mantua, 31 Celibacy, 25-26
Barth, Margaretha, 6 Chrysostom, John, 8, 12-17, 19-23, 27,
Basel, 7, 148-149, 184n2, 193n20, 223nl 29, 33-36, 38-43, 45-47, 55, 61,
Basil of Caesarea, 32-34, 191nl, 227n55 63, 67, 84, 91-92, 113, 126-127,
Baumlin, Richard, 5 132-133, 150, 178-179, 181,
Beaton, James, 112 189n34, 191nnl, 85, 193n20,
Bede, 201nn23, 28, 217n31 194n25, 197n59, 210n47, 211nn50,
Bern, 3, 5-7, 148, 178, 187n35, 224n11 59, 63, 212n68, 217nn39, 41,
Bernard of Clairvaux, 48, 217n31 218n53, 219nn73, 77, 80, 221nl6,
Betuleius, Xystus, 32-33, 78, 193n20, 222n39, 225n27, 226n32, 228n73
194n27 Church of the Holy Cross, 7, 32, 193nl9
Beza, Theodor, 6 Cicero, 31, 193n20
Biel, Gabriel, 49 Cochlaeus, Johann, 46, 195n39
Birk, Sixt. See Betuleius, Xystus Colmar, 30-31
Blaurer, Ambrose, 184nlO, 187n33, Cologne, 111
193n21 Compassion. See Mary: compassion of;
Blindness, spiritual, 144-145 Moral interpretation: compassion
Bonaventure, 8, 189n26, 217n31 Confession, auricular, 112
Bondage of will, 123, 131 Constance, 7
Brenz, Johannes, 132-135, 137-143, 147, Contemplative/active life, 156-157
221nn28, 29, 223nl, 227n58, Conversion, process of, 122-123, 131
229n98 Cranmer, Thomas, 4
Brethren of the Common Life, 30 Creation, ex nihilo, 14-15, 27
Broickwy von Konigstein, Antonius, Cruciger, Caspar, 191n85
109-113, 115, 117-122, 124-130, Cruciger, Felix, 4, 184n4
215nnl5, 18, 217n29, 219n73 Curiosity, 56, 99-100, 136-137, 146
Bruhl, 111 Cyprian, 34, 192nl
Bucer, Martin, 4, 6-7, 12, 15-17, 19, 21, Cyril of Alexandria, 12, 20-24, 29, 32-34,
23-24, 26, 30, 32-33, 86, 93-94, 38-42, 45, 55, 84, 113, 119, 132-
132, 147-152, 154-155, 159-161, 133, 150, 178, 191nl, 194n28,
164-167, 169-176, 223nnl, 2 197n59
Buchanan, George, 215n9
Bullinger, Heinrich, 7, 149-150, 152-153, Decalogue, division of, 36, 196nn47, 48
155-162, 164-165, 167-176, Dellsperger, Rudolf, 6
184n3, 223nl, 224nll, 229n98 Denis of Leeuwen. See Denis the
Burgerbibliothek Bern, 184n9, 186n25, Carthusian
193n21 Denis the Carthusian, 12, 16-20, 23-25,
Burial of dead. See Moral interpretation: 53, 55-59, 62, 64-66, 68, 70-73,
burial of dead 75-76, 201n23
De Troeyer, Benjamin, 111
Cajetan, Tommaso de Vio, 109, 214nn2, 4 Dieuz, 6, 30-31
Calvin, John, 4-5, 7, 49, 86, 147-148, Donauworth, 7
184n4, 215n9, 223nl Dorlitzheim, 6
Cambridge, 4, 110 Dringenberg, Ludwig, 30
Canterbury, 4 Drunkenness. See Moral interpretation:
Capito, Wolfgang, 7, 32, 78, 148, 223n1 drunkenness
 Index 245

East Frisia, 4 Fate, 20-21

Elijah, 66 Fear. See Moral interpretation: fear
Elisha, 41, 61, 66, 142-143 Florilegium, 113-114
Eparchus, Antonius, 194nn27, 28 Franciscans, 111-112
Epiphanius of Salamis, 191nl Frankfurt-am-Main, 111
Episcopius, Eusebius, 3 Frecht, Martin, 193n21
Erasmus, Desiderius, 12-18, 21, 23, 26, Friars Minor, Order of. See Franciscans
30, 64, 78-102, 105, 107, 111-114, Froben, Hieronymus, 194n25
132, 159-160, 179, 208n8
annotations of, 64, 79, 86-92, 107, 113, Ganoczy, Alexandre, 216n25
179, 216n23, 217n29 Gasser, Achilles Pirminus, 194n26
paraphrases of, 79, 82, 93 Gast, Johann, 149
translation of New Testament of. See Gebwiler, Hieronymus, 30
New Testament, Latin: Erasmus's Gemuseus, Hieronymus, 30
translation of Geneva, 148
Erastus, Thomas, 4, 5, 185n11 Glasgow, University of, 110
Estienne, Robert, 208n7, 223n3 Glossa ordinaria, 53, 65, 71-73, 75,
Eucharist. See Lord's Supper 201nn23, 28
Euripides, 206n1 Gospel, 43, 140
Eusebius, 34, 89, 194n24 as philosophia Christi, 79
Evagrius Scholasticus, 194n24 restitution of, 162
Excommunication, 139, 146, 174, 221n28 as spiritual food, 73
Exegesis. See also Tradition, exegetical supersedes law, 23
history of, 5, 8-9, 11-12 Gregory of Nazianzus, 32-34, 191nl,
Jewish, 149 194n28
loci method of, 133, 147 Gregory of Nys , 227n55
Rhenish school of, 223n1 Grief. See Jesus Christ: sorrow of; Moral
Exorcism, 118 interpretation: grief
Grossmunster, 149
Faber Stapulensis, Jacobus, 78, 92-102, Grote, Ludwig, 5-6, 30, 186n25, 193nl7
106-107, 112 Guggisberg, Kurt, 6
Faith, 19, 39, 61, 157, 160, 162, 166, 171 Guilt, inherited, 135-137
certitude of, 159
confession of, 65-66, 158-160, 176 Heidelberg, University of, 4, 185n1 1
effects of, 161 Henricpetri, Sebastian, 3
as goal of miracles, 13, 39, 46, 64, 98, Heresy
143 and the Fathers, 36
in miracles, 43, 45 Manichaean, 14, 20
mysteries of, 75 Marcionite, 164
and obedience, 145 resurrection of body, 158
and prayer, 17, 19 sacramental, 142, 145-146
in providence, 169 trinitarian, 35
and reason, 47, 62 Hermeneutics, medieval, 50-52, 179
as result of miracles, 39, 45 Herod, 40, 55
a result of suffering, 139 Herwagen, Johann, 3-4, 7
without signs, 39, 42-43 Hesychius of Jerusalem, 191nl
weakness of, 40-44, 65, 97-98, 157- Hilary of Poitiers, 34, 192nl
161, 169-170 History, salvation, 76, 123, 131
Farel, Guillaume, 4 Hochstetten, 5
 246 Index

Hofmann, Crato, 30 Job, 127, 135, 139

Horace, 31 John the Baptist, 55, 88, 90, 173
Hospitality. See Moral interpretation: John the Evangelist, 16, 189n26
hospitality Joseph, 138, 164
Hugh of St. Cher, 12-20, 22-25, 53-56, Josephus, 194n25
58-60, 63-65, 68, 70, 72-73, Joshua, 90
189n26, 201nn23, 26, 211nn50, Jud, Leo, 30, 149
63,212nn68, 77 Judaism: and polemics against
Humanism, definition of, 206n2 Christianity, 66
Humanists, biblical scholarship of, 8,
10, 78-79, 88, 92, 107-114, 130, Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von,
179-180, 214n2, 216n21, 223nl 227n61
Humility Knowledge, prophetic, 65-66
of the disciples, 74 Koblenz, 111
of Jesus, 22, 100 Konigstein-am-Taunus, 111
Hussites, 112 KreBner, Helmut, 5
Kristeller, Paul Oskar, 206n2
Ignatius of An tioch, 191nl
Illumination, spiritual, 145, 147 Lactantius, 192nl, 193n20
Interim, Augsburg, 4, 7, 224nl 1 Latomus, Jacobus, 111
Interpretation, christological, 52 Lauterburg, Ludwig, 5
Irenaeus, 34, 197n67 Law, 74, 134-136
Irony, 93-94, 21 On44 Mosaic, 71, 118
Isengrin, Michael, 184n2 natural, 5
Islam, 66-67, 202n43 and Passover observance, 58—59
and polemics against Christianity, 66 and Sabbath observance, 124-125
Israel, 164 Lefevre d'Etaples. See Faber Stapulensis,
Jacobus
Jerome, 15, 34, 36, 90, 115, 130, 189n26, Lerner, Robert E., 201n26
191n85, 192nl,217n31 Livy, 206n1
Jerusalem, 54, 58, 114, 116 Lixheim, 6, 31-32, 192nl2
Jesus Christ Lombard, Peter, 49-50, 110, 199n8
as advocate, 171 London, 4
anger of, 163-165 Lord's Supper, 7, 69, 71, 75, 114, 145,
as bread of life, 70-71, 181 160
divine power of, 13, 41, 45, 63, 97-98, Lorraine, 6, 30
157, 160 Lot, 155
as fulfillment of law, 59 Louvain, 111-112
human nature of, 20, 163-166, 227n55 Loyola, Ignatius, 215n9
incarnation of, 24-25, 144, 146 Luther, Martin, 6, 31-32, 35, 49, 148
as king, 65, 67 Lutherans, Lutheranism, 7, 112, 132,
as light of world, 139-141 187n33, 220n3, 227n58
as lord of nature, 14-15, 96-98
as Passover, 59 Magic, 56, 99, 118
poverty of, 22, 68-69 suspicion of, 15, 63, 172
as priest, 166, 171 Major, John, 109-113, 115-116, 118-121,
as prophet, 41, 43, 45, 65-66 124-130, 214n9, 215nnlO, 12,
sorrow of, 163-165 216nn23, 25, 26
two natures of, 20, 63, 66 Manlius, 137
 Index 247

Marburg, 4 curiosity, 136-137, 146. See also

Mariology, 17, 19 Curiosity
Marriage. See Allegory: marriage; Moral drunkenness, 23-24, 27
interpretation: marriage faith, 19,43, 155, 159, 169-171. See also
Mary, 12, 15-21, 24, 27, 62, 189n34 Faith
compassion of, 17 fear, 104-105
faith of, 19 feasting on Word, 73-75
as mediatrix, 17-19 fleeing honor, 67, 126
and prayer, 19 forbearance, 158-159
Mass, 7, 49 grief, 157
Medicine, study of, 142 hospitality, 155, 157, 177
Melanchthon, Philip, 8, 12, 15, 18-19, 21, marriage, 12, 22-27, 181, 191n85
23, 26, 93, 133-135, 137-141, 147, meals, 69
191n85,204n96, 207n2 merriment, 22-23
Memory, 69 ministry of Word, 72-75, 102
Menander, 206n1 mourning, 166. See also Mourning
Merit, 74, 121, 131 obedience, 73, 103, 126, 145-146, 162.
Meyer, Sebastian, 187n33 See also Obedience
Micron, Martin, 4-5, 184n4 parental love, 44, 47. See also Parents:
Milan, 112 love for children
Ministry of Word. See Allegory: ministry prayer, 18-19, 22, 152-153, 171-172.
of Word; Moral interpretation: See also Prayer
ministry of Word reason, judgment of, 72, 103-104, 137,
Miracles 161. See also Reason, judgment of
and divinity of Christ, 13, 20, 98, repentance, 173. See also Repentance
100 rest, 157
method of, 12-15, 20-21, 27, 97, sacraments, 145-146
116, 141-145, 168 satanic opposition, 103
and nature, 15, 188n23 siblings, love among, 151, 153, 177
proof of, 13-14, 27, 44-45, 61, 64, 167, sickness, 154, 177. See also Sickness
169, 173 sinners, 169
purpose of, 13-14, 21, 39, 42-43, 46, sorrow for sins, 164
57, 62, 64, 70-71, 96-98, 100, 117, stewardship, 70
119, 143 suffering, 22, 101, 129, 139. See also
suspicion of, 99 Suffering
Monasticism, 22, 25, 156-157 thankfulness, 68-69, 70, 181
Montaigu, College de, 110 tribulation, 104-105, 139
Moore, John M., 194n28 unbelief, 43-44, 47. See also Unbelief
Moral interpretation, 9, 18, 28, 46-47, viewing the dead, 170, 177
51-53, 62, 68, 76-77, 93, 101, 103, wastefulness, 68, 70, 75
106-108, 126, 130, 136, 148, 158, wealth, 68-69, 104
162-163, 171, 175-176, 179-181 welcoming Christ, 156
anger, 165 Moses, 62, 65-67, 71,145
burial of dead, 167-168, 177 Mourning, 164-166, 227n61
carnality, 106 Muhammad, 57, 67
compassion, 18, 152-154, 164-167, 170 Millhausen, 184n2
confession of sin, 18 Munster, Sebastian, 223nl
conversion of rulers, 40, 46-47 Musculus, Abraham, 5—6, 30—31
corruption of human nature, 39, 46 Musculus, Wolfgang (1556-1625), 5
 248 Index

Musculus, Wolfgang (1497-1563) New Testament, Greek

on authority of canon, 35-36 Colinaeus's edition of, 207n6
on authority of Fathers, 33-38, 46, Complutensian edition of, 207nn3,
91-92,179 6
as authority on Fathers, 29, 46 Erasmus's edition of, 78-79
as Benedictine monk, 6, 31, 32 New Testament, Latin
biography of, 6-8 Erasmus's translation of, 64, 79-87, 89,
commentaries (biblical) 92,95,107,159-160,179
Colossians, 3, 200n21 Vulgate, 64, 79-87, 89, 94-95, 107, 112,
1 & 2 Corinthians, 3, 200n21 114, 159-160, 163, 179,200n21,
Decalogue, 3 208nn7, 8
Galatians, 3, 51, 200n21 Nicholas of Gorran, 201n23
Genesis, 3, 29, 200nn20, Nicholas of Lyra, 53, 55-58, 60, 62-65, 67,
21 179, 189n26, 201nn23, 24
Isaiah, 3, 51, 200n21 Nicodemus, 159
Matthew, 3 Nijmegan, 111,215nl6
Philippians, 3, 200n21 Nonnus of Panopolis, 38, 40, 42, 178,
Psalms, 3, 4, 29, 184n3, 200n21 197n60
Romans, 3
1 & 2 Thessalonians, 3, 200n21 Obedience. See also Moral interpretation:
1 Timothy, 3, 7, 200n21 obedience
education of, 6, 30-33, 78 to Christ, 19, 73, 103, 122, 125-126,
fame of, 3-4 130, 145-146, 161-162
heirs of, 7-8 to the law, 58-59
influence of, 4 modeled by Mary, 17
and medieval hermeneutics, 50- monastic, 17, 25
52 Ochino, Bernardino, 4
and medieval theology, 49-50 Ockham, William, 110
modern studies of, 4-6 Ockhamists, 38, 49, 215n9
and poetry, 5, 31 CEcolampadius, Johannes, 149-165,
study of Arabic, 193n21 167-176, 201n24, 209n29, 223nl
study of Greek, 32, 193n20 Old Testament, 71, 73, 116, 160
study of Hebrew, 7, 32, 192nl7 Origen, 34, 36, 189n34, 190n58, 191nl,
study of organ, 192nl3 209n30, 217n31
as translator of classics, 29, 32-33, 78, Osiander, Andreas, 220nl
193n20 Otto Henry, Elector, 4
works Ovid, 31-32
letter to Protestant clergy of
Hungary, 36 Papacy, 114
Loci communes, 3, 5, 29, 35-38, Paraphrase, 38, 114, 150, 164, 210n42
49-50, 184n4 compared to commentary, 93
introduction to translation of Parents
Chrysostom, 33-35 love for children, 40, 44, 47, 152
Muslin, David, 187n35 obedience to, 16,20,21
Paris, 110
Naaman,41, 142-143 Passover, 53-55, 58, 59
Navarre, 110 Patience, 120-121
Neuburg an der Donau, 4 Pellikan, Conrad, 223nl
Neuweiler, 192nl3 Penance, 25, 50
 Index 249

Pentecost, 53-54 Samaritan woman, 41

Persius, 206nl Sapidus, Johannes, 30
Pharaoh, 138 Sarah, 62
Pharisees, 56, 69, 143 Sarcerius, Erasmus, 133-135, 137-142,
Phrygio, Paulus Constantinus, 30 145,147
Plato, 206nl Schmalkald League, 7
Plutarch, 206nl Scholastics, scholasticism, 38, 49-50,
Poland, 4, 184n4 113, 116, 199n8, 216n25,
Pole, Reginald, 215n9 217n36
Polybius, 32-33 Schwab, Paul Josiah, 5
Prayer, 17-19, 22, 27, 62-63, 69, 139, 152- Schwabisch Hall, 133
153,158,171,172 Schwarz, Theobald, 187n33
modeled by Martha and Mary, 152-153 Schwenckfeld, Caspar, 6
modeled by Mary, 17-18, 27 Scipio, 137
Providence, 45, 98, 103-104, 117, 119, Scotists, 38,49, 215nlO
135, 144-145, 156, 163, 168-169 Scotland, 4, 110
Purgatory, 113 Scotus, Duns, 110
Purification, Jewish ceremonial, 13, 58, Secymin, 4
203 Selestat, 30-31, 78
Pythagoras, 206nl Selfishness, 100-101, 106
Septuagint, 90-91, 200n21
Rabelais, Francois, 215nn9, 13 Siblings. See Moral interpretation:
Rappoltsweiler. See Ribeauville siblings, love among
Rashi, 192nl7 Sickness
Reason, judgment of, 43, 47, 61-62, 72, corrective, 127-129, 154
103-104, 134, 136-137, 140, 142- glorifies God, 151, 154
145, 161, 170 reasons for, 127-128, 151
Regensburg, conference at, 7 Signs, 8, 13, 40, 42-43, 55-57, 66, 99-100,
Repentance, 122-123, 173, 175, 218n60 137, 159
Resurrection, doctrine of, 155, 158-160, Simon, Richard, 4, 184n3
169-170, 173 Sin
Rhenanus, Beatus, 30 confession of, 18
Ribeauville, 30 and impotence of will, 122-123
Roman Catholics, Roman Catholicism, 7, mortal/nonmortal, 154
33,36-38,48,109,111 relationship to suffering, 127-130,
Rome, 112 134-141, 219n80
Roth, Friedrich, 6 Smitmans, Adolf, 190n76, 191n85
Roussel, Bernard, 223nl Socrates Scholasticus, 194n24
Rupert of Deutz, 53-55, 59, 64, 70-74, 76, Sorbonne, 109-110
201nn23, 28 Sorrow. See Jesus Christ: sorrow of; Moral
interpretation: sorrow
Sabbath for sins
controversy over, 114, 124-126, 130 Soul sleep, 113
purpose of, 123-125 Sozomen, Salaminius Hermias,
Sadducees, 159 194n24
St. Andrews University, 110 Stewardship. See Moral interpretation:
St. Gallen, 7, 148 stewardship
Saints, worship of, 19, 112, 117 Strasbourg, 4, 6, 32, 148-149, 223nl
Samaritans, 39, 42-43, 197n68 Streuber, Wilhelm T., 5-6, 186n25
 250 Index

Sturm, Jacob, 6 Ulrich, Duke of Wurttemburg, 133

Suffering, 120-121 Unbelief, 41, 43-45, 47, 60, 97-99.
as corrective, 127, 129, 154 See also Faith: weakness of
and glory of God, 60, 137-138, 146,
151,154 Valerius Maximus, 206nl
and piety, 139 Valla, Lorenzo, 111, 164, 201n23
and thankfulness, 22 Virgil, 206nl,209n22
Sulzer, Simon, 7 Virginity, 16
Vows, monastic, 25-26
Tertullian, 191n85, 192nl, 217n39 Vuilleumier, Henri, 6
Testing, 59-60, 104-105 Vulgate. See New Testament, Latin:
Thales of Miletus, 206nl Vulgate
Thankfulness. See Moral interpretation: Wastefulness. See Moral interpretation:
thankfulness wastefulness
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 194n24 Wealth. See Jesus Christ: poverty of;
Theodor of Mopsuestia, 189n34 Moral interpretation: wealth
Theology Wengert, Timothy ]., 207n2, 210n44,
federal, 5 222n55, 224n6
medieval, 48-50 Westheimer, Bartholomaus, 3, 184n2
Theophylact, 53, 55-60, 62-64, 71, 75, 84, Whitgift, John, 5
112, 150, 179, 201nn23,24, 25, Wilhelm von Nassau, Landgrave,
221nl6 133
Thomas Aquinas. See Aquinas, Thomas Wimpfeling, Jakob, 30
Thomists, 38, 49 Witcliffites, 112
Thretius, Christoph, 184n4 Wittenberg Concord, 5, 7
Titelmans, Francis, 109-112, 114-115, Wolfhart, Boniface, 187n33
117-121,124-126,129-130, Worms, Colloquy of, 204n96
215n20,216n21,219n73
Titelmans, Pieter, 111 Zacharias, 62
Tobit, 127 Zell, Matthaus, 6
Torrance, Thomas F., 216n23 Zigabenus, Euthymius, 201n23
Tradition. See also Exegesis: history of Zofingen Stadtbibliothek, 196n45
authority of, 35-38, 112, 114 Zurich, 7, 148-149, 223nl, 224n11
exegetical, 8-9, 11, 26-27, 55, 113, 130, Zwingli, Ulrich, 8, 86, 148-149, 151-152,
178-179, 181-182 155, 157-161, 163, 170-171,
Transubstantiation, 113 173-176, 223nl
Tropology. See Moral interpretation Zwinglians, 7