The first of four classes on the study of the Bible in the middle ages.
Listen online [here]!
------------------------------------------------------
The Study
of the Bible in the Middle Ages
Adult
Faith Formation Series, October 2022
Session
1: Introduction to the “Senses” of Scripture
Class Schedule, Thursdays, from 7
to 8 pm
October 6th –
Introduction to the “senses” of Scripture
October 13th – St
Thomas’ Biblical Commentaries
October 20th – the
Division of the Text
October 27th – St
Thomas’ Commentary on the Gospel of John
I. Scope
and Goals of this Course
A. We
will discuss the way that the medieval scholars and saints studied the Bible,
comparing this both to the approach of the Church Fathers (from the early
Church) and that of modern Biblical scholars.
B. We
will appreciate the Scholastic Doctors (like St Thomas Aquinas and St Bonaventure)
as Biblical Scholars, recognizing that this was the highest science of the
universities at the time. Further, we will see that the theology of the
scholastics is guided by Scripture and always brings us back to the Bible.
C. This
course will be primarily a theology course. While the historical points of the
growth of universities in the middle ages are very interesting, we will focus
almost entirely upon theological developments of the scholastic period.
D. Lastly,
after this course, you will be able to read and appreciate some of the great
biblical commentaries of the Catholic Tradition – not only those of the
scholastics (St Thomas, etc) but also those of the Church Fathers (like St
Augustine) and the later theologians (Fr Cornelius a Lapide). Most importantly,
we will be able to appreciate and understand the Scriptures more fully.
II. What
do we mean by “Study of the Bible” and “Middle Ages”?
A. Timeline:
The Early Church, the Monastic Period, the Scholastic Period
By the
“Early Church” we mean from Pentecost through to around AD 600, and the
establishment of the monasteries (St Benedict, d. 548). The monastic period
goes to about 1100, and the establishment of the universities. The scholastic
age extends from the founding of the mendicant religious orders (especially the
Franciscans and Dominicans) into the Renaissance period (up to around
1600).
Much of
this time is considered the “middle ages” – perhaps AD 500 to 1300, which is
considered the era between the ancient Roman Civilization and the Renaissance.
B. How
the Church Fathers approached the Bible
From
the very early Church Fathers, we don’t really have commentaries on Scripture,
but rather the occasional interpretation of a particular passage. Sometimes
this is from a sermon, other times from a letter resolving a theological
dispute.
The
“commentaries” of the later Church Fathers are mostly sermons/homilies – not
just preaching on the Scriptures as they happen to come up in the readings for
Mass, but also intentional and extended series of sermons on specific books of
the Bible. Even here, a good amount of the interpretation of the Scriptures is
found in larger theological works in which various Bible passages are brought
forward to defend the true Faith or to show the error of diverse heresies.
In the
more systematic homily series in which certain Fathers (especially, St
Augustine and St John Chrysostom) go through whole books of Scripture, the
commentary is for a primarily occasional purpose – to meet the needs of the
people to whom they were preaching. Further, the passages of Scripture for each
sermon are taken somewhat more in isolation without a consistent attempt to see
the relation of each verse to the rest of the book or to the whole of the
Bible. But there was already line-by-line commentary, a concern for the
“literal” meaning, and awareness of the various translations and manuscripts
(not to mention, interest in the geographical notes and awareness of ancient
history/cultures).
We also
note that there were multiple attempts to “harmonize” the Gospels – to arrange
the various stories of the four Gospels in their historical sequence and to
explain any apparent contradictions which may arise. For example, was Andrew called while fishing
or while with John the Baptist at the Jordan? Or, was Jesus Crucified at 10 am
or at noon? Etc.
C. How
the medieval scholastic doctors studied the Bible
1. The
Biblical “Gloss” of the monastics and early scholastics: This was a major
advancement! Placing the text of Scripture in the middle of the page and then
reproducing the commentaries/interpretations of many different Church Fathers
all around the outer portion of the page! (see handout)
This
would be a move toward a more substantial “commentatorial tradition” – studying
a passage of Scripture not simply in the context of a sermon or for an occasion
(to fight a particular heresy or to encourage the faith of a particular
parish), but taking a more academic approach to the study.
This
also brought together the collective wisdom of so many of the Church Fathers
and great theologians of the early Church – and the monks (and soon the
scholastics) could compare the different interpretations and discern which were
best, also they could more easily draw new conclusions and further insights.
2. The
study of Scripture in the Universities.
Here we have the true development of “Biblical Scholarship” – lectures
given in a university setting in which the Scriptures are studied in a
“scientific” way, following certain accepted principles. Each passage/verse is
studied not only in reference to the rest of the book, but in relation to the
whole of Scripture. There is a clear concern to discern the intention of the
human author in addition to the recognition of the divine inspiration.
Extensive consideration of translations and manuscript issues – there were some
(Hugh of St Cher) who knew not only Greek but also Hebrew). The development of the first concordance,
with the study of how individual words are used throughout the Bible.
Furthermore,
philosophy is regularly brought in to the discussion of the Bible. The
Scholastic doctors will pause in the middle of a commentary on a particular
passage to open up a long philosophical and theological discussion of some
particular topic arising from that verse. The scholastics love to make distinctions, and
we see this practice repeated throughout their commentaries! (“Seldom assert, never deny, always
distinguish”)
D.
Notes on the Canon of Scripture and Biblical Inerrancy
1. Biblical Inspiration.
a. God (and most particularly,
the Holy Spirit) wrote the Bible. However, he uses human instruments, and these
human authors also act as true authors, fully free.
Example: A man writing with a
pen. (but God is able to use men to write the Bible while still respecting
their freedom)
b. What was it like when these
men wrote the Bible? They did not go into a trance or lose consciousness, they
were not possessed – but God enlightened them and inspired them in all that
they wrote. In fact, many times, the authors of the Bible indicate that they
know that they are inspired and writing Scripture.
c. As Jesus Christ is fully God
and fully man (100% divine, 100% human), so also the Bible. But we know that
God can neither deceive nor be deceived – he would never lie to us. Therefore,
we know that everything in the Bible must be true. Because God really and truly
is the author of every word of Sacred Scripture.
d. The Church came to recognize
which books are truly Canonical and part of the Bible (i.e. inspired) through
the Sacred Liturgy. The books that the prominent Churches used in the Mass and
Divine Worship were the books that were ultimately accepted as Scripture.
2. Biblical Inerrancy: Notice, we
say that the Pope is “infallible” but that the Scriptures are “inerrant”. What is the difference between Papal
Infallibility and Biblical Inerrancy?
a. The Pope cannot teach with
full authority what is false (in the specific cases of “ex cathedra”
statements). But this does not mean that he will always teach in the clearest
way or the best way, but only that he won’t teach heresy in those moments. It
is a “negative” gift.
However, the Bible is truly God’s
own word – which means not only that it won’t contain heresy, but that it is
perfect. It really couldn’t have been written any better! It also means that
the Bible cannot be in error about anything – because God can’t be in error
about anything.
b. Is the Bible an history book?
Of course it is! Just not in the way
that we often think of history books.
III. What
are the “Senses” of Scripture
A. Literal Sense: The foundation
of all the others, and the primary sense of Scripture. Words have meaning, they
point to things (this is the literal sense). But things/people/events can also
have meanings that point beyond themselves to other things/people/events (this
is the spiritual sense).
To understand the literal sense,
we must consider the intention of the human author in writing, and the meaning
of the words themselves in their context as inspired by God.
Example: Rahab put a red ribbon
outside her window and was spared when Jericho was destroyed.
B. Allegorical sense: The way
that all the Scriptures point to Christ and to the Church.
Example: The red ribbon
symbolized the Blood of Jesus by which we are saved from sin.
C. The Moral sense: The way that
things in Scripture can teach us about the soul or the live of virtue.
Example: The soul which has been
marked with the Blood of the Lamb in baptism will be saved.
D. The Anagogical Sense: The way
that things in Scripture can point to the end of time.
Example: On the day of Judgment,
all evil in the world will be destroyed, except for those marked with the Blood
of Jesus.
V. The
Literal Sense as the foundation of theology
From
the first question of the Summa of St Thomas:
“The
multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of
multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word
signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be
themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for
all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can any
argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says
(Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of
this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense
which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.”
“This
doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its
principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the
authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take
away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from
authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority
based on divine revelation is the strongest.
“But
sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith
(for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other
things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not
destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the
natural bent of the will ministers to charity. ... Hence sacred doctrine makes
use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were
able to know the truth by natural reason...
“Nevertheless,
sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable
arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an
incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one
that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the
revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and
not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors.”
VI. Examples
of the Senses of Scripture, and how this helps with prayer
Jacob
and Esau, and Isaac
Noah’s
ark and Jesus’ body
The Ark
of the Covenant and the Blessed Virgin Mary
Healing
of the Paralytic by Jesus, lowered through the roof
