Dear Jim:
It is important to resist thinking about exegetical authority in a
linear manner. Just because someone presented an exposition,
even as an authority, did not necessarily mean it became
'orthodox.' Perhaps the most famous example is Innocent III who
tried to push the 'Peter as Cephas' (Jn 1.42) as yet another biblical
support for papal supremacy. Few bought it as an authoritative
pronouncement.
Moreover, the linear model can sometimes fail to capture the
immense complexity of medieval exegesis. It is not a question of
one text yielding one consistent exegetical result--nor even four
consistent and parallel results. Instead, it is how that text
functions in a theological argument, or even within a larger
exegetical argument. Morever, I am slowly coming to the
conclusion that medieval exegesis oscillated between two
Augustinian maxims. At one end, there is the rule of charity:
christians meditate on a text until an interpretation is found that
furthers the work of charity (DCD 3.15). At the other end, is the rule
of the literal sense, that is, whatever is interpretated allegorically is
found more expressly in other parts of Scripture (DCD 2.16). It
would be a mistake to say the former was the watchword of
monastic exgesis, and the latter belonged to scholastics; rather,
both 'rules' had almost equivalent influence (and I use the term 'rule'
in a very loose sense).
However, there was more to medieval exegesis than just the four
senses of scripture. Exegetes (and I more familiar with the
scholastics than others) exploited a number of filters (or lenses,
depending on what direction you want to trace the exegetical event)
in their exegesis: patristic authorities, liturgy, canon law, the
Glossa ordinaria, contemporary theological debate, and even a bit
of metaphysics and epistemology thrown in for good luck. :-)
When one comes to envision the (historical) act of exegesis within
this matrix, it is difficult to distinguish universal authorities for every
passage of scripture under scrutiny.
I do think there were attempts to instill universal authority, and
Gillian Evans had argued that this was the initial intention of the
glossa ordinaria (_The Language and Logic of the Bible_ (1984),
ch. 3). However, as we have discovered, the gloss itself was hardly
a stable text, and so it failed as an attempt to stabilise academic
exegesis. Some would even argue that the move towards the
second augustinian maxim was also an attempt to 'control'
exegesis, but that hardly bears out in the sources.
I am not denying that certain sources became authoritative, and in
the end exerted extensive influence in exegesis (Augustine on the
Psalms is a clear example of that--although even here, the role of
Cassiodorus has not been fully investigated, but we're getting
there). I just don't think one can establish a *general rule* for
ascertaining who became an exegetical authority. In some cases,
it is the question of political and social authority; others because of
specific historical events (ie, a patristic attack on a certain heresy);
and I am sure one can point to other factors.
If you want a nice, short summary of this whole issue of
multivalency from a theological perspective, there is an article by
David Steinmetz (who is as good a medievalist as he is a
reformation scholar): 'The Superiority of Pre-critical Exegesis,'
_Theology Today_ 37 (1980), 27-38, reprinted in _The Theological
Interpretation of Scripture_, ed. S.E. Fowl (Oxford: Blackwell,
1997), pp. 26-38. And of course, Henri de Lubac provides a more
extensive and elegant analysis.
Hope my ramblings help. I have been struggling with this stuff for
some time, and some of my thoughts are somewhat inchoate.
Cheers
Jim (too)
=====================================================================
Dr James R Ginther
Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT UK
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +44.113.233.6749
Fax: +44.113.233.3654
-=*=-
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cms/
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/rg **** NEW ****
====================================================================
"First up ther wor nobbut God. An 'e said, "Ee, lad, turn th'bloody
light on." -Yorkshire paraphase of Gen. 1.2
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|