The Fourth Gospel In The Twelfth Century:
Rupert Of Deutz On The Gospel Of John --- Notes
Copyright (C) 1998 by Abigail Ann Young
A formal disclaimer -- The Centre for Computing in the Humanities and Social Sciences (CHASS) kindly provides facilities to humanities researchers for e-mail and other forms of Internet access. I am grateful to be able to take advantage of those facilities to make this material accessible on the Web. However, CHASS is in no way responsible or liable for anything contained within these writings: that responsibility lies entirely with me, the copyright holder. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please write to me at "email@example.com".
Note 1 See John H. van Enghen, Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley, 1983; based on a 1976 UCLA doctoral thesis), as well as the work of Rhabanus Haacke, Rupert's modern editor (especially in the prefaces to Trinity and Victory), and of G.G. Bischoff, whose unpublished 1965 Princeton doctoral thesis 'The Eucharistic Controversy between Rupert of Deutz and his Anonymous Adversary' has proven very valuable. Van Enghen places Rupert's life and work strongly within the intellectual and political milieu of the Holy Roman Empire and the papal reform movement and indicates the context of Rupert's own controversial works. However, he has been less successful in placing Rupert within the context of twelfth-century exegesis and theology. For the former, the best guides are M-D Chenu, La théologie au douzième siècle, 3rd edn (Paris, 1976); Gillian Evans, The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1984). For the latter, see Gillian Evans, Old Arts and New Theology: The Beginnings of Theology as an Academic Discipline (Oxford, 1980) and Valerie Flint, 'The "School" of Laon: A Reconsideration', Recherche de Theologie ancienne et medievale (RTAM) 43 (1976), 89-110. The best one-volume general survey on mediaeval exegesis in English remains Beryl Smalley's The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, rev edn (Oxford, 1983), which first appeared in 1952. Henri de Lubac's Exégèse médiévale, 2 parts in 4 vols (Paris, 1959), is also essential, even though his book details the history of one feature of mediaeval exegesis, the senses of scripture, than of exegesis itself.
Note 2 Two lists, drawn up in the mid-1120s, appear to be chronological: they are in the first book of his commentary on the Rule of St Benedict (Rule, Patrologia Latina (PL) 170.489C-D) and in the dedicatory letter apparently for a presentation copy of Office (Corpus Christianorum Latinorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis (CCM) 7, pp 3-4). The third, written later in the decade and not in any discernible order, is in a dedicatory letter to a controversial treatise on the Trinity, de glorificatione Trinitatis (PL 169.11/12).
Note 3 In Rule, Book 1, Rupert wrote: 'Locutus sum in primis opusculum De officiis diuinis ... [d]einde in Evangelium secundum Joannem ... [e]t post hoc de sancta Trinitate' (PL 170.489C-D).
Note 4 Flint, '"School"', 99-100. Further see, in addition to van Enghen's biography, the essays in C.W. Bynum, Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1982).
Note 5 In the twelfth chapter of Glory and Honour, Rupert implies that, before his ordination as priest, he had written only poetry and that of a schoolboy character (CCM 29, p 381). The visions are discussed below, pp 3-5.
Note 6 Described by Rupert in Rule, Book 1 (PL 170.494C-496C).
Note 7 See Rule, Book 1 (PL 170.482A-83A) and Flint, '"School"', 102-6.
Note 8 Evidence for his teaching at Liège comes from the correspondence of a younger Benedictine, Wibald of Stablo, who twice travelled to Liège in the 1110s, once to hear Rupert's lectures; see Bischoff, 'Controversy', pp 17, 227, 290, and 360-2. Evans believes him also to have taught in Siegburg: see Old Arts, pp 60-79 and 229.
Note 9 The autobiographical section in Rule, book 1, focused on Rupert's struggles with William and Anselm and on misunderstandings of points in Office and the John commentary. But he did mention his visions and alluded to the fact that many people thought him unsuitable to interpret the Bible because of his 'Epicurean' appearance and lack of a 'modern' theological education (PL 170.479C-481B).
Note 10 Glory and Honour, CCM 29, p 366: '... fere nihil in me uidebas de illis praeparationibus sanctorum patrum, quibus in huiusmodi studiis laboraturi feliciter sese praeparauerunt "sicut Dei ministros", ut beatus apostolus ait, "in uigiliis, in ieiuniis", et ceteris bonis, quibus adhibitis clarificari solet sensus hominis, ut recto intuitu mereatur incedere per sanctas ac uenerabiles Scripturas ueritatis.'
Note 11 The much briefer mention in Rule seems to be another version and interpretation of what appears here as the sixth vision. He described seeing Christ as a golden body from which living water was poured into him through many pipes; it is not clear in what sense to take 'body' (corpus) in this passage: Rule, Book 1, PL 170.480C-81A.
Note 12 It is interesting in light of these strong emotions that in the John commentary Rupert explains Jesus' weeping for Lazarus (Jn 11.35) not as a result of sorrow for Lazarus' death but of sorrow for recalling him to again suffer the miseries of this life: Commentary, CCM 9, p 556.
Note 13 Glory and Honour, CCM 29, p 369: '... aperti sunt mihi oculi et uidi Filium Dei, uidi ipsum uigilans in cruce uiuentem Filium hominis. Non corporali uisu uidi, sed ut uiderem, repente euanuerunt corporis oculi et aperte sunt meliores, id est interiores oculi'.
Note 14 It has become customary in recent times to discuss the visions, and especially this one, as examples of conscious or unconscious homoeroticism. See for instance, Barbara Newman's comparison of Rupert's visions with those of St Hildegard (which is unfortunately somewhat dismissive of Rupert's experiences) in 'Hildegard of Bingen: Visions and Validation', Church History 54.2 (1985), 163-75. Since the object of the vision and its retelling seems to be the arousing not of desire but devotion, it is hard to see how it can have been in any real sense erotic or homoerotic. A vivid physicality is characteristic of Christian mystical writing and its biblical foundation and to see it as erotic in the modern literary sense is, I think, to miss the point altogether, i.e., that the immediacy and power of the mystic's contact with the living God is such that it can only be expressed in physical terms.
Note 15 Glory and Honour, CCM 29, pp 370-2; the words quoted are on p 372.
Note 16 Glory and Honour, CCM 29, pp 372-3: 'De apertione libri et de ratione quam persona illa dixit aureas ostendens sanctorum memorias siue phylacteria non opus est, ut interpretationem faciam tuae caritati, cuius de me iudicium saepe audierunt et secuti sunt multi, quod uere Deus librum suum, id est Scripturam sanctam mihi aperuit, et multis sanctorum Patrum sententiis, quorum in sancta ecclesia digne celebris est memoria et uelut aurum rutilat, aliquanta meliora dixerim...'
Note 17 Glory and Honour, CCM 29, p 374-5.
Note 18 Glory and Honour, CCM 29, pp 378-9.
Note 19 Glory and Honour, CCM 29, pp 382-3.
Note 20 Glory and Honour, CCM 29, pp 383-4.
Note 21 Glory and Honour, CCM 29, pp 367, 370.
Note 22 See Scivias, A. Führkötter and A. Carlevaris eds, CCM 43-43A (2 vols with continuous pagination) (Turnhout, 1978), pp 3-6 and 109-23, especially 116-23.
Note 23 This is not to imply an unfamiliarity with their theological content: for example, the discussion of human salvation and Christ's saving work in Scivias referenced above shows clearly that St Hildegard knew of and understood the Anselmian doctrine of satisfaction.
Note 24 Bede's Ecclesiastical History, B. Colgrave and R.A. Mynors, eds (Oxford, 1969), 4.24, p 414 (quoting the Vulgate text of Gal 1.1).
Note 25 Since Hebrews was mistakenly believed by most in the western church to be St Paul's work until after Rupert's day, we must treat it here as though it were a Pauline epistle.
Note 26 The importance of all these links and themes in the development of early Christian thought and the foundation they provided for appropriating the Old Testament are major themes in J. Danielou's book, Sacramentum Futuri (Paris, 1950).
Note 27 In addition to Danielou, Sacramentum, see The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol 1, eds P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans (Cambridge, 1970), especially chs 12-18; and J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, vol 1 of The Christian Tradition (Chicago/London, 1971).
Note 28 The place of exegetical writings within patristic literature as a whole is presented from a different perspective in Pelikan, Emergence, pp 1-10.
Note 29 Gal 4.24, 'Now this is an allegory: these women are the two covenants' (NRSV). Paul actually used a participle, allegoroumena, things spoken allegorically, rather than the related noun, allegoria, allegory.
Note 30 See The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol 2, ed G.W.H. Lampe (Cambridge, 1969), ch 6.1 and R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event (London, 1959), section 1. The classic discussion remains Henri de Lubac, Exegese medievle, part 1, vol 1, ch 1.5 and part 1, vol 2, chs 6-10.
Note 31 The best discussion in English of the catechetical school and of Origen is in Hanson, Allegory and Event. A different perspective is provided in A. Grillmeier, S.J., Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostlic Age to Chalcedon (451), 2nd rev. ed., tr. J Bowden (Atlanta, 1975), pp 133-48, 361-7; Danielou, Sacramentum, pp 86-94, compares Philo and Origen on Noah's Ark; and specifically on Philo, see H.A. Wolfson, Philo, 2 vols (Cambridge, Mass., 1947).
Note 32 See The Cambridge History of the Bible, v 1, ch 15; Grillmeier, Christ, pp 414-39, offers a more strictly theological perspective on the school.
Note 33 What was passed on seems to have been limited to a sixth-century translation of an exegetical work influenced by the Antiochene school which happened to have been recommended by Cassiodorus and in a few commentaries on the Psalms from the Antiochene school which appear to have been known by later Irish exegetes.
Note 34 There were two commentaries circulating in the Middle Ages which were attributed to Jerome, however, and one of them seems to have been used by Rupert, who surely believed it to be the work of Jerome.
Note 35 Jerome's exegesis is discussed in The Cambridge History of the Bible vol 2, ch 4.
Note 36 Augustine's debt to Ambrose is particularly well stated by him in Confessions, book 6; on Ambrose's exegesis, see The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol 1, pp 543-55, and 572-4.
Note 37 Leclercq, Love, pp 73-6.
Note 38 De doctrina Christiana, ed. J. Martin, Corpus Christianorum Latinorum 32 (Turnhout, 1962).
Note 39 In Iohannis evangelium tractatus, ed. R. Willems, Corpus Christianorum Latinorum 36 (Turnhout, 1954).
Note 40 Augustine's exegesis is discussed in The Cambridge History of the Bible vol 1, pp 541-63.
Note 41 There is a vast amount of writing on the subject of Christian anti-Semitism and its origins (especially written since 1945) as the church has attempted to come to terms with its own culpability for centuries of violence against the Jews. A good introduction in English, despite his idiosyncratic interpretation of Pauline doctrine, is John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism (New York, 1983).
Note 42 In general, see the relevant chapters of Smalley, Study and The Cambridge History of the Bible vol 2, and J. Pelikan, The Growth of Mediaeval Theology (600-1300), vol 3 of The Christian Tradition (Chicago, 1978). More specialised discussion of particular authors, works, or schools will be found in E. Bertola, 'La "Glossa Ordinaria biblica" ed i suoi problemi', RTAM 45 (1978) 34-78; Evans, Language and Logic, Part 1; Flint, '"School"'; John Marenbon, From the Circle of Alcuin to the School of Auxerre: Logic, Theology, and Philosophy in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1981); and Beryl Smalley, 'Gilbert the Universal and the Problem of the "Glossa Ordinaria"', RTAM 7 (1935) 235-62 and RTAM 8 (1936) 24-60, and 'La Glossa Ordinaria', RTAM 9 (1937) 365-400. For the most up-to-date bibliography on the Carolingian period, see the Carolingian Biblical Exegesis Homepage at the John Carter Brown Library.
Note 43 See Biblical Studies: The Mediaeval Irish Contribution, ed M. McNamara (Dublin, 1976), for more discussion of the Irish school of exegesis.
Note 44 PL 100.739C (letter to Alcuin from Gisele and Rectrude, the daughters of Charlemagne, printed with his commentary on John): 'Habemus siquidem clarissimi doctoris Augustini homeliatico sermone explanationes in eundem euangelistam, sed quibusdam in locis multo obscuriores, maiorique circumlocutione decoratas, quam nostrae parvitatis ingeniolum intrare ualeat.'
Note 45 See Rule, book 1, PL 170 496A-B. Both Bischoff and van Enghen came independently to the same identification of Rupert's opponent (whom he does not name) although Bischoff was working some years earlier than van Enghen. It was however first suggested much earlier by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine; see Bischoff, 'Controversy', pp 14-31, and van Enghen, Rupert, pp 142-3.
Note 46 Commentary, CCM 9, p 1: '... illa praesumptionis uanitas, qua elatum me ad scribendum prosiluisse auspicantur'.
Note 47 Commentary, CCM 9, p 1: 'Nam quia uox christianae legis et organum catholicae fidei, pater Augustinus, uocali atque dulci euangelium Iohannis tractatu declamauit, reprehensionem uel derogationem illius esse somniant, quod idem euangelium, id est ipsum Dei uerbum, post tantum doctorem ruminare praesumpsi, multumque indignantur quasi nouo homini, quod me antiquae nobilitati inserere uel etiam praeferre per superbiae spiritum ausus sim.'
Note 48 Commentary, CCM 9, p 7: 'Nam ille quidem alta montium peruolat cacumina, nos interdum et circa radices imas occupabimur. Ille praecelsae arboris superiora quaeque poma carpere festinat, nos terrae quoque proximos, quos paruulis reliquit, attingere conabimur euangelicae litterae ramusculos, ut quia grandioribus in alta mysteriorum explanatione satisfactum est, nunc paruis, id est nostri similibus continuatio quoque litterae subueniat.'
Note 49 See especially the Appendix on the chronology of Trinity and the Commentary: van Enghen, Rupert, pp 131-4.
Note 50 Paraphrasing Rupert's words at the conclusion to that letter, CCM 21, p 123.
Note 51 CCM 21, p vii, following H. Silvestre.
Note 52 For more detailed discussion of the dating of Rupert's works, see Haacke's preface to Trinity, especially CCM 21, p vii, and also that to Victory, pp vii-x.
Note 53 Glory and Honour, CCM 29, pp 372-3, discussed more fully above (pp 3-5).
Note 54 Commentary, CCM 9, p 6: 'Nobis igitur, qui testantes Filium Dei Scripturas scrutamur et in uia testimoniorum eius delectamur sicut in omnibus diuitiis, nobis omnibus hoc praecipue testimonium scrutandum et in toto corde exquirendum est, hoc tota anima concupiscendum atque super aurum et topazion diligendum est. Nam si euangelici negotiatores sumus et bonas margaritas quaerimus, ecce una pretiosa margarita inuenta est. Ubi enim ulla, quae maioris pretii sit, reperiri potest? Hanc animarum uerus amator Deus dilectae Iohannis animae pro monumento dilectionis praecipuae fixit in pectore, ut Verbum, quod Maria Virgo sola protulit in carne, ipsum huius socia uirginitas prae omnibus sanctis uiua mortalibus promeret uoce. Danda ergo sunt omnia, ut haec sola margarita comparari queat omnesque carnalium sordes affectuum ab oculis cordis abstergendae sunt eis, qui in scola Christi uenerabilibus student litteris, ut hanc aliquatenus ualeant aquilam prosequi, quam cordis munditia iuuit, ut claritatem solis aeterni plus ceteris diuinae uisionis animalibus irreuerberata posset mentis acie contemplari.'; the specific allusion to the Benedictine Rule is to Prologue, 45 (CSEL 75, p 8).
Note 55 Commentary, CCM 9, pp 75-6.
Note 56 Commentary, CCM 9, p 659: 'Quare autem illic pluraliter praecepta mea, hic vero singulariter: "Hoc est", inquit, "praeceptum meum"? Videlicet quia omne mandatum de sola dilectione est et omnia unum praeceptum sunt. Multa quidem per diuersitatem operis sunt unum in radice dilectionis.'
Note 57 See Evans, Language and Logic, pp 8-10.
Note 58 See for example the explications of Jn 4.48b (CCM 9, pp 232-6, especially pp 233-4), 5.8-9 (CCM 9, pp 248-9), or 15.26-7 (CCM 9, pp 668-72, especially pp 671-2. It would be no exaggeration to say that questions of this sort occur on almost every page.
Note 59 This is scarcely the place for a detailed discussion of the genesis of the 'quaestio' as a theological device. In addition to the works by Evans already cited, see A. Forest, F. van Steenberghen, and M. de Gandillac, Le mouvement doctrinal de XIe [IXe] au XIVe siècle, Histoire de l'Eglise 13 (Paris, 1952) and A. Landgraf, Introduction à l'histoire de la littérature théologique de la scholastique naissante, ed. A.M. Landry, tr. L.-B. Geiger (Montréal, 1973).
Note 60 Evans, Language and Logic, pp 127-8.
Note 61 Commentary, CCM 9, p 222: 'Notandum in sermonibus Domini duas messes inueniri, unam, de qua nunc loquitur, scilicet praedicationem euangelii, cuius messores sunt apostoli, aliam, de qua idem alibi loquitur, quam et appellat consummationem saeculi, cuius messores angeli sunt. Quas cum in pluribus differant in eo quoque differre manifestum est, quod illa, quam appellat finem saeculi, messis tantummodo est, haec autem alio quidem respectu messis, alio autem satio dicitur.' Rupert went on to bring into his discussion of Jn 4.35, by the use of this device, the parable of the sower from the synoptic gospels.
Note 62 This is the only passage in the Commentary proper in which Rupert used the word 'allegoria'. It also occurs once in the preface, when he discussed the difference between Augustine's approach to the gospel and his own. Instead, he preferred to speak of the mystical or spiritual sense.
Note 63 Augustine deals with the symbolism of the water jars in Tractatus 9.9-17 (Corpus Christianorum Latinorum 36, pp 95-9); Bede's treatment in Homelia 1.14 (Corpus Christianorum Latinorum 122, pp 98-102); and Alcuin's is near the end of book 1 of his commentary, PL 100.766C-771A.
Note 64 Commentary, p 113 (paraphrasing Gen 2.24 and Phil 2.7): '... qui quodammodo reliquit patrem suum, dum a Patre exiens et ueniens in mundum semetipsum exinaniuit formam serui accipiens, matrem quoque suam scilicet pharisaicam synogogam totamque gentem iudaicam, et adhaesit uxori suae uidelicet electae de gentibus ecclesiae, cum qua iam unum corpus est, caput et membra, sponsus et sponsa, Christus et ecclesia.'
Note 65 For discussion of Rupert's known debates with Jews, see van Enghen, Rupert, pp 241-8. In addition to discussing this passage from the Commentary and Hermann of Scheda, van Enghen also deals with Rupert's controversial work, Anulus, a prose dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, intended to offer a model for inexperienced Christian debaters. Anulus, part of Rupert's Deutz-based writings, has been edited by Haacke in M.L. Arduini's Ruperto di Deutz e la contoversia tra Cristiani ed Ebrei nel secolo XII (Rome, 1979), 175-242.
Note 66 T.F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (Studies in Biblical Theology 40; London, 1963).
Note 67 Commentary, CCM 9, p 240: 'Hunc euangelistam Iohannem per aquilam significatum esse (quod paene cunctis notum est) recte Spiritui sancto placet. Christum quippe solem iustitiae gyrantem per circuitum et in circulos suos reuertentem, id est omnia disponentem et in secreto consilio cuncta praeuidentem, claro intuitu contemplatus est uiasque eius in hoc euangelio tamquam in horologio lucido rationali ungula depinxit, ut sapientiae eius circuitum consiliorumque eius circulos diligens lector quamquam lippientibus utcumque speculetur oculis. Ita quippe itinera et facta quaedam describit filii hominis ob insinuandum consilium eiusdem Filii Dei, quemadmodum ob inuestigandum ascensum seu descensum solis geometricales quosdam circulos sibi depingere solent astronomici. In quo illud maxime notandum, quod nullum paschale festum praeterit, et uelut si ab orientali linea sursum uersus progressionarios solis gradus computes, ita semper ab hoc festo secundum facta et dicta Domini Christi et circa maxima et necessaria uersatur sacramenta christianae fidei.'
Note 68 In contradistinction to Rupert, most modern commentators take the Passover section proper to begin with chapter 6, where that festival is explicitly named by the evangelist (Jn 6.4). See Raymond E Brown, The Gospel according to John, 2 vols (The Anchor Bible 29, 29A; New York 1966), 1.206-211 and 232-5.
Note 69 Commentary, p 279: '"Nolite", inquit, "mirari hoc", quia non bona uestra est admiratio. Non enim haec admiramini tamquam uerba uitae et uirtutis, sed tan quam insaniam daemonium habentis.'
Note 70 For discussions of the role and implication of the Eucharistic passages of Books 6 and 7 in Rupert's theological controversies and career, see the works of van Enghen and Bischoff cited in note 1. In this article, we will deliberately focus on these passages only as they bear upon the Commentary and Rupert's exegesis of John.
Note 71 The circumcision 'quaestio' in Book 3 is apparently intended by Rupert to have contemporary application, but it is more reasoned and less polemical than the remarks and interpretations directed against Jesus' contemporaries. In explicating Jn 5.10 (CCM 9, p 250), Rupert had actually applied Is 1.15 ('your hands are full of blood') to the Jewish people, saying that their hands were polluted by the blood of Jesus. Because this is in a passage in which Rupert mixes paraphrase and quotation, it is unclear whether his use of the present tense is historical, part of the paraphrase of Isaiah, or a real reference to an alleged blood guilt born by his Jewish contemporaries.
Note 72 Such apparently was Berengar of Tours' misreading of what Augustine had written in Tractatus 26.12 (Corpus Christianorum Latinorum 36, pp 265-6): see Haacke's note in Commentary, p 330.
Note 73In his later letter to his friend and patron Cuno, Rupert reflected on what had gone wrong in the reception of his Commentary and tried to summarise his position on the Eucharist as expressed there in exegetical terms in a more systematic way (Commentary, pp 3-4): 'Now I set out briefly for you what and in what way I, while considering the life-giving sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, explained the words of that same Lord in which he commends that sacrament, since this was the first of those reasons I have mentioned before. The sacrament is the body and blood of Christ in three kinds of essence but it differs in a fourth. For it is the body and blood of Christ in name, in reality, and in effect, but not in form. It is the same in name, I say, because the high priest of heaven, who does not give empty names to things since he is Truth itself, assigned this name very emphatically. For he did not say merely "Let this be called my body, let this be called my blood" but said "This is my body, this is my blood". It is the same in reality, because it is truly the holy of holies, just as Jesus himself was the holy of holies in that form in which he was betrayed and pierced. It is no less the same in effect, because just as Jesus, in that form in which he hung on the cross, has truly accomplished the remission of sins in all those who had lived in expectation of him from the creation of the world by faith or by the sacraments of faith of the Law, in every such person from the just man Abel to the thief whom he received for acknowledging him on the cross, so he, in those forms of bread and wine, truly accomplishes the same remission of sins in all those who have entered or are entering the same faith, now that that previous form has passed hence and withdrawn into heaven. It is different in a fourth way, that is, in form, because that is most beneficial to us, not only so that the colour and taste of blood would not arouse disgust but also so that faith might have a valuable role to play, since human reason could not offer proof.'
Note 74 This teaching about Judas was the gravamen of the formal objections made by Rupert's opponents to his Commentary. As he explained in the letter to Cuno (Commentary, pp 1-2), his opponents could not openly criticise him on his Eucharistic theology without appearing to contradict the doctrine of the real presence, which the whole church affirmed: 'But those critics, whatever they may say, whatever they may offer as a proof, have no other reason than that some of them, at the same time that they wish the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord to be only a sign for something holy, in accordance with the error of the late Berengar of Tours, even think that blessed Augustine agreed with this statement, which is completely false. I however contend that the sacrament is the true body of Christ which was offered for us and that it is his true blood which was shed for us, just as the catholic church holds. So they have tried to prove that I am disparaging blessed Augustine by deciding against him, whom Berengar had been accustomed to cite in defence of his error by twisting his words. But now almost no-one dares to profess or support this openly, since the whole catholic church knows that it is the true body and the true blood of Christ. There is something else which they have cast up at me as strong proof of a crime, that I had dared to hesitate about the traitor Judas, whether he had been present at the sharing of that same sacrament, as the same Father Augustine claims, or had not been present but might be thought to have left already, as St Hilary firmly claims. This, o my father and o you daughters of Jerusalem, this is that great darkness by which I become dark in their eyes, says my soul, just as the tents of Kedar [Cant 1.4]. '
Note 75 Commentary, p 394: 'Igitur hodieque quoties de infimis quilibet aliquem assequitur doctrinae gradum, ut ualeat cum Iesu ascendere in templum et in medio ecclesiae aperire os suum, si qui uitio iudaico fastidiant illum, quia forte magnos et insignes quaerendo cathegetas longa terrarum spatia non circuiuit nec peregrina studia relegit, et ob hoc dicant: "Quis est hic", uel "Quomodo litteras scit, cum non didicerit?", sufficit illi ad defensionem, si uerum dicere queat, quod sua doctrina non sit sua sed eius, cuius est omnis uera doctrina.'
Note 76 Commentary, p 474: 'Scrutator autem maiestatis ille est, qui iudiciorum Dei multam abyssum penetrare contendens, uerbi gratia dum legit uel audit hoc, quod praesenti loco de diabolo dictum est "Ille homicida erat ab initio, et in ueritate non stetit, quia ueritas in eo non est" etc., inextricabilibus semetipsum quaestiunculis nimium temere et interdum pueriliter abuoluit dicens: Si cuncta fecit Deus bona ualde, unde malum?, aut quomodo bonae substantiae inesse uel innasci potuit?, item: Cur, inquit, Deus angelum illum fecit, quem adinuentorem mali fore praesciuit?, ... His atque huiusmodi quaestiunculis nimii scrutatores semetipsos implicantes quamplurimi a gloria maiestatis oppressi sunt et tamquam multo melle satiati semetipsos commouerunt, ut uerbi gratia Manichaei... Igitur altitudinem diuitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei, incomprehensibilia iudicia eius et inuestigabiles uias eius cum apostolo uenerantes hoc solum iuxta praedictum sapientem dicimus, quia omnia propter semetipsum fecit Deus, "impium quoque ad diem malum", id est illum quoque quem praesciuit malum proprio uitio futurum fecit propter semetipsum sciens et hoc utique, quod malitia eius uti posset ipse in bonum.'
Note 77 Commentary, p 548: 'In Martha quoque et Maria praesignare uoluit praesentis ecclesiae statum, quando iuxta alium euangelistam: "Intrauit ipse in quodam castellum, et haec ipsa Martha excepit eum in domum suam. Qua satagente circa frequens ministerium Maria sedens secus pedes eius audiebat uerbum illius" etc., quae nunc studio uitandae prolixitatis praeterimus.'
Note 78 Commentary, pp 788-9: 'Hoc irrefragabiliter uerum est. Ecce enim hunc solum librum, qui ab hoc discipulo scriptus est, mundus capere non potest, et cum unus homuncio pugillo eum continere queat, uniuersitas hominum totam mysteriorum eius profunditatem capere non ualet. Quanto magis si uniuersa conscriberentur, non caperet mundus et ad quaerendum fastidiosus et ad intelligendum obtusus. Igitur quia quibus haec pauca pro testimonio non sufficiunt, nec multa proderunt, sedeat nunc emeritus testis, quia beneuolis auditoribus satis factum est: Iesum esse Christum Filium Dei.'
Return to Home Page
Return to the text
Return to Introduction to Rupert of Deutz
Go to Main Menu of Translations