Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:18:31.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antiochene Exegesis in Western Europe During the Middle Ages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

M. L. W. Laistner
M. L. W. Laistner
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The outstanding importance of allegorical interpretation to the medieval scholar engaged on interpreting the Scriptures is well known. The method, which had originated in the East and was older than Christianity, became well established in the West during the Patristic age; in its application there was a good deal of variety. Ambrosiaster in commenting on the Pauline epistles combined orthodoxy with an unswerving adherence to the historical sense. Tyconius, on the other hand, laid down no less than seven rules whereby to interpret the prophecies in the Old Testament. Augustine went further in finding allegorical meaning in passages of Holy Writ than Jerome, who always maintained a certain balance in expounding the literal and the spiritual sense. The latter is more pronounced in his earlier commentaries when he was still consciously under the influence of Origen. In his later works allegorical interpretation becomes noticeably less; but it is not wholly absent even from his unfinished commentary on Jeremiah. To Gregory the Great the sensus spiritalis and particularly the sensus moralis were of such paramount significance as almost to oust the literal meaning. His influence on Bede and through Bede, as well as directly, on later expounders of the Bible was enormous.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 1947 , pp. 19 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1947

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The assertion of Miss Beryl Smalley (The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, p. 8), that the commentary on Jeremiah was “purely literal” does not correspond to the facts. Cf., for instance, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum latinorum 59) p. 25, 16–18 (iuxta litteram … iuxta intellegentiam spiritalem); p. 40, 19–22 (iuxta ναγωγν) p. 43, 6–10 (secundum ναγωγν).

2 See the list of manuscripts in A. Souter, The earliest Latin commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 56–59.

3 A. Mingana, The commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Nicene Creed (Woodbrooke Studies 5, 1932), and The commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Lord's prayer and on the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist (Woodbrooke Studies 6, 1933).

4 Chr. Baur, Jean, S.. Chrysostome et ses oeuvres dans l'histoire littéraire; A. Wilmart in Journ. Theol.Stud. 19 (1918), pp. 311 ffGoogle Scholar. For a palimpsest of Mutianus' translation of Chrysostom on the epistle to the Hebrews see E. A. Lowe, C(odices) L(atini) A(ntiquiores) II, nos. 180–181, and Journ. Theol. Stud. 29 (1927), pp. 29–33.

5 For his remarkably lenient views on the fate of unbaptized infants see Bulletin of the Rylands, J.library 5 (1918–20), pp. 311–312.Google Scholar

6 Miss Smalley (op. cit., p. 7), in referring to the influence of the Antiochenes in the West, mentions only Chrysostom and Junilius. Later (p. 22) there is a passing reference to Theodore's commentary on the Psalter, but that on the Pauline epistles, though far more influential, is ignored.

7 For the manuscript see E. A. Lowe, CLA III, no. 326, and especially the facsimile of the codex published by R. I. Best, The Commentary on the Psalms with glosses in Old-Irish preserved in the Ambrosian Library (R. Irish Academy, 1936). The contents of the manuscript have produced much controversial literature. For this see particularly Best's Introduction and the long article byDevreesse, R., Revue biblique 37 (1928), pp. 340–366Google Scholar and 38 (1929), pp. 35–62, where full references to the earlier literature are provided. I have not yet seen Mgr. Devreesse's edition of the commentary in Studi e Testi 93 (1939); but cf. the reviews by Dom David Amand in Revue bénédictine 53 (1041). PP- 182–183 and by Lebon, J. in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 36 (1940), pp. 408–410Google Scholar. What other manuscripts of the commentary may have existed in the Middle Ages I do not know; but one would like to know what the book was which is listed as being in the library of St. Maximin at Trier in the eleventh or twelfth century, expositio psalterii scottice conscripta (G. Becker, Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui 76, 151).

8 Swete, H. B., Theodore of Mopsuestia on the minor epistles of St. Paul (Two vols.: Cambridge, Eng., 1880).Google Scholar

9 As E. A. Lowe has rightly pointed out (Palaeographia latina V, p. 45), the term, Corbie ab-script, is not wholly satisfactory, since this form of writing was practiced also in St. Riquier, Arras, Soissons, and some other scriptoria.

10 See de Bruyne, D. in Revue bénédictine 33 (1921), p. 52Google Scholar, and 47 (1935)1 p. 305; E. A. Lowe, CLA I, no. 4. De Bruyne when studying the Paris fragment noted that its text was superior to that of H and C. On the photograph illustrating the Vaticanus in CLA I the last word but one is athleticae. This is the true reading (ad letae C; ad letitiae H). Swete in his text read athleliciae but conjectured that athleticae might be the true reading. Cf. Swete, op. cit., II, p. 204, line 10 with note.

11 Ibid. I, xv with note 6; A. Souter, Earliest Latin Commentaries, p. 53.

12 For the medieval authors who quote Theodore see generally Swete, op. cit. I, pp. xliv–li and II, 346–8; Souter, op. cit., pp. 52–53. On Sedulius Scottus' Collectaneum consult Souter in Joum. Theol. Stud. 18 (1916–17), pp. 226 ff. On Robert of Bridlington cf. Swete, op. cit. I, p. xxviii.

13 The suggestion originally put forward by Neander that the Adoptionists in eighth-century Spain were influenced in their Christology by Nestorianism and by the writings of Theodore has gained a good deal of currency largely because it was accepted by Harnack (Dogmengeschichte III, p. 253). The question had already been discussed cautiously by Swete (op. cit. I, pp. Iv–lvii), and the possible connection between the teaching of Elipandus and Felix of Urgel and Nestorianism, but without mention of Theodore, is discussed by M. Menendez Pelayo, Historia de los heterodoxos españoles II (ed. 2, 1911), pp. 317–318; cf. also Z. Garcia Villada, Historia eclesiástica de España III (1936), p. 69, and particularly A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands II (ed. 3–4, 1912), p. 304, note 4, who calls the derivation of Adoptionism from Nestorianism “more than questionable.” Recently J. Quasten (Harvard Theol. Rev. 35 [1942], pp. 209–219) has drawn attention to the baptismal rite of the cilicium in the Eastern Church. It is mentioned by Theodore, was already known to exist in Africa, and, as we learn from Ildefonsus of Toledo, was observed in Spain. Quasten is doubtless correct in assuming that this liturgical practice came from the East to Spain via Africa. But there is of course nothing which would suggest that the Spanish Church became familiar with the rite through the writings of Theodore, so that the survival, though interesting in itself, affords no support to Neander's theory.

14 H. Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten, p. 212; cf. also p. 315. Similarly Bardenhewer (Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur V, p. 336) couples the names of Junilius and Cassiodorus as authors of schoolbooks.

15 Mon. Germ. Hist.: Auct. antiquissimi XIV, pp. 81, 17–82, 1.

16 James, M. R., Two Ancient English Scholars (Glasgow University Publications XXII [1931]), pp. 12–13Google Scholar. For Glastonbury see John of Glastonbury's Chronicle (Oxford, 1726), p. 442.

17 Rahlfs, A., “Lehrer und Schüler bei Junilius” in Nachrichten der Göttingenschen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 1891, pp. 242–246.Google Scholar

18 See the app. crit. for Kihn, op. cit., p. 471, 6 and 473, 16.

19 See p. 484, 16. There is also a transposition at p. 484, 13 ff. in AR, but Kihn is probably justified in explaining this as due solely to the omission of the first question in the chapter which happens to be verbally identical with the chapter-heading.

20 Codd. casin. mss. catalogus, p. 37.

21 Rahlfs, op. cit. p. 245: “ein ‘Katechismus,’ dessen Antworten die Schüler auswending zu lernen und dem Lehrer auf seine Fragen herzusagen haben.”

22 Cf. E. A. Lowe in Speculum III (1928), p. 6 with facsimile facing this page; G. Becker, Catalogi bibliothecarum antiquin, 98; 37, 368; 26, 8; Strassburger Festschrift zur 46. Philologenversammlung, p. 269; L. Delisle, Le cabinet des manuscripts II, p. 472, no. 359.

23 Inst. I, 10 (ed. Mynors, p. 34, 11); for the reminiscence of Junilius cf. Mynors, p. 3, 8–10 and also the words “magistri publici” in line 5.

24 Kihn, op. cat., p. 475, 9 ff.; 480, 1 ff.

25 Glossaria latina (edd. W. M. Lindsay et al.) I, PR 349 (Praedictio), PR 2008 (Profetia), PR 3147 (Proverbialis species), TI 154 (Typus), and VO 94 (Voluntas).

26 Cf. Levison, Wilhelm, England and the Continent in the eighth century (Oxford, 1946), pp. 107, 128–129.Google Scholar

27 Martène and Durand, op. cit. IX, coll. 293–366, reprinted in Migne, P. L. XCVI, coll. 1101–1168; Hervagius, Ven. Bedae Opera (Cologne ed. of 1688), VIII, coll. 78 sqq. (= P. L. XCIII, coll. 235 sqq.). The manuscript used by Martène and Durand was not the same as that used by Hervagius. Neither of these printed texts is satisfactory, although that printed as Wigbod's is better than the other. His manuscript of Junilius seems to have contained some readings peculiar to the Ambrosianus but in the main was inferior to it. Is the work which Coxe-in his catalogue of manuscripts in the Bodleian Library described as “Beda super Octateuchum” really Wigbod's? In that case the confusion of authors occurred relatively early. The manuscript in question is Laud. Misc. 159. It was copied at Lorsch during the second half of the ninth century by several scribes writing good Carolingian hands. The provenance, as Dr. E. A. Lowe kindly informs me, is proved by a colophon on fol. 135V. and by the use of an omission-mark characteristic of that scriptorium (Cf. for this, W. M. Lindsay, Palaeographia Latina III, p. 31). The same codex seemingly contains Bede's Hexameron (Cf. N. R. Ker, Medium Aevum for 1944, P. 39).

28 P. L. XCVI, coll. 1106C–1109B; XCIII, 235C–238C): “Haec scriptura quae de praesenti saeculo loquens signified” to “creatori utique scientia ac potentia par fuisset.” The second citation is not in the portion of the commentary published by Martène and Durand. It begins (P. L. XCIII, 329C–330B), “Iunilius. Quid est typus,” and ends, “in quantum res esse noscuntur.”

29 Sage, Carleton M., Paul Albar of Cordoba (Catholic University of America, 1943). P. 73.Google Scholar

30 Policraticus I, 12 (ed. C. C. Webb, I, p. 51, 15–17) I cf. Kihn, op. cit., p. 473, 14–16: “rerum latentium praeteritarum aut praesentium aut futurarum ex divina inspiratione manifestatio.”