Jim,
You raise some very intriguing questions in your latest missive, questions
that I at least could not answer right away--they've got me thinking now!
An article that came to mind as I was reading your contribution was Eileen
sweeney's "Rewriting the Narrative of Scripture: Twelfth-Century Debates over
Reason and Theological form," _Medieval Philosophy and Theology_ 3 (1993),
1-34. She examines a similar question about the relationship between faith,
reason and scripture, looking at the old question of Bernard vs. Abelard,
with Hugh of St. Victor occupying his usual place as a compromise between the
two extremes. Sweeney argues that monastics such as Bernard regarded
scripture as a narrative whole, to be read continuously and experientially,
whereas Abelard read it dialectically, stopping the narrative to ask
critical questions aimed at understanding the text. She sees Bernard
representing a faith so certain that inquiry was unnecessary, and Abelard
representing a faith so full of doubt that real inquiry was impossible.
That is perhaps an oversimplification of Sweeney's article; I recommend it as
an additional perspective on the questions you raise, which, I think, are
similar. I don't agree with everything in it; I have to wonder if she's
actually read any medieval Bible commentaries, because my experience of
reading monastic commentaries and sermons, such as Bernard's, is that a monk
can break down the narrative of scripture just as easily as a
scholastic--look at Bernard's sermons on the Song. also, I don't think
Abelard was anything like a skeptic plagued by doubt. But I digress. It's
overall an interesting article, and you might find it useful.
Yours,
Steve Cartwright
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|