Itt-Ott, 1992 (25. évfolyam, 1/119-3/121. szám)

1992 / 1. (119.) szám

So it was Blandrata, the “beloved doctor,” as he was generally called, who established his influence on Dávid, then proceeded to use his genius, and later debated him until he was imprisoned at Déva. Actually, Dávid became more the victim of Blandrata’s intrigue than just the martyr of his own faith.

With Restitutio Christianismi Servetus had hoped to reform the Christian Church by connecting Islamic and rabbinical literature. He had known the Koran well and had used it copiously as a source. Many times he had shown preference for the teachings of Mohammed over the Bible (Wilbur 1945, 45). Theodore Bibliander and his coworkers had translated the Koran in 1543, and Servetus had amply used the translation when he attacked the trinitarian dogma. Newman states: “Servetus also is quick to indicate that the Mohammedans and the Jews are justified in their mockery of the Trinity... and in the truth of the Unitarian view of God (Newman 1966, 577, 579).” At at the same time, Servetus had borrowed many elements from the Aristotelian writings of Averroes, which were built on pantheism. It seems probable that this Arabic material came into Spanish spiritual life through the intermediary of Hebrew literature translated into Latin. As Hebrew historian Graetz pointed out: “Michael Servetus... instructed by Marranos in Spain, wrote a pamphlet on the errors of the Trinity (Graetz 1894, 4:541).” (Marranos were those Spanish Jews who, under duress, had changed their faith to Roman Catholicism but who remained in essence faithful to Judaism.) With excellent theological preparedness, they cast doubts on certain points of theology, among them the doctrine of the Trinity. The Hebrew language nowhere played a larger role in theological literature than in that of the Antitrinitarians. Robert Dán, historian and Hebraist, gave an excellent insight into this when he disclosed the sixteenth-century sources of the Unitarian and Sabbatarian religions (Dán 1973, 71, 73). Christian Hebraists analyzing the Bible could be regarded as the followers of Erasmus from the point of view of their methods. Erasmus, with exaggerated humanistic approach, undermined the basic tenets of Christology in many ways. It is true that he later admitted that the philological works which he had promoted had prepared the way for Hebraic influences. In a letter written to Wolfgang Capito in 1516, Erasmus said that he was afraid that outside of Judaism a new paganism could develop (Erasmus of Rotterdam , 2:491)

According to historian and Hebraist Newman, Servetus’ theological system contains more elements from the Old Testament than from any other literature, whether Neo-Platonic, Greek, Mohammedan, Patristic, or early heretical such as Sabellian, Pelagian, Manichean or Arian (Newman 1966, 595).

What Erasmus could do in his later years, that is, avoid rabbinical literature, Servetus could not do. His tragedy was a paradox. He became the victim of that religious legalism which he himself generously had propagated. In fact it was the Law of Moses which was carried out on him (Exodus 22:20, Leviticus 24:16). The Koran also prescribed a punishment similar to the one Servetus advocated.3

The Biblical literature of the humanists no doubt attempted to perfect the text of the Bible, but in so doing it introduced Biblical relativism, which one medieval theologian characterized thus: The Vulgate was stretched out between two thieves. One was Hebrew, the other Greek (Lathomas 1519).”

When Dávid adopted the theological innovations of Servetus, he attempted to integrate them entirely with his own ideas. Today it is possible, using philologic means, to show exactly how much he relied on the literature of the Spanish humanist. For instance, in 1569 Dávid published two learned essays, “De regno Christi liber primus” and “De regno antichristi liber secundus,” which were actually transcriptions of Servetus’ famous Restitutio in abbreviated form (Borbély 1914, 43). From these copious adaptations it is apparent that between the years 1565 and 1571 Dávid drew on foreign sources but was unable to form his own theological system. It is also true that due to numerous plagiarisms his dogmas were filled with contradictions. One contemporary monographer recognized that when Dávid characterized something as original, it could not be called a religious innovation of his own. “That is to say that the thoughts and ideas which he spread about were without exceptions taken from others (Iván 1936, 31).” In fact, one can observe in these two essays that thoughts were introduced by Dávid from the works of Servetus.

When Dávid and Blandrata finally managed in 1571 to gain official recognition for Unitarianism, Dávid still considered the worship of Christ as necessary. He expressed it for his followers thus: “I do not hold Christ to be the prime creator of the world, but I consider it necessary to worship him... To be sure, God’s firstborn is to be worshiped (Dávid n.d.a Az egy Atya).” When, however, the Reformed theologians of Debrecen accused him of being the imitator of Servetus, he vehemently denied it. Bishop Melius of Debrecen was a good Hebraist and also knew Arabic; already in 1567 he had exposed Dávid’s sources. For example, Servetus had stated at the beginning that Christ is God (Christus est Deus)\ Dávid also repeated “I will say that anyone who does not acknowledge that Christ is the true God, let him be cursed (Dávid 1569).” As Dávid penetrated further into the complicated disorderliness of Servetus’ religious thoughts and recognized his contradictions, he turned to newer theological sources. This was circa 1571. In contrast, he remained under the influence of Erasmus right to the end.

Influence of Erasmus

According to Papal Nuncio Antonio Possevino, Erasmus was the representative of the sceptica doctrina. When Dávid omitted the text of the comma Johanneum (I John 5:7) which taught the Trinity, he referred openly to Erasmus, who had done the same in his Novum Testamentum. (The latter had been published in translation in 1577 in Transylvania and the Unitarian exegesis drew from its arguments in profusion.) According to Possevino, “Erasmus wiped his feet, dirty with the filth of arrogance, on the holy books, and the best proof of this is the Ministri Transylvani”

ITT-OTT 25. évf. (1992), 1.(119.) szám 25