Introduction

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

Among the scholarly achievements of the Venerable Bede (d. 735) his ground-breaking work on the Jewish sanctuaries must rank high.1 The bulk of it, comprising three massive verse-by-verse commentaries, is quite without parallel in the patristic canon, a virtual exegetical trilogy on the temple in its early historical phases: De tabernaculo, in three books, on the account of the tabernacle in Exodus 24:12–30:31; De templo, in two books, on the details of Solomon's temple in 1 Kings

5:1–7:51; and In Ezram et Neemiam, in three books, on Ezra– Nehemiah's account of the post-exilic construction of the second temple.2 The first two of these commentaries already appear in Liverpool University Press's Translated Texts for Historians series;3 the third, On Ezra and Nehemiah, is offered in the present volume, making the whole trilogy available, finally, to readers in English.

In the larger scheme, this volume adds to the growing list of Bede's exegetical works now available in English translation. To date 11 of the extant 18 commentaries have been translated,4 but this is only a 1 On Bede's life, see Brown 1987: 1–23 and Ward 1990: 1–18.

2 For the Latin texts, see CCSL 119A, ed. D. Hurst (Turnhout, 1969). The groundbreaking nature of these works is evident from the Ordinary Gloss, which derives all of its commentary for Ezra–Nehemiah and the majority of it for the relevant portions of Exodus and 1 Kings from Bede: see Glossa ordinaria 1:161–90, 2:96–114, and 2:261–305. On the originality of On the Tabernacle and On the Temple, see also Holder 1989b: 237; for On Ezra and Nehemiah, see below pp. xv, xxii. In addition to these commentaries, Bede composed three homilies on the tabernacle–temple theme: see Hom. 2.1, 2.24, and 2.25.

3 Bede: On the Tabernacle, trans. A. Holder, TTH 18 (Liverpool, 1994); and Bede:

On the Temple, trans. S. Connolly, TTH 21 (Liverpool, 1995).

4 These are: Explanation of the Apocalypse, On the Seven Catholic Epistles, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, On the Tabernacle, On the Temple, Thirty

Questions on the Book of Kings, On Habakkuk, On Tobit (twice), On Eight Questions, and Collectaneum on the Pauline Epistles; there is also a translation of the fifty Homilies on the Gospel: see Bibliography for details. Additionally, Foley and Holder 1999 contains translations of three shorter biblical works, On the Holy Places, On the RestingPlaces, and On What Isaiah Says. Translations in progress include On the Song of Songs by Arthur Holder, On Genesis by Calvin Kendall, and a new translation of Explanation of the Apocalypse by Faith Wallis.

xiv

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

recent development, as its chronology attests. Although the first translated commentary appeared as early as 1878, when the Rev. Edward

Marshall published an English version of Bede's Explanatio Apocalypseos, the next, Dom David Hurst's Bede the Venerable: On the Seven Catholic Epistles, did not emerge until 1985 – over a century later!1 Work on other translations has since progressed at an impressive clip, and the developments behind this change of pace are worth pondering. One is an improvement in resources. Despite increasing concern over their accuracy, the critical editions of Bede's commentaries that have been appearing in the Corpus Christianorum since

1960 still represent a step forward, providing scholars a more informed basis to work from than the inadequate nineteenth-century editions of Giles reprinted in Migne's Patrologia Latina.2 Another development is a shift in scholarly interest, precipitated in part by these improved textual resources. Bede's modern reception has been dominated by his achievements as a historian, his best-known work, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, being a universally acknowledged tour de force of historiographic genius.3 Without denying this view, more recent scholarship has sought to sketch a fuller picture, one that registers Bede's own claim that scriptural commentary, not history, was his main focus as an author.4 The objective has been not to diminish the historical works but, in Roger Ray's words,

1 The Explanation of the Apocalypse by Venerable Beda, trans. Rev. Edward Marshall (Oxford, 1878); and Bede the Venerable: Commentary on the Seven Catholic

Epistles, trans. D. Hurst, Cistercian Studies Series 82 (Kalamazoo, 1985).

2 Bede's works fill volumes 118–123 of CCSL, which has replaced J. A. Giles, The Complete Works of the Venerable Bede, 12 vols. (London, 1843–44), reprinted in vols.

90–95 of the Patrologia Latina. The earlier print history of Bede's works is discussed by Gorman 2001. CCSL now prints all but two of Bede's commentaries, On Eight Questions and the Collectaneum on the Pauline Epistles, which still lies in manuscript. On the problematic state of the CCSL volumes, see Meyvaert 1976: 44 and Gorman 2002: 256–58.

Generally, only two editions are viewed by scholars today as reliable: M. L. W. Laistner's edition of the Expositio Actuum Apostolorum (CCSL 121), drawn from his earlier critical edition of that work published by the Medieval Academy of America; and Roger

Gryson's edition of the Explanatio Apocalypseos (CCSL 121A).

3 The standard text of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (hereafter HE) is that of Colgrave and Mynors 1968, but still useful is Plummer 1896. On Bede's reputation as a historian, see the accounts of Levison 1935; Jones 1946; P. H. Blair 1959; and Campbell 1966.

4 HE 5.24 (566): '…I have devoted myself entirely to the study of the Scriptures'.

The remark is confirmed by the list of works that follows, which prioritizes the commentaries by listing them first. Both the remark and the list are discussed by Ray 1982: 5–6.

INTRODUCTION

xv 'to recognize that exegesis was the driving force of all of Bede's learning and that strong ties link the commentaries to his other writings'.1 The appearance of critical editions and translations of the commentaries as well as the increasing number of studies on them all suggest that this recognition has finally taken place.2

The study of Bede's exegesis has thus made substantial strides since 1966, when Gerald Bonner, upon delivering the only Jarrow Lecture exclusively on an exegetical topic, felt obliged to declare that he would be 'dealing with an aspect of [Bede's] work which does not, generally, excite much interest'.3 Today interest not only exists but is growing as scholars uncover a clearer picture of Bede's exegetical programme – its sources and methods, its aims and agendas, and not least its 'strong ties' to his other writings. In all these respects, On Ezra and Nehemiah is an especially illustrative text, perhaps the most so of all the commentaries. As the first and only complete exegesis of Ezra–Nehemiah produced in the Middle Ages, it is a purposefully innovative work that proves that Bede's exegetical talents were not limited to mere compilation.4 With no established auctores to follow, Bede had a more demanding task to fulfil, one that foregrounds his ability to use sources eclectically and to develop interpretations of his own making. In the complex multi-levelled exegesis that emerges, several preoccupations become discernible, from the basic need to explicate literal and allegorical meanings to the more personalized agenda of ecclesiastical critique. That agenda is in fact one of the key features of this commentary; it reveals Bede's interest in Ezra-Nehemiah – and in the figure of Ezra specifically – to be anything but disinterested, and in addition helps cast light on the commentary's date, envisaged audience, and relationship to other Bedan texts, not just other commentaries but the historical works too. But Ezra–Nehemiah is a difficult book, its story unfamiliar and its textual history complex, so it is best to come to these

1 Ray 1982: 8. See also Holder 1990 and DeGregorio 2002, 2004, and 2006a.

2 Important recent studies include Ray 1982; Martin 1989; Holder 1989a, 1989b, 1990, 1991; Robinson 1994; Meyvaert 1995 and 1997; Gorman 1996, 1999, 2001, 2002;

DeGregorio 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005; Kaczynski 2001.

3 Bonner 1966: 1. Cf. Laistner 1939: xi: 'It is obvious that the one work of Bede that will always appeal to a wider circle of readers is his Ecclesiastical History of the English

People… Bede's numerous Biblical commentaries will necessarily be of interest only to a smaller group of students'.

4 For critique of this position, see Ray 1982: 6–12 and 2006; Holder 1990: 403–04 and 1991: 144; Thacker 2006; and DeGregorio 1999: 3–15 and 2006b.

xvi

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

topics later, after we have sketched the biblical background and other essential preliminary matters.

EZRA–NEHEMIAH: CONTENTS AND VERSIONS

The main source for the history of Israel under Persian rule, Ezra–Nehemiah tells the story of the rebuilding of the second temple and the restoration of its cult and community.1 Though aspects of its chronology are dubious,2 the narrative divides structurally into three well-defined units, each involving a return from exile and projects of restoration and reform. Ezra 1–6 describes the first return of Jewish exiles to Judah in 538 BC, authorized by Cyrus the Great (559–530

BC) in order to promote the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.

Led by Zerubbabel and the high priest Jeshua, the exiles upon arriving erect an altar and lay the temple foundations but in the face of Samaritan opposition do not complete the temple itself until 516 BC, in the sixth year of Darius I (522–486 BC). Ezra 7–10 relates the mission of Ezra, who fifty-eight years later is permitted by Artaxerxes

I (465–425 BC) to lead back a second group of exiles. A priest and scribe of God's Law, Ezra returns with the explicit aim of rebuilding the Jewish community in accordance with the teaching of the Torah, witnessed above all in his efforts to reform the people and their leaders from intermarriage with foreigners. Neh. 1–13 forms the third and final section, the events of which take place some thirteen years later either in the reign of the same Artaxerxes or a subsequent ruler of this name.

Dismayed that much of Jerusalem still lies in ruin, Nehemiah, cupbearer at the Persian court, is granted royal permission to return to the city to organize the reconstruction of its damaged walls. After overcoming foreign opposition and seeing the project through to completion, he too shifts his attention to problems plaguing the Jewish community, and the story concludes with Nehemiah initiating a series of reforms, targeting unjust taxation, mixed marriages, and lax

Sabbath observance.

While the outlines of the story are straightforward enough, the textual forms it has assumed are another matter. In modern English

Bibles this narrative is divided into two separate books, entitled 'Ezra'

1 For general accounts of Ezra–Nehemiah and its place in Jewish history, see Wood

1986: 377–406 and Grabbe 1998: 11–68.

2 Williamson 1987: 48–76; Japhet 1994; Grabbe 1992: 88–93.

INTRODUCTION

xvii and 'Nehemiah' (or 'Esdras 1' and 'Esdras 2': see below), but in the ancient canons it formed one book, called 'Ezra–Nehemyah' in the Hebrew Bible and 'Esdras B' in the Septuagint (i.e. the Greek translation of the Old Testament).1 This account of the story was, moreover, not the only version. The Septuagint also contains a parallel version of later date that bears the designation 'Esdras A'; known only in Greek, it consists of all of Ezra, some verses from Nehemiah, two chapters from 2 Chronicles, and some material original to itself.2 Based as they were on the Septuagint, the earliest versions of the Latin Bible

(called vetus latina or 'Old Latin') would accordingly have contained both Esdras A and B in forms identical to the Greek,3 while the Latin

Vulgate of St Jerome (late 4th century) returned to the story's original form by translating just the one-book version as it existed in Hebrew.4 Indeed, in his prologue to that translation, Jerome acknowledges the existence of two additional books bearing the title Ezra, namely Esdras 3 (= Septuagint's Esdras A, called I Esdras in English

Bibles) and Esdras 4 (= II Esdras in English Bibles, a third-century apocryphal work surviving in Latin but originating from Greek sources), but these he swiftly rejects as nothing more than 'dreams'

(somnia).5

Although Bede used Jerome's Vulgate as the basis of On Ezra and Nehemiah,6 it is clear from his own statements, which include references to vetus translatio, alia translatio, and alia editio,7 that he had his

1 Klein 1992: 732 and Bogaert 2000: 9–13. The spelling 'Esdras' is the Greek form of the Hebrew 'Ezra'.

2 Myers 1974: 1–5 and Grabbe 1998: 69.

3 Bogaert 2000: 7–8. On the Old Latin Bible generally, see Bogaert 1988: 139–56;

Kedar 1988: 299–313; and Barrera 1998: 349–53.

4 In modern Vulgate Bibles, however, this material is usually designated as Esdras

1 (= Ezra) and Esdras 2 (= Nehemiah).

5 Jerome Prologus in libro Ezrae, 4.11–5.1: 'Neither let it bother anyone that it is a single book that we have published, nor let anyone take delight in the dreams of the apocrypha, which are the third and fourth books. For among the Hebrews as well, the words of Ezra and Nehemiah are contained in one volume, and those things which are not found among them and are not concerned with the twenty-four elders are to be rejected outright'. For additional comment, see Bogaert 2000: 6–9, 15–17 and Myers

1974: 1–5. Since the sixteenth century, Esdras 3 and 4 have been printed in the Vulgate as part of the appendix of Apocrypha at the end of the New Testament.

6 Bede indicates his preference for Jerome's Vulgate in his Letter to Plegwin – see

Epist. Pleg. 7–10 (620.111–622.180).

7 See In Ezr. 1.1282; 2.205, 1505, 1759; 3.251, 1350.

xviii

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

eye on other Latin versions of Ezra–Nehemiah too. Bede was of course fortunate to have lived in a monastery whose library was among the greatest in the early medieval West,1 and it is hardly surprising, especially in the light of Wearmouth–Jarrow's own distinguished achievements in biblical scholarship, that he would have had easy access there to different Latin versions of the Bible. Long ago Max

Laistner, in a thorough study of the versions of Acts Bede used in composing his two commentaries on that book, demonstrated just how rich the store of biblical manuscripts Bede had at his disposal was and how varied and flexible his use of it could be.2 On Ezra and Nehemiah confirms this picture, even if some of the details remain blurred.

For the Vulgate, it is clear that Bede consulted more than one manuscript of Ezra–Nehemiah, since at one point he refers to nostri codices,

'our copies'.3 The phrase calls immediately to mind the three complete, single-volume Vulgate Bibles or 'pandects' that were produced at Wearmouth–Jarrow during Bede's own lifetime.4 In the early Middle Ages, scriptural texts normally circulated as single books or small collections, not all together in one Bible; that the Wearmouth–Jarrow scriptorium had the resources and skill to produce three pandects thus gives some measure of its singularity as a centre of scholarly activity.5 Only one of these pandects survives intact; known as the 'Codex Amiatinus', it is the oldest and most reliable complete text of the Vulgate in existence today.6 Additionally, as is well known, the prefatory matter of this codex happens to contain a stunning portrait of Ezra himself – the so-called 'Ezra miniature', which I discuss in Appendix 2. Here we must note that Bede, in composing his commentary, did not rely on Amiatinus's text of 1 See Laistner 1935; Ogilvy 1969; Parkes 1982.

2 Laistner 1937.

3 See In Ezr. 3.251–53.

4 The word 'pandect' comes from the Greek, where pandekthj means literally 'allreceiver': see Halporn 1980: 292–93, who explains that 'In the Latin of Cassiodorus, the word pandectes refers to a one-volume Bible, i.e. a Bible containing the entire text of the OT and NT under one cover'; see also Marsden 1995a: 30. The production of the three pandects at Wearmouth–Jarrow is mentioned by Bede himself in his History of the Abbots as well as by the anonymous author of the Life of Ceolfrith – see Bede HA

15 (379–80) and Vita Ceolfridi 20 (395). For comment, see Marsden 1995a: 85–106.

5 On Wearmouth–Jarrow, see the authors cited above in n. 1.

6 See Marsden 1995a: 76–201 and Gorman 2003.

INTRODUCTION

xix Ezra–Nehemiah directly.1 This is confirmed by internal disagreement between Bede's text and Amiatinus,2 as well as by the external fact that Amiatinus, created from the start as a presentation volume for the Pope, had left for Rome with Abbot Ceolfrith in 716, a date, we shall see, that probably falls some years before the commentary's completion.3 The two remaining pandects, by contrast, did remain at Wearmouth–Jarrow,4 raising the possibility that Bede's nostri codices could refer to them; but like Amiatinus these were massive volumes, hardly the kind he could handle while composing a commentary.5 In such a context, the phrase is therefore likely to refer, not to the text of Ezra–Nehemiah in the three pandects, but to the smaller, more serviceable manuscripts from which that text was created. Such manuscripts, assuming a variety of forms and covering a range of biblical books, would have come to Wearmouth–Jarrow through the book-buying activities of Benedict Biscop and Abbot Ceolfrith, and once there would among other things have served as the 'working copies' or exemplars that both Bede and the Wearmouth–Jarrow scribes would have relied upon in constructing their texts of the Bible.6

From the Old Latin, meanwhile, Bede cites twice from Esdras B and once from Esdras A.7 For these his source was a different pandect, namely the Codex Grandior. This complete Old Latin Bible, made at Cassiodorus' Vivarium in the sixth century, had by the late seventh

1 Cf. Marsden 1998, who notes in Bede's works 'no more than sixty per cent agreement with Amiatinus'.

2 See esp. In Ezr. 3.1480 and the accompanying note.

3 Both Bede and the anonymous author of the Life of Ceolfrith inform us that Ceolfrith took Amiatinus with him to Rome: see Bede HA 15 (379–80) and Vita

Ceolfridi 20 (395). An exact date for the three pandects cannot be ascertained. Their completion, however, must fall sometime between 689 and 716, the period of Ceolfrith's abbacy. Accordingly, Marsden 1995a: 106, suggests 'a dating of "before 716"… for Amiatinus and "c. 700" for the sister fragments'. On the date of On Ezra and Nehemiah, see below, pp. xxxvii–xlii.

4 See Bede HA 15 (379–80), which explains that Ceolfrith bequeathed the two sister pandects 'to his monasteries'. Cf. Vita Ceolfridi 20 (395).

5 Meyvaert 1995: 354, likewise argues that for his commentaries Bede must have relied not on the pandects but on 'smaller and more manageable biblical manuscripts'.

6 This assumption, which concurs with Marsden 1995a: 103, would account for those instances where Bede's text of Ezra–Nehemiah does overlap with Amiatinus, since both of these, presumably, would have constructed their texts of Ezra–Nehemiah from the same store of manuscripts.

7 For Esdras B, see In Ezr. 1.1282 and 3.251–53; for Esdras A, see 2.1759.

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

century migrated to Wearmouth–Jarrow, as Bede himself informs us.1

Unfortunately, not only has this codex not survived, but just one complete Old Latin copy of Esdras B exists today, ms. Vercelli,

Archivio Capitolare 22, an eleventh-century manuscript of North Italian origin.2 On two occasions, agreement between this manuscript and the variants cited by Bede confirms his reliance on an Old Latin text of Esdras B.3 In three separate instances, however, the variants he proposes can be shown to agree neither with Esdras B nor Esdras

A.4 These may represent unrecorded Old Latin variants or perhaps citations Bede found in other writers.5 Another possibility is they may attest to yet another version of Esdras B that Bede had in his possession. If it is true, as Cassiodorus implies, that the Old Testament text in the Codex Grandior was Jerome's revision from the Septuagint,6 it is possible that Bede could somehow have possessed two different versions of Esdras B – one of them Old Latin, the other Jerome's revision of it.7 Of that revision, termed 'hexaplaric' because it was based

1 Bede HA, ch. 15 (379–80). The association of Ceolfrith's 'copy of the old translation' – which the abbot is believed to have acquired in Rome and brought to Wearmouth–Jarrow sometime between 678–80 – with Cassiodorus' Codex Grandior was made long ago: see Corssen 1883 and 1891; White 1890: 289–302; more recently, see

Bruce-Mitford 1967: 8–9; Meyvaert 1996: 835–9; and Marsden 1995a: 115–17. Bede mentions the Grandior again, in terms suggesting that he had seen it himself, in both

On the Tabernacle and On the Temple: see De tab. 2 (81.1557–82.1570) and De templ. 2

(192.28–193.52). For an argument that the Grandior never came to Wearmouth–Jarrow and that any knowledge Bede had of the book was derived instead from Cassiodorus'

Institutiones, see Corsano 1987 and Gorman 2003: 868–72.

2 Fischer 1949: 11, 18; Gryson 1999: 185; Hanhart 1999; Bogaert 2000: 19–21. This manuscript is still unpublished, and I am grateful to Father Pierre Bogaert for his kind assistance in checking its text of Ezra for me.

3 See In Ezr. 1.1283 and 3.251–53.

4 See In Ezr. 2.205, 2.1505, and 3.1350.

5 Denter 1962: 99. Denter, however, mistakenly concludes in one case that alia translatio means 'another explanation': see below In Ezr. 1.1282 and the accompanying note.

6 At Institutiones I.14.1, 3, Cassiodorus, describing the version of the Old Testament contained in the Codex Grandior, says that 'Jerome left it carefully emended and arranged' (trans. Halporn 137); scholars have taken this as a reference to Jerome's hexaplaric revision: see Fischer 1985: 10–18; Loewe 1969: 115–16; and Marsden 1995a: 104,

131.

7 Before translating the Old Testament into Latin afresh from the Hebrew original,

Jerome first attempted to revise the current Old Latin translations of the Old Testament extant in his day, using the Greek text of the Septuagint as his guide: see Sparks 1970:

515, 517–19.

INTRODUCTION

xxi on the Septuagint contained in one of the six columns of Origen's critical edition of the Hebrew Bible known as the 'Hexapla' (Greek hex,

'six'), very little has survived, nor do we know how much of the Old Testament it covered;1 but if Bede did have access to it in the Grandior, it is almost certain that he would have consulted it.2 It is tempting to conclude that the latter is the alia translatio, the 'other translation', that Bede mentions; however, he applies that term to the unrevised

Old Latin text of Esdras B as well. Yet in two instances,3 where Bede's variants are closer to the Greek of the Septuagint than to the Hebrew or Old Latin, the possibility that Jerome's revision of Esdras B, itself based on the Greek, could have been his source should not be too quickly discarded, especially since it is unlikely that Bede would have had a copy of the Septuagint text for that book. Bede's commentary, then, may provide small but unique witness to Jerome's otherwise lost revision of Esdras B.

Finally, Bede's utilization of different versions of Ezra–Nehemiah is valuable in a more general way for the light it throws on his working methods and range as a commentator. On Ezra and Nehemiah shares with many of Bede's commentaries a strong interest in the allegorical approach to scriptural interpretation, an approach for which Bede himself is rightly famed.4 Yet his interests in the biblical text are not, as is sometimes alleged, dominated purely by allegory. Often they involve close attention to the litterae sensus and a flair for textual criticism in particular, evidenced above all in his Retractations on Acts,5 but as well by the scrutiny devoted in all his commentaries to grammatical and textual issues. Indeed, the variety of exegetical problems addressed in On Ezra and Nehemiah, from considering variant

1 For a range of opinions on Jerome's hexaplaric revision, see Semple 1965: 231–34;

Sparks 1970: 514–32; Kamesar 1993: 49–58; and Dines 1998: 422.

2 Cf. De Bruyne 1926: 110, who points out that Bede made use of Jerome's hexaplaric revision of the Song of Songs when composing his commentary on this text.

3 See In Ezr. 2.205 and 2.1505 and the accompanying notes.

4 De Lubac 2000: 91–93, famously dubbed Bede the first to develop a fully articulated account of Scripture's fourfold sense. See also Holder 1990: 407–11.

5 Bede composed two commentaries on Acts: the Expositio Actuum Apostolorum, a verse-by-verse exegesis completed between 709 and 716; and the Retractatio in Actus

Apostolorum, a supplement of corrections and further reflections on various textual cruces, published much later, perhaps as late as 731; see Laistner 1939: xi–xvii. Bede's achievements as a textual scholar are discussed by Plummer 1896: liv–lvi; Meyvaert

1976: 47–51; and Marsden 1998: 72–75.

xxii

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

readings to explaining the history and topography to unfolding the allegory, reveal Bede to be a versatile exegete, sensitive to the multifaceted exigencies of scriptural interpretation.

ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH: TEXT AND SOURCES

On Ezra and Nehemiah consists of a short prologue followed by three books of roughly equal length, the first two covering Ezra, the last

Nehemiah. At 155 pages in the CCSL edition, it is Bede's fifth longest Old Testament commentary, behind On the Tabernacle, On Genesis,

On the Song of Songs, and On Samuel.1 As noted, it is also the first complete commentary written on these Old Testament books and the last throughout the entire Middle Ages. Cassiodorus, in the Institutiones, mentions a single homily on Ezra by Origen that Bellator, the famous Vivarium translator, had turned from Greek into Latin,2 but sadly the work has not survived, and it is not known whether the homily belonged to some greater work or whether it represents the extent of Origen's writing on Ezra. It is probable, however, that Origen's homily would have used the text of Esdras A, for modern scholarship has shown that the few citations from the Book of Ezra found in early patristic writings tend to come from Esdras A, not from the canonical account.3 On the latter, Bede's is our sole piece of commentary.

In choosing to write a complete verse-by-verse exegesis of Ezra– Nehemiah, then, Bede would have no prior tradition of commentary to assimilate, no established auctores to follow, as he did, for example, when he wrote On Genesis and On Luke,4 among others. Accordingly, the main source to which he had to turn in composing this commentary was the Bible itself. As the source index at the end of this volume records, Bede cites abundantly from both Testaments, quotations from which far outweigh his patristic borrowings. Such dependence on 1 Bede's ten Old Testament commentaries, in order of length, are On Samuel, On the Song of Songs, On Genesis, On the Tabernacle, On Ezra–Nehemiah, On the Proverbs of Solomon, On the Temple, Thirty Questions of Kings, On Habakkuk, and On Tobit.

2 Cassiodorus Institutiones 1.6.6.

3 Denter 1962: 53–81, 102–03; and Bogaert 2000: 6–7, 19.

4 The prefaces to these works reveal Bede's awareness of the weight of patristic commentary on these biblical books and, in the case of Luke, his reluctance to tread over such well-worn ground: see In Luc. Prol. (6.79–10.220) and In Gen. Praef.

(1.1–2.47).

INTRODUCTION

xxiii Scripture, however, is not due solely to a lack of patristic auctores on Ezra–Nehemiah. Though a follower of the Fathers, as his favourite tag reminds us,1 Bede did so as a monk who from an early age learned to read Scripture in a typically monastic way. For the monk, the reading of Scripture is grounded in lectio divina, according to which a text is not just read but meditated upon and in this way internalized, digested into the reader's or listener's memory. The goal is to learn scriptural passages – the Psalms above all – ex corde, 'by heart', a phrase used by St Benedict and employed by Bede in Book 3 in a passage describing the practice of reading from Scripture during the monastic

Office.2 Such monastic ideas would have been a fundamental part of Bede's experience of learning Scripture, and the impact they had upon his approach to exegesis is evident throughout On Ezra and Nehemiah.3 The opening sentences of Book 1 provide a good example.

To illustrate that the temple is a figure of the faithful and that Solomon prefigured Christ, Bede quotes no less than six verses in rapid succession, drawing from both Testaments, each verse adding a further level of explanation.4 The impression is not one of studied analysis but of cumulative recollection as Bede moves through the various relevant texts stored in his memory. Lawrence Martin too has noted this aspect of Bede's use of the Bible and compared it, I think aptly, to Jean

Leclercq's conception of 'an exegesis through reminiscence'.5

Distinctly monastic in its underpinnings, the phrase in Leclercq's usage presupposes a commentator who 'becomes a sort of living concordance',6 his mind filled with texts from Scripture that can be recalled and utilized for exegesis.

Of course, in commenting on Ezra–Nehemiah Bede still made use of what patristic materials he could. He cites from several works of 1 The phrase 'following in the footsteps of the Fathers' (patrum vestigia sequens) recurs throughout Bede's writings as an all-too-modest description of his authorial role: see, for instance, In Sam. Prol. (10.52–54); In Cant. Prol. (180.501–4); Exp. Act. Apost.

Praef. (3.9–10); and DTR 5 (287.86). For comment, see DeGregorio 2006a and Ray 2006.

2 In Ezr. 3.1325–32. See Ward 1991, for a magisterial discussion of Bede's monastic approach to the Psalter 3 See DeGregorio 2005, for further examples of monasticism's influence on the Ezra commentary.

4 In Ezr. 1.1–21.

5 Martin 1989: xxix–xxx; Leclercq 1961: 76–77. In addition, see now DeGregorio 2005: 366–68.

6 Leclercq 1961: 77.

xxiv

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

Augustine, particularly his expositions of the Psalms, draws from Gregory the Great's Homilies on the Gospels, Homilies on Ezekiel, and Morals on Job, and selects useful bits from Isidore's Etymologies.1

It is Jerome, however, whom Bede acknowledges as his most formative patristic source. The brief prologue to the text advertises this indebtedness by mentioning Jerome twice in its short compass, first quoting from his Letter 53 and then acknowledging his work on the prophets as 'the greatest help to us'.2 Jerome commented prolifically on the prophets and throughout On Ezra and Nehemiah Bede draws from several different works, particularly Jerome's On Daniel and his treatments of various Minor Prophets such as Malachi and Zechariah, whose narratives contain material that intersects with the story told in Ezra–Nehemiah. Moreover, he borrows much from Jerome's On Hebrew Names, a source used in all his commentaries, and quotes from Jerome's Chronicle, a translation and adaptation of Eusebius of Caesarea's Greek chronicle of world history. To return to the question of monasticism, On Ezra and Nehemiah contains several thematic and verbal echoes from the Benedictine Rule and in Book 3 even mentions the saint by name, the only such reference to St Benedict in Bede's exegetical writings.3 For historical writers, Bede relies above all on the first-century Jewish priest Flavius Josephus, whose sweeping account of ancient Jewish history in the Antiquities of the Jews covers many of the same events related in Ezra–Nehemiah.4 Bede probably knew the Antiquities in Latin, not in its original Greek, and some of his citations from this work may even have come to him through such intermediaries as Rufinus or Jerome, as Laistner showed was the case with the Exposition of Acts.5 Finally, Bede cites from a number of works dealing specifically with the topography of the Holy Land, including Adamnan's On the Holy Places (which Bede himself had revised in writing his own work on the subject),6 Jerome's Book of Places, and the Pseudo-Eucherian On the Site of Jerusalem.

A last point worth noting is Bede's use of himself as a source, evident in the references to and quotations from his earlier writings.

1 For these and the references that follow, see the Index of Sources and Allusions.

2 In Ezr. Prol. 17–21.

3 On monasticism's impact on the commentary, see DeGregorio 2005.

4 See Feldman 1992 and 1993.

5 Laistner 1933: 78–79.

6 See CCSL 175: 247–80, for the critical edition of the work. A translation is available in Foley and Holder 1999: 1–25.

INTRODUCTION

xxv In Book 3, for instance, he concludes his discussion of the Seventy Weeks mentioned in the Book of Daniel by directing us to his The Reckoning of Time, where, he says, a fuller treatment of the subject may be found. Otherwise he borrows tacitly, as he often does, quoting from his On the Holy Places in his discussion of the topography of Jerusalem, and elsewhere importing a chunk of exegesis from his On the Proverbs of Solomon to explicate a verse from that book. Such instances not only provide insight into Bede's working methods but can also help us refine the often ambiguous chronology of the commentaries themselves – in the case above, for instance, it is clear that On the Proverbs of Solomon is the earlier work, from which Bede has recycled an already formulated interpretation of a verse. In addition to these explicit borrowings and allusions, On Ezra and Nehemiah contains numerous thematic and verbal parallels to other commentaries, to the gospel homilies, to the educational treatises, and most tellingly to The Ecclesiastical History and Letter to Bishop Ecgberht, whose critiques of Northumbrian episcopacy are echoed in a handful of striking passages. As noted, these highly critical comments on the state of Northumbrian religious life in Bede's own day are a striking feature of On Ezra and Nehemiah, and it must be asked why, of all the commentaries, they should bulk so conspicuously in this one. This is part of a larger question to which we must now turn – namely, what is it that drew this eighth-century Northumbrian exegete to this neglected biblical story, and what is distinctive about his approach to it?

BEDE'S APPROACH TO EZRA–NEHEMIAH

Unlike some of the prologues and prefaces to his commentaries, the short prologue to this work provides little direct insight into what led

Bede to compose the work. The admission that he has complied with the wishes of Acca, the abbot-bishop of Hexham to whom many of the commentaries are dedicated,1 is both familiar and tantalizing, and it is

1 In Ezr. Prol. 10–11. Acca was bishop of the Northumbrian see of Hexham from 709 to 731. His role as both sponsor and avid reader of Bede's commentaries is plain from some of the prologues (e.g. On Genesis, On Acts, and On Luke); in return, to Acca

Bede dedicated On Genesis, On Acts, On Samuel, On the Temple, and On Luke, whose preface contains Acca's only extant piece of writing – a letter he sent to Bede urging him to get on with the work in spite of his reluctance to comment on a gospel already masterfully treated by St Ambrose: see In Luc. Prol. (CCSL 120:5.1–6.78). On Acca's life and achievements, see Bede's glowing account at HE 5.20 (530–32).

xxvi

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

regrettable that the nature of Acca's involvement is not specified further.1 On the subject of Bede's approach to Ezra–Nehemiah and the influence Jerome had on it, we are much better informed. The Prologue opens with a quote from Jerome's Letter 53 stating that Ezra–Nehemiah consists of a single book whose narrative displays one thing in cortice and conceals another in medulla.2 Following Jerome's metaphor, Bede states that he intends in what follows '…to discover, when the bark of the letter (cortice litterae) is peeled back, something higher and more sacred in the marrow of the spiritual sense (in medulla sensus spiritalis)'3 – a clear and early signal to the reader that his approach to Ezra–Nehemiah will be allegorical. To be sure, the 'bark' or literal sense of these books did have a special appeal for Bede, as we shall see. His main focus, however, was their 'marrow' or spiritual sense, called also the allegorical, mystical or figurative sense, which is

'higher and more sacred' because it resides, properly speaking, not 'in the text, but in the realities of which the text speaks'.4 Accordingly,

Bede explains that the story told in Ezra–Nehemiah will concern '…the Lord Himself and His temple and city, which we are',5 and in the final sentence of the prologue he again credits Jerome, this time for his work on the prophets 'who themselves had foretold that the same events which Ezra and Nehemiah wrote about would be carried out under the figure of Christ and the Church'.6

Of course, the notion that the Old Testament should be read for its spiritual meaning was a fundamental precept of the allegorical method of scriptural interpretation practised by the Fathers – a method in which Bede himself was thoroughly schooled.7 I doubt that he needed

1 One can, however, rule out Acca's requesting – as he did in the cases of Genesis and Luke's gospel – a commentary that would simplify the recondite prose of earlier exegetes, for Bede was the first to treat Ezra–Nehemiah. Possibly Acca had specific questions about these books that he wanted Bede to address, as is the case with the two exegetical letters entitled On the Resting-Places and On What Isaiah Says, which Bede sent to Acca in response to specific points of biblical interpretation the bishop found puzzling and asked him to elucidate. These are translated in Foley and Holder 1999:

27–51.

2 In Ezr. Prol. 9.

3 In Ezr. Prol. 13–15.

4 de Lubac 2000: 2.86.

5 In Ezr. Prol. 15–16.

6 In Ezr. Prol. 17–21.

7 See Jones 1969–70: 131–60; and Holder 1990.

INTRODUCTION

xxvii Jerome to tell him to approach Ezra–Nehemiah accordingly.1 But these early deferrals to this 'famous translator and teacher of Holy

Scripture'2 were essential to the question of Bede's own self-presentation: lacking an existing tradition of patristic commentary to depart from, he could in a sense use Jerome to create one, proof that he was following the Fathers' footsteps instead of his own.3 Nevertheless,

Jerome's brief remarks on Ezra–Nehemiah in no way amounted to a complete allegorical reading, something that Bede would have to work out for himself. To a large extent Ezra–Nehemiah's concern with the temple, whose symbolism was discussed in the New Testament and had been enlarged on by the Fathers,4 provided a ready framework for reading the story, and indeed this is where Book 1 of On Ezra and Nehemiah begins. From Bede's opening comments on the figurative meanings of the word 'temple' in general and of Solomon's temple in particular, it might appear at this early stage that his overall purpose in On Ezra and Nehemiah would thus dovetail with that of the tabernacle and temple commentaries, which offer extended and detailed allegorical analyses of their respective structures. To be sure, the three commentaries do share many methodological, stylistic and thematic parallels, perhaps none more conspicuous than their viewing the temple as a multivalent symbol capable of designating simultaneous levels of understanding.5 But for all the similarities they exhibit that allow us to view them as a group, and while it is not unreasonable to imagine that Bede conceived them as such, their uniformity should not be pushed too far. For On Ezra and Nehemiah is in many ways a unique work, both in its subject matter and Bede's approach to it.

It is essential to remember that Ezra–Nehemiah chronicles a later period of temple history, centred on the events surrounding the rebuilding of the second temple, the first one (i.e. Solomon's temple)

1 Cf. Mayr-Harting 1976: 19, who is certainly correct in pointing out that On Ezra and Nehemiah '…probably does not depend on Jerome as heavily as the preface implies'.

2 In Ezr. Prol. 1.

3 On this point, see DeGregorio 2006b.

4 On the New Testament and patristic roots of the temple topos, see Holder 1989b and O'Reilly 1995: xvii–xxviii.

5 In his rhetorical manual On Schemes and Tropes, written as an aid to scriptural interpretation, Bede discusses this theory of understanding, using the temple as his example: see De schem. et trop. 2.12 (168.265–169.269, 273–79). The passage is quoted below, p. 97, n. 1.

xxviii

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

having been destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC. In substance this account of the temple's subsequent restoration presented Bede with markedly different material to comment upon from what he would encounter in On the Tabernacle and On the Temple. For whereas the selected portions of Exodus and 1 Kings covered in those commentaries discuss the physical construction of the Mosaic tabernacle and Solomon's temple, very little of Ezra–Nehemiah deals with the second temple's material architecture, perhaps because it was an exact replica of the temple built by Solomon.1 Instead, these books depict a more comprehensive action, an unfolding narrative of which the temple's reconstruction is only a small though admittedly focal part.2 Their real subject is the reconstruction of the Jewish people, who after years in captivity are allowed to return to the Promised Land to re-establish themselves as a community by restoring proper cultic and civic relations with God.3

That Bede saw this Old Testament narrative as something different from the lists and descriptions of architectural details he analysed in On the Tabernacle and On the Temple is evident first of all from the allegory. Whereas the latter commentaries associate their respective buildings primarily with the Church as an earthly and heavenly reality,4 On Ezra and Nehemiah, though it treats these themes too, develops a further line of interpretation derived from Ezra–

Nehemiah's larger plot. Here, the narrative's controlling images of exile and return, of destruction and construction, of loss and recovery are read by Bede as symbols not of the Church per se, but of a particular spiritual condition experienced by its members – namely, the condition of being separated from the community of the Church through sin and returning to it through repentance. As he explains at the start of Book 1, summing up his purpose in the work as a whole:

It is appropriate, then, that those who were held as captives in Babylonia as a result of wicked works are freed after seventy years, and that they

1 This, at any rate, is Bede's view: see In Ezr. 2.206–38 and the accompanying notes.

2 Only a handful of verses in Ezra's ten chapters describe the temple itself or depict scenes of building: see Ezra 3:8–10 and 6:3–4, 14.

3 Wood 1970: 396; Williamson 1987: 79.

4 See esp. De tab. 2 (42.1–43.69) and De templ. 1 (147.1–148.53).

INTRODUCTION

xxix rebuild God's house and the holy city. For often those who were separated because of their sins from the communion and society of the Holy Church and joined to the fate and number of infidels, in turn through the gift of the Holy Spirit exercise themselves zealously in the pursuit of good works and in this way regain the fellowship of the faithful, i.e. the Lord's house and city from which they were cast out. For it should be noted that the rebuilding of the Lord's house after it was burnt down, the restoration of Jerusalem after its destruction, the return of the people to their homeland after their captivity, and the recovery of the stolen holy vessels to their house all typologically denote this one and the same return of penitents to the Church. But since the prophet Ezra sufficiently explains how all these things came to pass, I want to relate some episodes from this book and, so far as the Lord will grant, to expound them according to the spiritual sense so that it may be more clearly disclosed how those who have perished due to negligence and error should be brought back to repentance, by how much grace of God and by how much effort of their own pardon ought to be sought and procured for the sins they have committed, and how these same penitents together with those who have recently come to the faith should build one and the same house of Christ and together look forward to the ceremonies of its dedication in the future.1

From two key passages in Books 2 and 3,2 we learn that this concern with the 'spiritual rebuilding' of repentance is for Bede the primary allegorical distinction between the first and second temples. In his view, while both buildings could signify Christ's physical body as well as the Church collectively or the elect individually,3 at the same time the disparities surrounding their construction denote two different aspects of Christian experience: if Solomon's temple, insofar as it was built rapidly during a time of peace, signifies the ease of initial conversion to the faith, then the prolonged and arduous labour that characterized the temple's later restoration is synonymous with 'the great effort' necessary to atone for sins committed after baptism, which can be forgiven, writes Bede, only 'through the long labour of penance, copious streams of tears, and the unremitting

1 In Ezr. Prol. 68–88.

2 In Ezr. 2.689–707 and 3.787–99; see also In Ezr. 1.1557–91.

3 See In Ezr. 2.487–96; cf. De templ. 1 (147.7–33).

xxx

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

toil of continence'.1

Compelling though such allegorical differences are, the spiritual meanings that Bede draws from the Ezra–Nehemiah story are not the most noteworthy index of the material's distinctiveness. This belongs to the literal narrative itself, which Bede recognized had a unique connection to his own contemporary world. In some sense, of course, the entire history of Israel was in Bede's view replete with significance for the present, for as scholars have shown he purposefully interpreted his people's past in Old Testament terms: the English were a new

'chosen people' who like ancient Israel had a divine destiny to fulfil.2

Accordingly, his exegesis of the Old Testament played no small role in shaping the way he narrates that story in The Ecclesiastical History, his treatment of I Samuel, for example, influencing his view of AngloSaxon kingship,3 and his discussion of the Universal Church under the tabernacle–temple metaphor underpinning much of what he had to say about the historical church of the gens Anglorum.4 In On Ezra and Nehemiah, it is similarly possible to detect a number of links to The Ecclesiastical History – both recount journeys by a chosen people to lands of promise where they are to build up the house of God; both tie the success of the ventures to the patronage of righteous kings; both describe the troubles posed not only by the local inhabitants (i.e. the Samaritans and the British) but by the elect's own sinfulness; and both emphasize the key role played not only by divine grace but by the hard work of teachers dedicated to spreading the faith and fending off heresy. But with respect to its topical relevance there is yet another aspect to On Ezra and Nehemiah that lends it a special resonance – namely, that the story it treats is quite literally a narrative about religious reform, a topic known to have been of vital interest to Bede.

1 In Ezr. 2.702–04. In one of his homilies on the temple theme, Bede puts the contrast somewhat differently, comparing the temple's destruction and restoration to 'the various events that happen to the Church: at one time she is overwhelmed by the persecution of unbelievers; at another she is freed from persecutions and serves her Lord peacefully; at another she is endangered in certain of her members by the snares of the ancient enemy; at another because of the meticulous concern of faithful teachers, she recovers those whom for a while she seemed to have lost, chastised by repentance' – see

Hom. 2.24 (364.234–365.275); trans. Martin and Hurst 2:250.

2 Jones 1969–70; Wormald 1992; Thacker 1983.

3 McClure 1983.

4 Mayr-Harting 1976: 19–22; O'Reilly 1995: xxxiii–li.

INTRODUCTION

xxxi Quite apart from their allegorical significance, then, these biblical books would have had a tremendous pull on his imagination.

In a pivotal 1983 article, Alan Thacker established the centrality of reform as a theme in Bede's later writings; drawing mainly on the prose

Life of St Cuthbert (c. 721) and The Ecclesiastical History (c. 731), he illustrated their potent concern with 'a general reform in church and society, the instruments of which were to be an instructed king and aristocracy, a rejuvenated episcopate and, above all, a reformed monasticism'.1 As a Christian author, Bede no doubt saw these ideas as having application throughout Christendom as a whole, but it is no less certain that their immediate field of play was to be closer to home.

In The Ecclesiastical History, for instance, he memorably contrasted Bishop Aidan's pastoral zeal with 'our modern slothfulness',2 thereby signalling not only that his 'gallery of good examples'3 was meant to provide 'a collection of models of right living and teaching which demonstrated the way reform could be achieved',4 but also that he was speaking primarily about the slothfulness of his fellow Northumbrians.

The persistence of that slothfulness in Northumbrian institutions in turn prompted his most expressly reformist and latest extant work, the Letter to Bishop Ecgberht (734), which took a different approach to the subject.5 Instead of evoking a past golden age for present emulation, as he did in the prose Life of St Cuthbert and The Ecclesiastical

History, in the Letter he telescoped the current demise, first tracing its cause to an episcopate corrupted by avarice and a monasticism diluted by secularization, and then proposing a very specific list of solutions – better-trained teachers, a greater supply of priests ordained to administer the sacraments, an episcopate dedicated to preaching by example as well as by word, the creation of more bishoprics as Pope Gregory had originally envisaged, and the confiscation and reform of monasteries that had abandoned the high ascetic and pastoral standards set by the earlier generation.6

1 Thacker 1983: 149.

2 HE 3.5 (226).

3 Campbell 1966: 182.

4 Thacker 1983: 142.

5 At Epist. Ecg. 17 (423), Bede gives the date of the Letter as 5 November 734; he died six months later on 26 May 735. The Latin text is printed in Plummer 1896: 405–23.

For critical discussion of the Letter, see Brown 1987: 79–80 and DeGregorio 2004: 6–9.

6 See Epist. Ecg. 2 (406), 5 (408–09), 9 (412–13), 10–12 (413–17).

xxxii

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

Naturally, such weighty preoccupations with reform left a mark on Bede's commentaries too, visible in their manifestly pastoral orientation, but also in occasional references to the slothfulness of present times or the maleficent habits of bad teachers.1 Yet they surface with exceptional vividness in On Ezra and Nehemiah because of the biblical story's own decided engagement with reform, which time and again mirrors and merges with Bede's own reforming agenda, as I have demonstrated elsewhere.2 The appositeness of scriptural past to Northumbrian present as Bede perceived it is registered most perceptibly through a series of unique parallels between On Ezra and Nehemiah and the Letter to Bishop Ecgberht.3 A cogent example is provided by his comments on Neh. 5:1–4. Here, the unjust tax imposed on some poor Jews by their wealthier brethren provides the perfect occasion for Bede to condemn the tendency of men of religion in his own day to 'exact an immense tax and weight of worldly goods from those whom they claim to be in charge of while giving nothing for their eternal salvation either by teaching them or by providing them with examples of good living or by devoting effort to works of piety for them'.4 This statement matches his criticism in the Letter of an episcopal tribute that Northumbrian bishops had been imposing on the populace in return for pastoral care which, according to Bede, was rarely if ever rendered.5 In its treatment of analogous abuses, the biblical narrative thus naturally intersects with Bede's own distinctive interests as a promoter of reform witnessed in both commentary and letter. There is no need for allegory here since Nehemiah's zeal to reform the economic mistreatment of his people is itself the message, as Bede's startling plea that 'some Nehemiah… might come in our own days'6 makes clear. That other parts of Ezra–Nehemiah were equally paradigmatic for voicing his ideas on reform is evident from countless analogous remarks made throughout the exegesis, as when he equates

1 E.g. De tab. 3 (96.136–43 and 115.869–75); De templ. 2 (206.595–207.603); In Reg.

30 (320.1–321.32); In Sam. 2 (122.2254–60). For a full account of reform in Bede's commentaries, see DeGregorio 2002.

2 See DeGregorio 2004 for a fuller account of the argument that follows.

3 E.g. In Ezr. 1.282–89, 1458–70; 2.597–604, 619–26, 1474–79; 3.66–74, 820–37, 887–99, 1866–74. For detailed comment, see the notes accompanying these passages.

4 In Ezr. 3.830–33. Cf. In Ezr. 3.887–99 and 1863–74 for similar allusions.

5 Epist. Ecg. 7–9 (410–12). See Blair 2005: 155–56, for further comment.

6 In Ezr. 3.834–35; on the importance of the episode's literal sense, cf. In Ezr.

3.859–65.

INTRODUCTION

xxxiii the giving of material goods to the departing exiles with the proper distribution of wealth to support the needs of preachers, or when he uses the Persian kings' support of the temple to discuss the need for Christian kings to use their power to protect the Church, or when he associates the appointing of Levites to serve in the temple with the duty of bishops to appoint teachers to preach to the faithful – all themes at the core of the Letter.1

The most salient intersection of past and present reform is seen, however, in Bede's approach to the figure of Ezra. That he was of special interest to Bede and the Wearmouth–Jarrow community is evident not only from Bede's commentary but also from the 'Ezra miniature' in the Codex Amiatinus.2 The symbolic potential that this

Old Testament priest and scribe offered that community was no doubt manifold. Yet, as modern biblical scholars hasten to point out,3 Ezra's main role in the canonical story is principally that of a religious reformer: he journeys from Babylon to Jerusalem with the sacred vessels and a group of priests and Levites to implement proper cultic worship in the rebuilt temple, dissolves the mixed marriages and exacts repentance from the parties involved, and instructs the repatriated

Jewish community through his public reading of the Law (see Ezra 7–10, Neh. 8). Insofar as Ezra thereby leads his people from sin in Babylon to salvation in Jerusalem, he is for Bede a figure of Christ the heavenly Priest and Scribe who, journeying into the sin of this world by becoming incarnate, leads humankind from earthly tribulation to the peace of the celestial Jerusalem.4 But at the same time Bede, himself eager to promote reform, develops a more topical and personalized interpretation of Ezra's priestly and scribal activities clearly meant to underline their reforming value for the present.5 Regarding

Ezra's designation as 'a scribe swift in the Law of Moses' (Ezra 7:6), he accordingly stresses that Ezra is both a model teacher and an industrious textual scholar – like Bede himself! – who single-handedly

1 See, respectively, In Ezr. 1.611–21, 2.263–67, and 1.1446–70. Other reform-related themes include corrupt monasteries (In Ezr. 2.600–04); slothful teachers (In Ezr.

3.66–79); teaching by example (In Ezr. 2.1109–16, 1358–67, 1415–24; 3.1091–95, 1145–51). See DeGregorio 2004, for a full treatment of these themes.

2 On the miniature's significance and relation to the commentary, see Appendix 2.

3 Wood 1970: 79; Grabbe 1994.

4 On Ezra as a type of Christ, see esp. In Ezr. 2.858–912, 1957–97.

5 See DeGregorio 2004, for a fuller discussion of these matters.

xxxiv

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

restored the canon of Scripture destroyed in the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem.1 A key passage in Book 2 connects those endeavours with the spiritual reform of the returning exiles:

But because when the temple had been burned down and the city of Jerusalem had been demolished, the holy writings kept there were likewise burnt through enemy devastation, it was proper that, when the Lord showed mercy and returned to his people, these writings should also be restored, so that having repaired the buildings that had been destroyed they would also have writings from which they would receive encouragement and learn how they might be inwardly restored in faith and love of their

Creator (my emphasis).2

The reform theme is then picked up and intensified in Bede's treatment of Ezra as priest. Critical here is the introduction of the term pontifex or 'high priest', a term not applied to Ezra in the canonical story.3 Yet Bede's use of the word is deliberate, though his purpose is not, I would argue, to designate Ezra as the hereditary high priest, since in the biblical story that role is clearly assigned to others, as Bede himself acknowledges.4 Instead, his handling of the term appears designed to underline Ezra's status as a figure of pre-eminent religious authority whose reforming actions are programmatic for ecclesiastics in Bede's own time. The most striking examples of this contemporizing strategy come from Book 2 of the commentary, where the term repeatedly appears in conjunction with Ezra's purging the exiles of their foreign wives and serves in that context to emphasize his role in leading both people and priesthood to repentance and reform.5 It is here that we encounter Bede's revealing definition of the term, pontifex, id est archiepiscopus ('high priest, i.e. an archbishop'),6 an equation that makes clear the extent to which in his mind Ezra was to be a model for contemporary ecclesiastical rulers. In the light of the troubled situation outlined in the Letter to Bishop Ecgberht, the local,

1 On this see In Ezr. 2.791–821 and the accompanying notes.

2 In Ezr. 2.772–78.

3 For reference to Ezra as pontifex, see In Ezr. 2.890, 1587, 1627, 1708, 1821, 1950; and 3.1078, 1134.

4 See, for example, In Ezr. 2.1743–44.

5 See the citations in n. 3 above.

6 In Ezr. 2.1587.

INTRODUCTION

xxxv reformist implications of this merger of pontifical and episcopal roles are inescapable: it is incumbent upon bishops such as Ecgberht, so Bede implies, to follow the example of Ezra the pontifex by using their authority and zeal to set straight wayward priests and laymen and thereby lead society to reform, just as the Letter demanded.

In Bede's presentation of Ezra as scholar, priest, and religious reformer, then, as well as in his development of the other reformrelated themes noted above, I suggest we have at least a partial answer to our question of what it was that drew him to comment on these neglected Old Testament books. Recognizing their power as an exemplum of repentance and reform at both the individual and societal levels, he was keen to appropriate them as a guide of sorts for dealing with the pastoral and secular crises declaimed in the Letter to Bishop

Ecgberht. The pastoral and scholarly endeavours of Ezra, the upright leadership of Nehemiah, the high standards of priestly purity and ministry implemented in the restored temple – here, Bede was quick to perceive, were models from the biblical past for what needed to take place in eighth-century Northumbria if Church and folk were to be saved from spiritual degeneration. Indeed, we might go further and say that, in the figure of Ezra himself, at once scholar, priest, and reformer, Bede found a ready image in terms of which to fashion his own authorial persona and frame his Ezra-like mission to foster the regeneration of his people.1 While doubtless not the sole purpose behind On Ezra and Nehemiah's composition, such reformist strains illustrate the degree to which exegesis for Bede could grow out of, and respond to, the same matrix of social, political, and religious concerns that prompted him to write the prose Life of St Cuthbert, The Ecclesiastical History, and above all the Letter to Bishop Ecgberht.

These aspects of On Ezra and Nehemiah make it one of the Jarrow monk's most innovative creations, proof of the range his exegetical abilities could take no less than of the cultural work he believed the genre of biblical commentary itself could effectively accommodate. A careful reading of this commentary can therefore add much to the growing sense among scholars today that, as an exegete, Bede was far more than a compiler or popularizer who merely followed in the footsteps of those who went before. On the contrary, his devotion to the Fathers who preceded him did not, it is clear, prevent him from moving

1 On the notion of Bede as a 'Northumbrian Ezra', cf. DeGregorio 2004: 16–18.

xxxvi

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

in directions of his own making – or rather, from leaving footprints of his own – relative to the needs of the immediate Northumbrian world in which he lived.

AUDIENCE AND DATE

If, as the foregoing suggests, On Ezra and Nehemiah was written in part to promote the reform of the Northumbrian church, can this tell us something about the work's original audience and date of composition? In my view, expressed more fully elsewhere,1 the commentary's reform content does have a bearing on these issues, so it has been necessary to reserve discussion of them for last.

Let us begin with the question of audience. It is readily apparent that Bede composed On Ezra and Nehemiah with different levels of readership in mind. First, in putting together a complete commentary on Ezra–Nehemiah, Bede was breaking new ground and accordingly must have sensed that he was producing a work that would appeal to a wide international audience, comprising professional exegetes and churchmen throughout Christendom for whom the text would have filled a gap in the patristic canon.2 Some measure of this level of reception is attested by the evidence of the Ordinary Gloss, the standard medieval commentary on the Bible compiled in the early twelfth century, which relies solely on Bede for its exegetical glosses on Ezra–Nehemiah.3 Secondly, like all the commentaries, undoubtedly On Ezra and Nehemiah was written for those whom

Bede calls the praedicatores and doctores – that is, the preachers and teachers of his own day whose charge it was in turn to instruct the faithful. Much has been written about this local Northumbrian context of reception,4 a common view being that Bede, aware he was addressing priests and monks who lacked his grasp of Latin and theology, strove in his commentaries to produce 'simple, accurate digests of the orthodox teaching… aimed merely to help the intellec1 See DeGregorio 2004, for a more expansive treatment of what follows.

2 On the international reception of the commentaries, see Ray 1982: 10–11; Cross

1996; Ward 1990: 80; and Hill 1998 and 2006; on Bede's attempt to supplement the Fathers, see Brown 1987: 42–43.

3 See above, p. xiii, n. 2.

4 Bonner 1970 and 1999; Eckenrode 1981; Thacker 1983 and 1992; McClure 1985; Foot 1989: 46–48; Ward 1990: 78–84; and DeGregorio 1999, 2002, and 2004.

INTRODUCTION

xxxvii tually slothful English'.1 Certainly the treatment devoted in On Ezra and Nehemiah to such fundamental topics as the Church, the sacraments, the Trinity, sin and virtue, and heresy fits with Bede's attempt to instruct his novice readers, as does his revealing comment in Book

2, where he acknowledges the need to restate his exegesis of a verse to make the meaning 'accessible to the less learned as well'.2 And yet, in this one commentary at least, the evidence suggests that this could not have been his only contemporary audience or objective, for the work's reform content points to a third level of readership that evidently had little to do with instructing the rudis lector ('uneducated reader'). Indeed, by raising in On Ezra and Nehemiah the very same body of concerns formulated in the Letter to Bishop Ecgberht, Bede, just as in that work, was ostensibly launching an appeal not to those who were beginners in the faith, but instead to a seasoned body of monastic readers which would have included those in the highest positions of power, bishops such as Acca and Ecgberht who, he clearly hoped, would use their episcopal standing to redress the situation.3

Only in the light of some such conclusion, which aligns well with Alan Thacker's idea that Bede was writing primarily for 'an intellectual and moral elite',4 do many of the heavily reformist passages in the commentary make sense, passages that reveal to us a Bede deeply immersed in the local church politics of his day. That Bede we tend to associate with his historical writings, but On Ezra and Nehemiah proves that such activism permeated his exegetical work as well.

On Ezra and Nehemiah's date, by contrast, is more problematic.

Here alone among Bede's commentaries, the problem is not a lack of information, but contradictions among the information we have. On the one hand, there is Bede's reference in Book 3 to The Reckoning of Time, completed in 725, a date that would put On Ezra and Nehemiah with Bede's later commentaries.5 On the other hand, there is Bede's declaration in the preface to On Genesis that he intends to 1 Carroll 1946: 250. See also Jenkins 1935: 170–71; Bonner 1973: 73; McClure 1985:

17–19. For Bede's own remarks on the challenge of instructing his untaught countrymen, see especially the prefaces to his Explanation of the Apocalypse and On Genesis – Exp.

Apoc. (233.140–46) and In Gen. praef. (1.18–29).

2 See In Ezr. 2.891–93.

3 See DeGregorio 2004: 23–24.

4 Thacker 1983: 131.

5 See In Ezr. 3.155–57. On the date of The Reckoning of Time, see Jones 1977: 241.

xxxviii

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

postpone his exegesis of the rest of the Genesis story until he has finished examining 'the book of the holy prophet and priest Ezra'.1

Bede's On Genesis appears to have been produced in stages, the latest running up to 725, but the preface is believed to be earlier and has been assigned, rather arbitrarily, to the period 709–711.2 Accordingly,

Bede's remarks there appear to indicate an early date for On Ezra and Nehemiah, before the year 725 suggested by the mention of The Reckoning of Time in Book 3. We must ask, therefore, whether other evidence exists to reconcile these contrary datings.

The case for an early date has been marshalled exclusively by Paul Meyvaert. In a 1997 article, he claimed that On Ezra and Nehemiah was composed in two discrete stages, the first predating 720 and comprising Books 1 and 2, the second postdating 725 and consisting of Book 3 alone.3 In a more recent discussion, he has suggested that we delete the reference to The Reckoning of Time from Book 3 on the grounds that it is no more than a 'marginal note [that] became absorbed into the main text'.4 Taking the preface to On Genesis as the key, he locates the composition of On Ezra and Nehemiah between the years 711–715.5

1 In Gen. praef. (2.33–45): 'And I have carried through the work up to the point where Adam, having been ejected from the paradise of pleasure, entered the exile of the temporal life. I intend to write some things also about subsequent events of the sacred narrative, God willing, with the accompanying help of your intercession, after I have first examined for a while (parum perscrutatus fuero) the book of the holy prophet and priest Ezra in which, both as a prophet and as a historian, he wrote about the sacred meanings of Christ and the Church under the allegorical figure of the release from the long captivity, of the restoration of the temple, of the rebuilding of the city, of the return to Jerusalem of the vessels which had been taken away, of the rewriting of the Law of God which had been burned, of the purification of the people from their foreign wives, and of the people's conversion with one heart and soul to the service of God, and after with God's help, I have made some of these sacred meanings which I have mentioned clearer to those who are desirous of learning.'

2 On the various compositional stages of On Genesis, see Jones 1967: vi–x, and Gorman 1996: 303–07. The dating of the preface to the period 709–711, as Meyvaert

2005: 1095, most recently assumes, is based on pure conjecture, as is the idea that Bede's comments on Gen. 1:1–2:3, labelled '1a' by Jones (see Jones 1967: vii), ever made up a separate recension that was issued by Bede at a very early date: see Gorman 1996: 303.

The fact is that we simply do not have conclusive evidence for dating either the preface or Book 1a to the precise early dates usually ascribed to them.

3 Meyvaert 1997.

4 Meyvaert 2005: 1093.

5 Meyvaert 2005: 1096. This article appeared soon after an article of mine in the same journal, in which I question Meyvaert's 1997 arguments for an early date: see next note.

INTRODUCTION

xxxix But such arguments are less than compelling. For example, it is manifestly untrue, as we have seen, that 'we do not find the appellation pontifex in the Commentary on Ezra', a key assertion in Meyvaert's argument that the commentary was composed in discrete early and late stages.1 There is no need to segment the individual books of On Ezra and Nehemiah into different chronological layers, for it is clear that it is a uniformly coherent work, as a reading of the capitula or 'chapter headings' at its beginning amply shows. Moreover,

Meyvaert offers no evidence of any kind to support his theory that the reference to The Reckoning of Time began as a marginal gloss; he would simply erase the comment from Bede's text.2 This leaves Bede's

As my remarks in the next paragraph indicate, I do not accept his more recent claims concerning 1) Bede's reference to The Reckoning of Time in Book 3 of On Ezra and Nehemiah; or 2) Bede's remarks in the Genesis preface. His conclusions regarding the phrase hostili clade perustae in the commentary and the couplet atop the Ezra miniature are discussed in Appendix 2.

1 See Meyvaert 1997: 285, where he claims that the supposed absence of the term pontifex from On Ezra and Nehemiah 'was due probably to a revision Bede made to his earlier work, namely in the commentary as it existed in its first stage'. DeGregorio 2004:

21–23, offers a critique of this argument. In his 2005 article Meyvaert retracts this theory about successive revisions (see p. 1091).

2 See Meyvaert 2005: 1093. Meyvaert's claim that the comment is a marginal gloss is preceded by a comparison of In Ezr. 3.132–57 (which ends with that comment) and DTR 9, both of which treat the so-called 'seventy prophetic weeks' mentioned in the Book of Daniel. He believes the comparison reveals On Ezra and Nehemiah to be the earlier work 1) because there, he alleges, Bede follows Julius Africanus' calculation of the seventy prophetic weeks (instead of Eusebius', whom Meyvaert thinks Bede prefers in DTR 9); and 2) because Bede quotes the Old Latin version of Daniel 9:25, while in DTR 9 he quotes the Vulgate version of the same verse 'as was his custom in later works'

(1093). But these are highly dubious assertions. The discrepancy at the end of DTR 9 concerns, not the seventy prophetic weeks, but the year of Tiberius' reign in which Christ's Passion took place: Africanus puts it at Tiberius 15 (following the Synoptic

Gospels) and Eusebius puts in at year 18 (following the Gospel of John). But this has no bearing whatsoever on how the seventy prophetic weeks themselves are calculated.

For this, Bede always follows Africanus. Accordingly, Jerome and Africanus are paired as authorities on the chronology of the seventy prophetic weeks in DTR 66 (under AM

3529), while Eusebius is followed on the regnal year of the Passion (at AM 3984).

Moreover, we should expect DTR 9 to treat the topic of the seventy prophetic weeks in a more lengthy and detailed manner than a few sentences in a biblical commentary, since Bede's objectives in the two works are different. Regarding Bede's preference for the Vulgate over the Old Latin in his later works, suffice it to note that On the Tabernacle and On the Temple, two works known to date from later in Bede's career, cite abundantly from the Old Latin. As grounds for dating On Ezra and Nehemiah, then, neither of these claims has merit.

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

remarks in the preface to On Genesis. It is certainly possible that his postponement of On Genesis came as a result of the work taking place at that time on the Codex Amiatinus, for there can be no doubt that he was heavily involved in the project.1 But this need not mean, as Meyvaert insists, that he completed On Ezra and Nehemiah at that time too. For one thing, firm evidence for dating the Genesis preface to the period Meyvaert assigns to it (i.e. 709–711) is lacking.2

Furthermore, the wording of the preface itself is also less certain than may seem: it says nothing about finishing a commentary on Ezra, but describes rather Bede's desire to 'examine for a while' (parum perscrutatus fuero) the Ezra story, and to 'explain… some of its sacred meanings' (aliqua ex his… sacramentis… reddidero).3 That this desire should be equated with completing the full three-book commentary by the early date of 715 may therefore be doubted; indeed, the preface says nothing at all of the events of Nehemiah, which constitutes the commentary's third book. Accordingly, Bede's words could just as well refer to some preliminary and less extensive stage of research he conducted into the Ezra story while Amiatinus's text and decorative materials were being prepared.4 The Ezra miniature itself, we know, must have been completed by 716, the year the pandect left

Wearmouth–Jarrow for Rome.5 Hence Meyvaert, keen to see the miniature and commentary as contemporaneous 'companion pieces', would place the completion of On Ezra and Nehemiah just before that date, between 711 and 715 – just prior, he makes a point of noting, to Bede's commencing work on his commentary on Samuel.6 But this conclusion ignores a key piece of evidence: namely, that in the preface to On Samuel Bede is forthright in telling us about his recently completed work: he states that he has just finished commenting on 1 See Marsden 1998.

2 See above, p. xxxviii, n. 2.

3 See In Gen. praef. (2.35–45). Meyvaert's renderings of these key portions of the preface are inaccurate: he translates parum perscrutatus fuero as 'I would like to discourse somewhat', and et aliqua ex his quae commemoraui sacramentis apertiora studiosis, Deo favente, reddidero as 'My desire is to explain the sacraments I have just briefly mentioned in a fuller way for the benefit of studious readers' (see Meyvaert 2005:

00). But this is not what Bede says. The deponent verb perscrutor means 'to examine thoroughly', not 'to discourse'. Nor does Bede say that he will 'explain the sacraments', but only 'some' of them. Finally, there is nothing in Bede's Latin about 'readers'.

4 For a correlative reading of the Genesis preface, see Chazelle 2006.

5 See Appendix 2.

6 Meyvaert 2005: 1096.

INTRODUCTION

xli Luke, but says nothing about finishing a commentary on Ezra.1

The bulk of our current evidence does not in fact favour so early a date as the preface to On Genesis and the Ezra miniature would have us suppose. The reference to The Reckoning of Time remains our strongest lead, and until definitive evidence emerges for treating it otherwise, the safest course is to follow Plummer, Laistner and others who put the completion of On Ezra and Nehemiah in the form that we have it sometime after 725.2 A date later in Bede's career surely fits better with the originality of the project and its relative independence from patristic authority, features uncharacteristic of his earlier commentaries such as those on the Apocalypse and Luke's gospel.3

Moreover, it highlights the link between On Ezra and Nehemiah and On the Tabernacle and On the Temple, works known to have been composed in the mid to late 720s and ones that are clearly intended to complement On Ezra and Nehemiah, the three works together forming something of a complete whole. Beyond that, I propose that a later date better suits the commentary's interest in church reform as well. The theme, though evident in many Bedan works, is one that is detected most readily in his post-720s output, such as the prose Life of St Cuthbert and The Ecclesiastical History, as Thacker has shown,4 or On the Tabernacle and On the Temple.5 In this connection, it is interesting to consider whether the many close parallels between On Ezra and Nehemiah and the Letter to Bishop Ecgberht – parallels, we recall, that appear only in this one commentary – are perhaps a sign of something more, evidence that Bede's main work on the text took place in, or at least continued until, the early 730s, when evidently the question of reform weighed heavily on his mind. Were this true, On Ezra and Nehemiah, not On the Temple, might possibly be his latest extant piece

1 See In Sam. prol. (10.40–41).

2 Plummer 1896: cl; Laistner 1943: 38. To be sure, Bede's interest in the Ezra material may have begun much earlier, and the possibility that he projected and even began work on a commentary early on but did not finish it until several years later should not be ruled out. The point is simply that most of the evidence we have at present favours a later date for the work's completion.

3 On the indebtedness of the earlier commentaries to patristic authority, see Meyvaert 1976: 44–45 and Robinson 1994: 206–12. For the commentaries on the Apocalypse and Luke in particular, see Mackay 1999; Gryson 2001: 153–77; Kaczynski

2001; Gorman 2002.

4 See Thacker 1983.

5 See DeGregorio 2002.

xlii

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

of exegesis.1 This may, in fact, explain why On Ezra and Nehemiah is the one Bedan commentary that concludes with a first-person prayer

– thus linking it, tellingly, to The Ecclesiastical History – or why Bede himself repeatedly opines near the end of the work that he need not take the trouble to explain matters in detail, an indication, perhaps, that he is now on in years and growing tired of writing.2 Of course, the claim that On Ezra-Nehemiah is Bede's latest extant commentary must, in our present state of knowledge, remain speculative. Until definitive facts to the contrary emerge, the most we can say is that the majority of our evidence at present favours a later date for the work, placing the bulk of its composition somewhere within in the latter half of the 720s.

MODERN EDITIONS AND THE PRESENT TRANSLATION

This volume presents the first complete translation of On Ezra and Nehemiah into any language. It is based on the Latin text edited by David Hurst in volume 119A of the Corpus Christianorum. Hurst's edition, published in 1969, is the third edition of the work published in modern times. The first edition appeared in 1563, as part of the editio princeps of the collected works of Bede published in that year in Basel by Johann Herwagen the Younger.3 The second followed with another edition of Bede's collected works, this one published in London in 1843–44 by J. A. Giles. Giles's edition of On Ezra and Nehemiah was in turn reprinted by Migne in volume 91A of the Patrologia Latina.

Though it is hardly the purpose of a translation to re-edit the text being translated, the poor state of Hurst's edition has in select places necessitated some minor editorial modifications. These are indicated throughout the text in the footnotes and summarized in tabular form in Appendix 1. Some of these are little more than corrections of misprints; others involve more drastic emendation where the text

Hurst prints appears to be corrupt. I am indebted here to the gracious help of Andrew Goodson and A. C. Dionisotti, both of whom spotted numerous problems in Hurst's text and made helpful suggestions for improvement. Dionisotti also was kind enough to consult for me two

1 See DeGregorio 2004: 21–23.

2 For Bede's prayer, see In Ezr. 3.2108–15, to which cf. HE 5.24 (570). For his desire to abbreviate his comments, see In Ezr. 3.545–46, 643–46, 1383–86, and 1714–15.

3 On Herwagen's edition, see Gorman 2001.

INTRODUCTION

xliii manuscripts of the text not used by Hurst that were readily available to her in the British Library. In a handful of cases the readings supplied by these manuscripts offer valuable support for the changes that have been made.

Unlike the lucid composition of Bede's historical prose, his commentaries, the later ones especially, tend to present a more formidable Latin style, characterized by long flowing sentences and complexities of syntax whose difficulties often have only been compounded by the way modern editors of Bede's exegetical works have handled them, as Richard Sharpe for one has recently demonstrated.1 In some places, therefore, to ensure the readability of the translated text, it has been necessary to break up Bede's characteristically lengthy sentences into smaller units. In general, however, an effort has been made to reproduce as far as possible the structure of his sentences. For those wishing to read this volume alongside the Latin text, two conventions have been employed to facilitate crossreferencing: 1) the page numbers to the CCSL edition have been placed in the outside margins of the translated text; 2) the line numbers to that edition have been specified every twenty-five lines within the translated text in boldface and brackets (e.g. /25/). References to On Ezra and Nehemiah, therefore, employ just the book and line number

(e.g. In Ezr. 1.25); all other Bedan works are cited by the book number (where applicable), followed in parenthesis by the page and line numbers to the appropriate CCSL edition [e.g. De tab. 1 (5.25)]. A list of abbreviations for Bede's works may be found on pp. x–xi.

Scriptural quotations have been translated afresh to reflect Bede's usage, though his Latin spelling of biblical names has been replaced by the conventional modern spellings used in the New Revised

Standard Version (NRSV). In those cases where Bede's Latin spelling of a word is germane to the point he is making (for example, when he points out at the beginning of Book 2 that Jesus and Joshua are in fact the same name), the Latin spelling is given first followed by the NRSV spelling in parentheses: [e.g. Jesus (Jeshua)]. Citations from the Psalms give the NRSV numbering first, followed (where necessary) by the Vulgate numbering in parentheses. Text quoted from Ezra–

Nehemiah appears always in boldface; all other quotations from Scripture are represented in italics. Citations from classical and 1 Sharpe 2005.

xliv

BEDE: ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

patristic authors are given in quotation marks. Biblical, classical, and patristic sources have been listed in the notes as well as in the Index of Sources and Allusions; while many of these are recorded by Hurst in his edition, several others are identified here for the first time and so give the present volume an additional utility. More than previous translations, I have also attempted in the notes to record important parallels, echoes, and generally helpful passages elsewhere in Bede's writings, in order to bring out the intertextual dimensions of his oeuvre. Finally, references to primary and secondary works used in this volume are given in abbreviated form in the notes, supplemented by complete citations in the Bibliography.

↑ Back to top