The magnet of the word.

Noticing the preeminent authority of Scripture in the Middle Ages.

Photo by Stuart Murray on Unsplash

Despite the foibles often associated with the church during the Middle Ages, an unquestionable benefit from which Christians still profit is the increased interest in biblical scholarship throughout the period. Even though the monastery would become a vilified institution in later eras of Christianity, monastic schools played a significant role not only in establishing the Bible as a legitimate literary artifact but also in catalyzing engagement with Scripture as a pedagogical discipline. This can be seen through the proliferation of “Glosses” and commentaries that were published, the endeavor of which was to explain the “sense” by which theologians or clergy of a particular monastic order could understand and apply the biblical texts to daily living. Although the achievement and intent of the glosses should be acknowledged, the excessive inclusion of biblical commentary from the patristics to Carolingian scholars to the margins of Scripture began to obscure the meaning of Scripture itself. As the art of discerning between the literal, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical senses of Scripture grew much more difficult, the stage was set for a resurgence of scholarship that focused on the Bible’s literal meaning.

Hugh of St. Victor, for example, enthusiastically recovered the Augustinian theory of “signification,” which divided biblical texts into “the letter and the Spirit” as a way to identify a text’s hidden meaning; however, as William M. Marsh notes, Hugh developed this theory by giving significant “priority to the literal, historical meaning as the ground for and from which all other senses were understood” (166). Without jettisoning the other senses, Hugh endeavored to firmly situate biblical interpretation on the scaffolding of historicity. While the medieval notion of allegorizing Scripture was still instrumental for theologians throughout the Middle Ages, the renaissance of the literal sense prompted by Hugh and other scholars from the School of St. Victor sought to govern other biblical explanations. “All spiritual senses,” Marsh concludes, “allegorical or otherwise, should be authorized by the biblical text’s literal sense so as to safeguard the univocal meaning of Scripture’s unified message. In this way, the literal sense governs all matters of Christian faith propagated by a spiritual sense” (169).

Supplementing this perspective was the work of Thomas Aquinas, who contended that the Christian faith rested on “the revealed truth of God,” which he regarded as the words themselves and not necessarily the “things” they signified. In so doing, Aquinas argued for the “sufficiency and authority of Holy Scriptures according to their literal sense” (Marsh, 174). Crucial to this biblical theological project was a renewed interest in the authorial intent of Scripture. Rather than diverging into allegorizing or spiritualizing biblical texts in order to ascertain their meaning, priority was given to the original intention of the biblical authors as they disclosed divine revelation through human vocabulary. This pursuit continued into the late Middle Ages, as prominent theologians such as Nicholas of Lyra and John Wyclif paid strict attention to interpreting the Bible literally, without the “distraction” of the other senses. Wyclif, in fact, instigated his students to treat quandaries in biblical interpretation, not as opportunities to resort to ecclesiastical tradition but as as occasions to allow Scripture to unfold the meaning of Scripture itself.

Consequently, as one examines the sprawling theological project throughout the Middle Ages, one is encouraged to cling to Scripture above all else as the preeminent revelation of the nature and character of the triune God. Although the church has benefited from the theological oeuvre of the patristic fathers and medieval scholars, their contributions ought never to outweigh nor out-volume the Word itself. “The truth of Scripture,” Wyclif once remarked, “is of infinitely greater authority than that of any person now living, or of any community that could be named; so that if there had been a hundred popes, and all the friars had turned into cardinals, no concessions ought to have been made to their opinion in a matter of faith, save in so far as they rest upon Scripture” (147). The authority of the creeds and councils, then, is regarded as biblical only as it stands in solidarity with and in subordination to the authority of Scripture itself. As the apostle Paul confessed in his first letter canonical letter to the Corinthian believers, the truth of God was “not taught by human wisdom” but was revealed by the Spirit of God himself, who enables humans to discern and distinguish the divine (1 Cor 2:12–14). God’s Word alone is the magnetizing force that keeps ecclesiastical tradition and scriptural interpretation grounded in God’s truth.

Works cited:

William M. Marsh, “Scripture and Tradition,” Historical Theology for the Church, edited by Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021).

John Wyclif, Tracts and Treatises, edited by Robert Vaughan (London: Wycliffe Society, 1845).