Nebrija | An Unsung Hero of the Spanish PreReformation Era
NEBRIJA: AN UNSUNG HERO OF THE SPANISH PREREFORMATION ERA
by Dr. Carlos Donate
ELIO ANTONIO DE NEBRIJA or LEBRIJA (a.k.a Antonio Martínez de Cala) was born in 1444 in Lebrija (Seville), Spain, and died on the 5th of July 1522 in Alcalá de Henares. His last name is toponymic, that is, it identifies him with the city of his birth. Many historians think that his Jewish descendants converted to Catholicism. He was married to Isabel Montesina and together they had 7 children, several who later became involved in humanities like he was for so many years. Today, there are several universities in Spain and elsewhere that bear his name. His material is widely available on YouTube and other internet sites.
At 14 years of age, Nebrija left Spain with a scholarship from the Bishop of Seville and went to the Royal College of Spain in Bologna, Italy to study theology and humanities. While there he came under the influence of protestant ideals, especially those of the recently deceased Lorenzo Valla, a well-known Italian renaissance critic of Catholicism before Erasmus’ time. It was Valla who was under the protection of King Alphonse of Aragon, who attacked the Catholic Church when at about 1439 wrote “The Donation of Constantine” in which he proved that a supposed document which declared that Pope Silvester, 4th Century, had received absolute power to rule over Rome and its dominions from the then Emperor because the Pope healed him of leprosy. Valla used his research skills and erudition as a weapon against Rome. He proved beyond all doubt that the legal document was in fact from the 8th Century, and not from the 4rth Century as previously believed. Valla proved that the Catholic Church´s claim to its powers was bunk. Valla also wrote a commentary on the New Testament—Collation, 1447-- to show the many errors of the Latin Vulgate. Then he wrote Annotations at about 1450, which delved even deeper into the idea of correcting the Latin Vulgate with the Masoretic Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament circulating throughout Europe.
Pedro Martinez de Osma (no relation to Nebrija—both had a Martínez surname) was also a tremendous influence. He was born about 1427 in Burgo de Osma in Soria, Spain and died on April 16,1480 in Alba de Tormes, Salamanca, Spain. He was a philosopher, theologian, and professor at the same university as Nebrija. José C. Nieto´s book, Juan de Valdes and the Origins of the Spanish and Italian Reformation, pages 24-54, Geneve, 1970 Librairie Droz, says that he and Nebrija knew each other well. In fact, he says Nebrija was his disciple. Another website reports that Osma wrote a book called Tractatus de Confessione in which he basically denounced the false doctrine of salvation by works, denounced the Vulgate, and said that many popes were heretics. Why or how so? See www.historia-hispanica.rah.es. Osma had been under the influence of Italian Waldensians, and of Wycliff in England. He taught that the Pope did not have authority over others. He taught that auricular confessions were unbiblical. He, like Luther years later, taught that indulgences were useless. When denounced by the Pope himself, Osma is said to have recanted from his accusations—so they say. Nonetheless, Nebrija and many others were convinced he was totally right. So now we are beginning to understand how Nebrija received the truth of the pure Gospel through Osma. Marcelino Menendez Pelayo, a modern Catholic historian and his well-documented book Heterodoxos Españoles, Autores Cristianos Españoles, Madrid, Vol II, pages 299-332 clearly states that Osma, although he recanted from his previous attacks on Romanism and the Latin Vulgate, continued to be known as “the first Spanish reformer” in the XV Century.
After 10 years of studies in Italy, Nebrija returned to Spain with several academic degrees under his belt. His dictionaries and grammar books on Spanish, Catalan, and the Latin languages were in high demand. But it was his role as a textual critic and a member of the Complutensian Polyglot committee, under Cardinal Francisco Jimenez Cisneros, that made him particularly interesting. Juan de Vergara, another well-known humanist with reformation tendencies knew him while working together in Alcalá de Henares. Cipriano de Valera, a former monk of the San Isidore Monastery in Seville was also familiar with his work. In fact, it was another reformer named Rodrigo de Valer (no relation to Cipriano), likewise from Seville, who evangelized Juan Gil (Dr. Egidio) when Gil was yet a young seminarian, and Juan Gil of course preached the Gospel where Valera, Reina and many other Spanish reformers came from. Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam also knew Nebrija and built his convictions around Nebrija´s work. Small world, but no coincidences! Of his many books, including Gramática de la Lengua Española, Diccionario Latín-Catalán, Tercia Quinquaginta Sacra Scritptura, and others. However, it is Apología, Nebrija´s defense on why the Latin Vulgate by Jerome needed revision due to its many errors that interests me the most.
Nebrija laid the foundation for revising the Spanish Bible to bring up to par with the original biblical languages, Hebrew and Greek, and reject some of the Vulgate, but not all of it. It was his desire to revise it and to correct about many passages later that caused so much alarm in his time. I won´t take the time to list all the minor details of his revision, including the way the Vulgate wrongly identified certain names of birds in the Bible, names of places, etc. The reader can find that information on a website, Antonio_de_Nebrija_Apologia_estudio_de_P.pdf.
Weightier matters include the Comma Johannie, 1st John 5:7. Nebrija, who was a staunch trinitarian (unlike Jehovah´s Witnesses who love to mention this as “proof” that the doctrine of the trinity is false) thought that 1st John 5:7 was an interpolation. This part is the part I don´t like about him, but I have to say that even Erasmus and other reformers at first thought the same way. They and others thought the passage was added in the Vulgate, and that no Greek or Latin text supported it textually. Nebrija´s doubt of the passage´s validity led him to resign from the Committee of the Complutensian Polyglot, but others on the committee like Demetrius Ducas gave the passage its full approval, and so it was included when the Bible appeared in 1522, the year of Nebrija´s death.
Skepticism from Nebrija regarding the Comma Johannie should not minimize the impact on his erudition. After all, many have questioned the passage. Men such as Adam Clarke, Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, J. Vernon McGee, Arno Gaebelein, Kenneth Wuest, B.H. Carroll, Craig S. Keener, Warren Wiersbe and so on. Erasmus later added the Comma in his third edition of the TR, assuring all that there was indeed plenty of evidence to support it. Today we know of at least five Greek manuscripts, four Latin, eight Syriac manuscripts, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts, and a host of many editions of the TR manuscripts from 1522 through 1881, 18 pre–Lutheran Bibles, and so on. (See Dr. Phil Stringer´s booklet “In Defense of 1st John 5:7” which he first printed back in 2001. Another excellent source in defense for the Comma Johannie includes Dr. Michael Maynard´s book, “The Historical Defense of 1st John 5:7” available in Amazon, and “1st John 5:7 and the 1st Century Latin/Spain Connection” by Michael Hollner, also available in Amazon or check out his website, www.kjvdebate.com).
Nebrija´s work eventually led Erasmus to publish the first edition of the Received Text in 1517. However, Erasmus had translated the logos of John 1:1 as “sermo” in his Latin edition. Thankfully, the Complutensian Polyglot correctly translated “verbum” because the learned scholar knew its fuller definition of the Person of Christ (please see www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/perspectives-on-sermo-and-verbum for a deeper insight on this matter). So as one can see, the Complutensian Polyglot wasn´t about Nebrija or Erasmus, but up to the Holy Spirit who by means of collation and comparison of all evidence at hand soon thereafter gave us His preserved words by way of the Traditional Text.
The common outcry by the Catholic scholars which opposed his work said that Jerome´s Vulgate was “divinely inspired” so revising it would be blasphemous. The opposition said that the circulating Greek and Latin manuscripts prior to Jerome were in complete “disarray”, and had it not been for Jerome, the Catholic Church would never have had the real Bible. Though it is true that there were many Greek and Latin manuscripts in circulation at the time with no one standard text from which to work from, it is also true that God providentially preserved the true biblical text by collating, comparing and carefully deducing a common text which could be received by all. That’s why Nebrija wrote Apologia, and why Erasmus did his own work, improving upon Nebrija, collating and comparing many manuscripts to produce the first (of many) received texts of the New Testament which culminated with the 1611 Authorized Version. The notion that Jerome´s Vulgate was perfect was totally inconsistent with Nebrija, and others as well.
Nebrija also edited about 85 liturgical hymns in Latin. His collection is entitled Aurea Exposio Hymnorum and was published in 1511. It is mostly sung in seminaries of Catholic and Eastern orthodox churches.
Nebrija inspired poets to use the Masoretic Hebrew Bible and/or the original Greek whenever citing Scripture. One well known theologian and poet was Luis de León (1527-1591), who like Nebrija, studied in the same seminary in Salamanca. León became famous for following the same ideologies as Nebrija, and for that, was persecuted and incarcerated for 5 years. I have his book Cantar de Cantares de Salomon (Song of Salomon) written in 1561 in my library, Biblioteca Romanica Hispanica, 1994, Gredos Pubishing, Interesting to note on page15 that Leon refused the Latin Vulgate. On page 171 it says Leon followed the Masoretic Text on Chapter 5 and verse 4, where so many omit “puerta” (door), “resquicio” (keyhole)”. He wisely translates “Mi Amado metió la mano por entre el resquicio de las puertas, y mis entrañas se estremecieron en mí”. The reader can check out other Spanish versions to see they compare to the RVG. Leon remained a Roman Catholic, but his literature is very “protestant” like. However, I do think he was born again.
Another significant individual who was influenced by Nebrija was the famous editor of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible, also known as the Regia Polyglot. I´m referring of course to Benito Arias Montano. Casiodoro de Reina mentioned in his Introduction that besides the Complutensian Polyglot, he also consulted Montano´s Bible.
Another word-for-word translation of the Hebrew originals edited by yet another translator influenced by Nebrija was Santes Pagninus, in 1528. Santes departed from Jerome to follow the Masoretic. Nebrija certainly had an important linguistic influence of Bible translators of his era.
I must differ with historians on another early Spanish reformer, Juan de Valdez who wrote “Diálogo de la Lengua” in 1535. He also wrote several commentaries of the Bible. He translated several books of the Bible into Spanish: Matthew, 1st Corinthians, and Psalms. Valdez studied language in Salamanca not long after Nebrija. And like Nebrija, Valdez used his linguistic skills to get people to read the Word of God. Unlike Nebrija, however, he was mostly into Spanish as a vernacular language, and not Latin. Valdez thought that Nebrija´s work was too rigid, too academic. So basically, Valdez was more into “the common, everyday way to communicate in Spanish”. However, this also means that Valdez was influenced by Nebrija in a good way: make the Scriptures more accessible to the common man. And herein we see the connection: Casiodoro de Reina, our illustrious publisher of the first Spanish Bible in 1569 was heavily influenced by Valdez´ forbidden books while serving as a Hieronymite monk in Seville. Valdez died in Naples in 1541.
I would normally never “copy and paste” internet articles in a pretentious attempt to plagiarize someone else´s material. However, when I asked AI to give a summary on how Nebrija influenced the Spanish Bible before Erasmus printed his New Testament Greek in 1517, the AI response and explanation was so good, that I couldn´t help cutting and pasting it here:
“Antonio de Nebrija challenged the Catholic Church’s traditional view of the Latin Vulgate Bible by treating it not as an infallible, untouchable text, but as a human historical document prone to copyist errors. He spearheaded the introduction of biblical textual criticism to Spain, advocating that the Latin text must be corrected by comparing it to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts.
While the conservative Church elite believed that Jerome's Vulgate translation was divinely preserved, Nebrija argued that centuries of medieval scribes had introduced thousands of mutations, grammatical errors, and misinterpretations.
1. Championing "Hebraica and Graeca Veritas"
Nebrija aggressively argued for the concept of Hebraica veritas (Hebrew truth) and Graeca veritas (Greek truth). He insisted that whenever a passage in the Vulgate was unclear or contradictory, theologians had a duty to look back at the original source languages to find the true meaning. He famously urged the Church to "light up once more the two unlit torches of our religion, the Hebrew and the Greek languages."
2. Clashing over the Complutensian Polyglot Bible
When Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros assembled Europe’s top scholars to create the Complutensian Polyglot Bible—the first printed multilingual Bible—Nebrija was recruited to oversee the Latin Vulgate portion. However, a fundamental ideological clash occurred.
Cisneros’s Goal: To fix clear typos made by messy copyists but ultimately preserve the traditional Vulgate text exactly as it was known.
Nebrija’s Goal: To completely alter and improve the Vulgate text itself using the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as the definitive authority.
Because the editorial committee refused to allow him to radically correct the Latin using the Greek source manuscripts, Nebrija resigned from the project in frustration around.
3. Subverting the Authority of Theologians
During this era, analyzing and translating scripture was exclusively the domain of trained theologians. Nebrija, who proudly identified as a "grammarian" (grammaticus), completely upended this hierarchy. He argued that theology was useless if the underlying words being analyzed were mistranslated. He claimed that it was the job of the philologist (language scientist) to determine what the text actually said, leaving theologians to merely debate what it meant.
Summary of Impact: Nebrija vs. The Church's Baseline
The Church's Traditional View | Nebrija's Reformist View |
The Vulgate is the sacred, definitive, and authoritative Bible of Christendom. | The Vulgate is a translation susceptible to human error and corruption. |
Scripture should only be evaluated and corrected by orthodox theologians. | Scripture must be verified scientifically by linguists and grammarians. |
Medieval Latin tradition takes precedence over external source languages. | Hebrew and Greek texts are the ultimate, uncorrupted sources of truth. |
Because of his radical stance, the Spanish Inquisition, under Grand Inquisitor Diego de Deza, arrested Nebrija, confiscated his papers, and put him on trial for heresy around 1506. He defended himself fiercely in his famous Apologia (1508), writing that the Church's attempt to silence his linguistic corrections was an effort to "extinguish the knowledge of the languages on which our religion rests." Though he lost the battle within Spain's borders during his lifetime, his critical methodology directly paved the way for humanists like Erasmus to reshape biblical translation across Europe”. END OF QUOTE.
Additionally, Marcel Batallion´s excellent summary of Antonio de Nebrija´s view of the Vulgate and its corrupt text and outdated Latin language is worth mentioning. Battalion was a leading historian of the pre-reformation and Reformation era. See Erasmo y España, Estudios sobre la historia espiritual del siglo xvi, Fondo de Cultura Economica, Mexico, 1950. ISBN 968-16-1069-5. Also see José C. Nieto´s Studies on the Origins of the Spanish Reformation, Geneve, Droz Library, 1970. Besides these and other books, there are many good YouTube resources such as the documentary video by Fundación Juan March, “Antonio de Nebrija: Su Vida y Legado”.
The reader must keep in mind that the world sees Nebrija solely as a secular humanist, not so much as a theologian or a reformer. Spiritual discernment must be exercised when drawing conclusions to fit our position on the pure words of God.
Conclusion and takeaways:
Nebrija learned what the true Scriptures had to say from Pedro Martinez de Osma, a theologian in Salamanca where Nebrija studied. Osma, who had been under the influence of the Waldensians, was tried by the Pope recanted and was exonerated not before influencing so many.
Nebrija was also a student of the Italian fellow humanist Lorenzo Valla, who years earlier had published his criticism of the Vulgate, page 25. Valla had edited Annotations of the New Testament some years earlier in which he demonstrates the errors of the Latin Vulgate (more on this below).
Nebrija declared his reasons to revise the Latin Vulgate: first, he believed that the Vulgate, which had been rewritten by hand since its publication in the 4th Century, was plagued with scribal errors. Second, Nebrija believed that Jerome used a limited number of manuscripts as well as the wrong ones. Third, Nebrija said that Jerome´s Latin was not only obsolete, lacked proper linguistic characteristics, but that it would never have the respect of postclassic students of Latin.
Nebrija worked on Cisnero´s Complutensian Polyglot as a consultant and encouraged Cisneros and his committee to make changes following the Masoretic Hebrew and the original Greek manuscripts (pre-TR). Casiodoro de Reina consulted the Complutensian Polyglot.
Benito Arias Montano, editor of the Biblia Regia, came under the influence of Nebrija, Casiodoro de Reina consulted Arias Montano´s Bible prior to publishing his own in 1569.
Nebrija said: “Each time a textual variant come up in the New Testament of the Latin Vulgate, we must always refer to the Greek (receptus). Any time we find a contradiction between the Old Testament Latin Vulgate and the Masoretic Hebrew, we must choose the Masoretic Text”, page 30.
Nebrija remained neutral on his opinion of the LXX (Septuagint), page 32. This contradicts others on the matter, but I tend to agree with Battalion here. Nebrija valued the Greek, of course, but he disdained false doctrine as taught in the LXX. If he used the LXX, it was only because it contradicted the Latin Vulgate. According to his preface, Cisneros metaphorically placed the Latin Vulgate in the middle of the other two texts, the LXX and the Hebrew, as if to say that Christ was crucified between “two thieves”. It was Cisnero´s way of defending the Vulgate.
Nebrija´s erudition on Spanish linguistics laid the foundation for properly translating the Bible following proper grammar and communication rules. He authored Gramática de la Lengua Castellana, the first Spanish grammar textbook in 1492. This means that all modern translation and revision work of the Spanish Bible ought to follow his prerogatives. Just like he updated the Latin, he also updated the Spanish. A good takeaway to all my fellow Bible believers interested in the Spanish Bible whose mother tongue may or may not be Spanish, is to learn correct Spanish grammar, including spelling and pronunciation. Bible believers need to know that Nebrija was an early influence in textual scholarship, the kind that questions words and passages that affect doctrine, much like Erasmus. This in contrast to today´s ecumenical textual compromise where the Vulgate and the Critical Text is the preferred text over the traditional text of the Bible, the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Textus Receptus.
The final question is this: did he ever convert to Christ? Was he able to hide his real devotion and faith in Christ alone for salvation in a time when doing so would have cost him his life? Or was he simply a scholar who introduced textual criticism within the Roman Catholic Church without renouncing to its lies? Traditional religious and secular wisdom will argue that he died a faithful Catholic, however I tend to believe that he did convert to Christ under Osma´s Waldensian teaching, Lorenzo Valla´s reformation ideals, while others say he was “old Christian” or even a “converso”. Did he find the Messiah? See https://www.nebrija.com/medios/actualidadnebrija/converso-o-cristiano-el-enigma-de-nebrija/
Spanish Bible believers, especially within the brethren that have embraced the Reina Valera Gomez Bible like me, need to understand how humanities and linguistics during the XV and XVI Centuries played a major role in the process of having a pure Bible in any language, but especially our Spanish Bible. We did not invent the Spanish Bible issue; we simply brought it to its happy culmination and fruition. Amen.
