The Critique of the Vulgate Translation of Scripture
Key Theological Developments
The major renaissance in theology that took place during the period under consideration focused on a number of issues, of which the following are of especial importance. They will simply be noted briefly at this point; detailed discussion of most of them will take place later in this work. The first six such developments are associated with scholasticism (see pp. 90–1), the last two with humanism (see pp. 92–3).
The Consolidation of the Early Christian Theological Heritage
During the theological renaissance of the twelfth century and following, Christian theologians saw themselves as consolidating and extending the rich heritage of theological resources passed on to them from the early Christian era. In that the western church was Latin-speaking, it was natural that its theologians should turn to the substantial collection of works by Augustine of Hippo and take this as a starting point for their own theological speculations. Peter Lombard’s Four Books of the Sentences (see pp. 90–1) may be regarded as a critical compilation of quotations (“Sentences”) drawn largely from the writings of Augustine, upon which medieval theologians were required to comment.
The Exploration of the Role of Reason in Theology
The new concern to establish Christian theology upon a totally reliable foundation led to a considered exploration of the role of reason in theology, a central and defining characteristic of scholasticism (see p. 90). As the theological renaissance of the early Middle Ages proceeded, two themes began to dominate theological debate: the need to systematize and expand Christian theology and the need to demonstrate the inherent rationality of that theology. Although most early medieval theology was essentially a repetition and modest development of the views of Augustine, there was growing pressure to systematize Augustine’s ideas and take them further. How could this be done? A “theory of method” was urgently needed. On the basis of what philosophical system could the rationality of Christian theology be demonstrated?
The eleventh-century writer Anselm of Canterbury gave expression to this basic belief of the rationality of the Christian faith in two phrases that have come to be linked with his name: fides quaerens intellectum (“faith seeking understanding”) and credo ut intellegam (“I believe, in order that I may understand”). His basic insight was that, while faith came before understanding, the content of that faith was nevertheless rational. These definitive formulae established the priority of faith over reason, just as they asserted the entire reasonableness of faith. In the preface to his Monologion, Anselm stated explicitly that he would establish nothing in Scripture on the basis of Scripture itself; instead, he would establish everything that he could on the basis of “rational evidence and the natural light of truth.” Nevertheless, Anselm is no rationalist; he was clear that human reason has its limits!
The eleventh and early twelfth centuries saw a growing conviction that philosophy could be an invaluable asset to Christian theology at two different levels. In the first place, it could demonstrate the reasonableness of faith and thus defend it against non-Christian critics. In the second place, it offered ways of systematically exploring and arranging the articles of faith, so that they could be better understood. But which philosophy? The answer to this question came through the rediscovery of the writings of Aristotle, in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. By about 1270, Aristotle had become established as “the Philosopher.” His ideas gradually came to dominate theological thinking during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, despite some early opposition from more conservative quarters.
Through the influence of writers such as Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Aristotle’s ideas became established as the best means of consolidating and developing Christian theology. The ideas of Christian theology were thus arranged and correlated systematically, on the basis of Aristotelian presuppositions. Equally, the rationality of Christian faith was demonstrated on the basis of Aristotelian ideas. Thus, some of Thomas Aquinas’ famous “proofs” for the existence of God actually rely on principles of Aristotelian physics, rather than on any distinctively Christian insights.
Initially, this development was welcomed by many, who saw it as providing important ways of defending the rationality of the Christian faith – a discipline that has since come to be known as “apologetics,” from the Greek word apologia (“defense”). Thomas Aquinas’s Summa contra Gentiles is an excellent example of a work of theology that draws on Aristotelianism as a common philosophy shared by Christians and Moslems, which would allow the attractiveness of the Christian faith to be explained within the Islamic world. At points, Aquinas’ argument seems to work like this: if you can agree with the Aristotelian ideas presented in this writing, then you ought to become a Christian. As Aristotle was highly regarded by many Moslem academics of the period, Thomas can be seen as exploiting the apologetic potential of this philosopher.
This development came to be viewed with concern by some late medieval writers, such as Hugolino of Orvieto. A number of central Christian insights seemed to have been lost, according to such critics, as a result of a growing reliance upon the ideas and methods of a pagan philosopher. There was a particular concern relating to the doctrine of justification, in which Aristotelian ethical ideas came to play a significant role for some late medieval theologians. The idea of the “righteousness of God” came to be discussed in terms of the Aristotelian idea of “distributive justice.” Here, “righteousness” (iustitia) was defined in terms of “giving someone what they were entitled to.” This seemed to imply that justification takes place on the basis of human entitlement, rather than divine grace. This concern lies behind Martin Luther’s growing dislike of Aristotle in the early sixteenth century and his eventual break with scholastic doctrines of justification.
The Development of Theological Systems
We have already noted the importance attached to consolidating the patristic, especially the Augustinian, heritage during the early Middle Ages (p. 90). This pressure to systematize, which is integral to scholasticism, led to the development of the sophisticated theological systems that Etienne Gilson, a noted historian of the period, described as “cathedrals of the mind.” This development is perhaps best seen in Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, which represents one of the most forceful statements of the comprehensive and all-embracing character of this approach to Christian theology.
The Development of Sacramental Theology
The early church had been somewhat imprecise in its discussion of the sacraments. There was little general agreement concerning either how the term “sacrament” was to be defined or what items were to be included in a list of the sacraments (see pp. 117–19). Baptism and eucharist were generally agreed to be sacramental; sadly, there was relatively little agreement on anything else. However, with the theological renaissance of the Middle Ages, the church was coming to play an increasingly important role in society. There was new pressure for the church to place its acts of public worship on a secure intellectual footing and to consolidate the theoretical aspects of its worship. As a result, sacramental theology developed considerably during this period. Agreement was reached on the definition of a sacrament, the number of the sacraments, and the precise identity of these sacraments.
The Development of the Theology of Grace
A central element of the Augustinian heritage was a theology of grace. However, Augustine’s theology of grace had been stated in a polemical context. In other words, Augustine had been obliged to state his theology of grace in the heat of a controversy, often in response to the challenges and provocations of his opponents. As a result, his writings on the subject were often unsystematic. Occasionally, Augustine developed distinctions in response to the needs of the moment and failed to lay an adequate theological foundation for at least some of them. The theologians of the Middle Ages saw themselves as charged with the task of consolidating Augustine’s doctrine of grace, placing it upon a more reliable foundation and exploring its consequences. As a result, the doctrines of grace and justification were developed considerably during the period, laying the foundation for the Reformation debates over these central issues.
The Role of Mary in the Scheme of Salvation
This new interest in grace and justification led to a new concern to understand the role of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, in salvation. Growing interest in devotion to Mary, linked with intense theological speculation concerning the nature of original sin and redemption, led to a series of developments relating to Mary. Many of these are linked with Duns Scotus, who introduced some new ideas into Mariology, the area of theology dealing with Mary (see p. 99). Intense debate broke out between “maculists” (who, like Thomas Aquinas, held that Mary was tainted by original sin, like everyone else) and “immaculists” (who, like Scotus, held that she was preserved from the guilt of original sin). There was also considerable discussion over whether Mary could be said to be “co-redemptrix” (that is to say, whether she was to be regarded as a supplementary figure of redemption, in addition to Jesus Christ).
Returning Directly to the Sources of Christian Theology
A central element of the agenda of Renaissance humanism was the need to return to the original sources of western European culture in classical Rome and Athens for intellectual and cultural refreshment and renewal. The theological counterpart to this element was the direct return to the foundational resources of Christian theology, above all in the New Testament. This agenda proved to be of major significance, as will be seen later (see p. 123). One of its most important consequences was a new appreciation of the foundational importance of Scripture as a theological resource. As interest in Scripture developed, it became increasingly clear that existing Latin translations of this source were inadequate. Supreme among these was the “Vulgate,” a Latin translation of the Bible that achieved widespread influence during the Middle Ages. As revision of the translations, especially the Vulgate, proceeded, it became clear that theological revision was inevitable. Some teachings seemed to be based on faulty translations.
The rise of humanist textual and philological techniques was to expose distressing discrepancies between the Vulgate and the texts it purported to translate – and thus to open the way to doctrinal reform as a consequence. It is for this reason that humanism is of decisive importance to the development of medieval theology: it demonstrated the unreliability of this translation of the Bible – and hence, it seemed, of the theologies based upon it. The biblical basis of scholasticism seemed to collapse, as humanism uncovered error after error in its translation. We shall explore this point further in what follows; it is unquestionably one of the most significant developments in the history of Christian theology at this time.
The Critique of the Vulgate Translation of Scripture
The literary and cultural program of humanism can be summarized in the slogan ad fontes – “back to the original sources.” The “filter” of medieval commentaries – whether on legal texts or on the Bible – was abandoned, in order for humanists to engage directly with the original texts. Applied to the Christian church, the slogan ad fontes meant a direct return to the title-deeds of Christianity – to the patristic writers, and supremely to the Bible, studied in its original languages. This necessitated direct access to the Greek text of the New Testament.
The first printed Greek New Testament was produced by Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus’s text was not as reliable as it ought to have been: he had access to a mere four manuscripts for most of the New Testament and only one for its final part, the Book of Revelation. As it happened, the manuscript left out five verses, which Erasmus himself had to translate into Greek from the Latin of the Vulgate. Nevertheless, it proved to be a literary milestone. For the first time, theologians had the opportunity of comparing the original Greek text of the New Testament with the later Vulgate translation into Latin.
Drawing on work carried out earlier by the Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla, Erasmus showed that the Vulgate translation of several major New Testament texts could not be justified. As a number of medieval church practices and beliefs were based upon these texts, Erasmus’s allegations were viewed with consternation by many conservative Catholics (who wanted to retain these practices and beliefs) and with equally great delight by the reformers (who wanted to eliminate them). Three classic examples of apparently significant translation errors will indicate the relevance of Erasmus’s biblical scholarship.
These developments raised questions about the credibility of the Vulgate translation and opened the way to theological revision on the basis of a better understanding of the biblical text. It also demonstrated the importance of biblical scholarship in relation to theology. Theology could not be permitted to base itself upon translation mistakes! The recognition of the vitally important role of biblical scholarship to Christian theology thus dates from the second decade of the sixteenth century. It also led to the theological debates of the Reformation age, to which we shall turn in the next chapter.