Erasmus in the Footsteps of Paul by Greta Kroeker
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

The Password to Paradise

Religious faith, like time, is one of those things that becomes more elusive the more it is examined. Faith is associated with belief, with trust, with loyalty, with commitment, with various confident psychological states, among many other ideas, emotions, and attitudes of mind. But it is none of these things. Faith as it has come to be used in religious terms is an elemental component of Christianity invented by St. Paul. It is a concept found neither in Paul’s native Judaism nor in the synoptic gospels or reported words of Jesus. Rather faith is Paul’s interpretation of religion itself in light of what he had been told of Jesus by others. This interpretation is centred upon his novel and highly influential theory of salvation and its linked concept of grace. The world has not been the same since.

Although faith is a self-designated distinguishing characteristic of Christianity, it is apparent that even Paul had difficulty in communicating what he meant by it. The doctrines of faith, grace and salvation as definitive explanations of Pauline writings emerged only gradually during centuries subsequent to his writing under the careful monitoring by the Church.* Controversy was permitted about these subjects but only to the extent that such controversy did not question the authority of the Church in settling disagreements. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century attacked just this authority, specifically concerning the established doctrines of faith, grace and salvation.

Erasmus was someone who might be called a loyal reformer. While aware of the corrupt political and spiritual state of the Church, he also feared its destruction if reform was not carried out from within. He is particularly known for his intellectual attacks against Martin Luther, which attacks form the central focus of Kroeker’s monograph. Kroeker traces the evolution of Erasmus’s so-called ‘annotations’ of the gospels and Pauline epistles in order to demonstrate his increasing exegetical and theological sophistication. What she incidentally shows, however, is how fragile the central concept of faith becomes when it is released from the circular doctrinal supervision of Church authority.

(view spoiler)[This fragility is most clear in Erasmus’s annotations on Paul’s epistle to the Romans, the most extensive exposition of his theory of faith.** In the first portion of these annotations, Kroeker summarises the diverse uses to which Erasmus puts the term faith (fides in Latin; πίστις = pistis in Greek) in his attempt to understand Paul:

One who believes the words of another is said to have confidence [fides] in him; one who makes a solemn promise is said to give a pledge [fides]; and one who binds himself in obligation to another is said to plight his faith [fides]. One who performs what he has promised, however, is said to fulfill his trust [fides]. One who is not believed lacks our trust [fides] – [we have] no faith [fides] in the appearances [he puts on]. One who does not adhere to an agreement breaks faith [fides]; from this one speaks of the perfidious [perfidus] and perfidy [perfidia]. A person who causes another not to be believed diminishes the latter’s credibility [fides]. He who does the opposite, inspires confidence [fides]. We lose confidence [fides] in one who fails to be responsible for an obligation assumed; we gain confidence [fides] in one who has carefully done what he could. and we hand over for security [fides] what we entrust [fidei committimus] to someone. One who comes into ownership without deception is said to be the bona fide purchaser for value; one who does otherwise, [takes possession] in bad faith [fides] – also faithful [fidelis] – who runs affairs conscientiously. In latin, therefore, fides belongs sometimes to one who promises, sometimes to one who fulfils a promise, sometimes to one who believes, sometimes to one who is believed; sometimes it is a general term, as when we say ‘there is no faith [fides] left in the world,’ meaning that no one fulfils what he promises, and that no one trusts [fidere] another ... In latin, the incredulous person is one who distrusts [diffidit]; for ‘credulous’ and ‘credulity’ have a negative connotation, though ‘to give credence’ [credere ‘to believe’] is ambiguous. He believes [credit] who relies [fidit], and he entrusts [credit] his wife to another who gives her into his charge.

After surveying the relation between faith and belief, he then in methodical fashion moves on to the connection between faith and trust, especially through his consideration of Romans 3:22, 4:21–4, 8:15, and 10:12:

Now we speak in a positive way of trusting [fidens] and of trust [fiducia], which resides only in the believer [in credente]; in a positive way likewise [we use the infinitives] to entrust [confidere] and to trust [fidere]; but self-confident [confidens] and boldness [confidentia] have a negative connotation. But sacred literature frequently uses these words loosely, for it often uses fides [faith] for fiducia [trust] in God almost in the sense of hope; sometimes for the belief or conviction by which we assent to the things handed down to us about God – by which even the demons believe. sometimes the word faith [fides] embraces all these meanings: that assent to the truth both of the historical record and of the promises, and the trust [fiducia] that arises from his omnipotent goodness, not without the hope, that is, the expectation, of the promises. so far, indeed, does not speak of the faith [fides] of human beings.

In the last part of the annotations, Erasmus chose to underscore the fact that in Romans 1:17, faith brings one to trust in the promises of God:

However, one also speaks of the faith [fides] of God, a faith he manifests in his promises; hence God is said to be trustworthy [fidus] or faithful [fidelis], that is, πιστóς, because he does not deceive. But a man is said to be faithful [fidelis] who believes the one who makes a promise. This is not characteristic latin use, and yet sacred literature frequently speaks in this way. For in latin a steward is called faithful [fidelis]; faithless [infidelis], however, is used in the scriptures (but not in [secular] latin) of one who does not believe. The Greek ἄπιστoς [unbelieving] or ἀπειθής [not to be persuaded] is better. sometimes [the scriptures] speak of the faith of God [fides dei] by which we trust [fidimus] in him rather than in man; it is said to be ‘of God’ not only because it is directed towards him, but also because it is given by him; sometimes [the scriptures speak of the faith] of both [God and man], as in ‘the righteous shall live by faith [fides] – of God who does not deceive in what he has promised, and also of man who trusts [fidit] in God.’ To both belongs the phrase used here, ‘from faith [fides] to faith [fides].’ For just as God at appointed times began to reveal his nature and to fulfill his promises, so man’s knowledge of and trust [fiducia] in God grew by stages. Few believed the prophets until the lord displayed before their eyes what they had promised. again, from what we have seen, and now see, our faith [fides] is strengthened concerning the things that were predicted about his final coming.

(hide spoiler)]

I quote this section at length in order to suggest two things: 1) Whatever Paul meant by his central concept of faith is not just imprecise, it is also a usage in both Latin and Greek which is highly innovative. 2) And even a highly educated and highly motivated believer like Erasmus has great difficulty in figuring out what he really means. It is at this point that Erasmus’s humanism butts up uncomfortably to his desire to toe the doctrinal line, which is ultimately what he does. The doctrines may be meaningless in the sense that their content is merely linguistic, but they are a signal of unity. So he, like many others balks at any serious criticism.

One tentative but plausible conclusion from Erasmus’s analyses is that this central concept of Christianity is not so much a ‘thing’ in today’s jargon, that is, an ontological entity, as it is a tribal symbol. Faith refers to nothing on Earth or in Heaven... except itself. Having faith, professing faith, believing (on, in, or through), and belief itself, are symbolic terms of communication identifying members of the tribe to each other.

Repeating and attesting publicly to creeds and various approved religious phrases, then, is the sole content of faith. Functionally faith is the worship of words;***religious authority is the monopolistic dictatorship over words, a sort of spiritual Académie française (but more effective). Not knowing what the words in creeds and religious phrases mean in this context is in fact an advantage since delving too deeply into the ‘substance’ of faith is more likely to uncover confusion and disagreement. This is the reason for centuries-long prohibition of the translation of scripture into spoken languages, not to mention the equally long-standing preference for Latin (or for archaic Greek or ancient Slavonic, among others depending on the demographic).

Based on the historical and continuing fragmentation of Christian cults over the centuries, this is precisely what happens when religious authority is ignored in Christianity: The words take on new, often contradictory meanings - following, indeed, in the footsteps of the religion’s founder, Paul. Avoiding heresy and mutual anathema is a matter of avoiding the devils that are inherent in the detail. Paul never supplied these essential details. His idea of faith is meant, it appears therefore, to be an imprecise idea which permits inclusion in the Christian community simply by claiming to have it. A password to paradise. Clever; one can understand Paul’s reputation as a religious genius.

* It is interesting to note that the early Christian Fathers had very little to say about the idea of Pauline faith. Not until Augustine in the 5th century C.E. did Paul’s theory of faith receive any sustained attention. Faith appears to have been taken as a self-evident spiritual activity and a discovery unique to Christianity, and therefore was unopposed as a principle in the Jewish and wider religious world, which apparently didn’t know what to make of the idea. It was used routinely, however, to distinguish Christianity from Judaism and to attack so-called ‘Judaizers’ within the Church who suggested that ethical behaviour, such as that catalogued in the Sermon on the Mount, should be considered paramount. Augustine’s opponent in the ongoing debate about faith was the British monk Pelagius who had the temerity to suggest that doing good deeds, by becoming habitual, might make a person a better Christian. Augustine was having none of that based on Romans. Somehow a Pelagian version of goodness has re-emerged during the 20th century in the form of Christian Virtue Ethics; but that’s another story.

** The situation becomes even more problematic when the concepts of faith from other scriptural sources are compared with that contained in Romans. The Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, historically mis-attributed to Paul, presents a very different account of the term.

*** This worship of words is, of course, made explicit in the Gospel of John, which starts with “In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God.” This was written approximately 70 years after the Epistle to the Romans and is clearly heavily influenced by Paul’s idea.

Postscript: For more on the cultural legacy of Pauline Christianity see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
And for a practical guide to resistance to the Pauline tactic of language dominance, see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

View all my reviews