Romans as Read in the School and in the Cloister:
The Commentaries of Peter Abelard and William of Saint Thierry
Abbaye
Notre-Dame-du-Lac, Oka, Qc
The commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans by Peter Abelard
and William of Saint Thierry were written between 1133 and 1139 in the region
of Reims, in France. One was written in a school were Abelard taught and the
other in the monastery of Signy where William entered after retiring as Abbot
of Saint Thierry. William's commentary was written before his letter and
treatise against Peter Abelard that led to the latter's condemnation at the
Council of Sens in 1140.[1]
We will use the semiotics of biblical commentaries to analyze the
interpretations of the figure of Paul and Rom 8: 1-30. Each commentary will be
presented according to its analytical, contextual and hermeneutical frame
(Grenholm and Patte 2000, 1-56).
Semiotics
adds a new dimension to the analysis of two important ancient commentaries on
Rom 8. It does this by delving beyond the themes that scholars normally comment
on in relation to Abelard's and William of Saint Thierry's work. Semiotics
uncovers the way the figurative plane of Romans is reinterpreted by these
authors. And, in doing so highlights the separation between theological and
mystical interpretation that took place at this time in history. The presentation of the semiotics of
biblical commentaries gives an abbreviated presentation of some technical
terms. This methodology will be used throughout this paper and will always be
in the background. But, beyond this section, we will try to limit the use of
technical terms in order to facilitate the reader's task.
The analysis of the commentaries is based on a linguistic analysis of
discourse, and more precisely on the semiotics of biblical commentaries as
developed by Louis Panier (1978a; 1978b; 1979a; 1979b; 1980; 1984) and
completed by John Doutre (2002). Semiotic analysis according to the school of
Greimas[2]
distinguishes between two components of discourse: 1) the syntactic component
deals with changes of states and the operations that produce these changes
within discourse; 2) the semantic component takes into account the relations
between the figures and their thematization (a thematic role is a condensation
of a several figurative paths). Our presentation of the syntactic component of
the texts will be limited to the actantial schema that articulates the
different actantial roles of the actorial figures. The semantic component has
three levels of analysis:
1) The
figures (the words in a text as part of a web of relations with the other words
or figures), that are on a same plane of meaning, are grouped as a figurative
path. In Rom 8: 1-17, all the figures can be grouped in two figurative paths:
the figurative path of the flesh and that of the spirit.
2) Each thematic role condenses one or more figurative paths; Rom 8, 2
presents the law of the spirit of life assuming the thematic role of liberator
and I/you assumes the role of the one liberated.
3) The different thematic roles function on two isotopes (planes of
meaning that take into account the whole text). Our analysis of this component
will deal mainly with figures or syntagms (clusters of figures), figurative
paths and thematic roles.
We do not consider a commentary as a mirror that reflects a meaning
given once and for all by the text of origin, a meaning that the commentaries
repeat or reflect in different ways. A commentary transforms the structures
of signification and, by the same token, produces new effects of meaning.
The semiotics of the biblical commentary deal mostly with the way in which a
text operates this transformation. And so, a figure coming from the commented
text passes from one form that articulates signification to another form
articulated in the commentary and producing other effects of meaning. What does
the commentary do with the figures of the commented text? First of all, it can
extract these figures from their context of origin and integrate them in an
expanded figurative path: this will be called an expansion. Or it can
integrate a figure in a new figurative path that is condensed by a new thematic
role: this will be called a recategorization. And so any
recategorization presupposes that the commentary has introduced a new
figurative path and a new thematic role that is not in the original context.
Through the syntactic component, the commentary can add new actorial figures or
the same figures can take on new actantial roles; thus it transforms the
syntactic articulation of the actorial figures.
This linguistic approach makes a distinction between two levels of a
discourse: enunciation and enunciate. On the level of the enunciation, the
enunciator is the instance responsible for producing the discourse (and not the
author) and the enunciatee (and not the reader) is the instance set up by the
text to receive the communication of the text or to read the text. For
practical purposes, we will often talk about the enunciatee/reader.[3]
The type of communication used by the enunciator to transmit an object to the
enunciatee gives us information on the bridge category (Grenholm and Patte
2000, 37-39) chosen by the enunciator. Does the discourse wish to convey an
obligation, a will to do something, a power that enables to act, a knowledge or
a message of praise? These questions allow us to complete the description of
some elements of the contextual frame by asking what kind of reading of
the Bible is best suited for a given type of communication. We will also look
at the characteristics of each commentary. Finally, we will see how each
enunciator of a commentary interprets the name of Paul, who is the enunciator
of Romans.
On the level of the enunciate, semiotic analysis makes a distinction
between three aspects of a figure (Panier 1991, 99-118). Firstly, any figure of
a discourse refers to an extra-textual world that can be an extra-textual or
historical referent. Secondly, a figure also functions within the context of a
series of relations with the other figures of the discourse and is thus
integrated in one or more figurative paths. When one considers the different
materials used in the commentaries (the vocabularies of rhetorical analysis, of
logic, of dialectics; grammatical analysis, style, textual criticism, the way
the sources are used) in order to organize the figurative paths, one can
discover the analytical frame used by the enunciator. And thirdly, the
figure sends us back to other new figures (that come from the quotations,
figures of the anthropology and the theology used in the commentary). These
figures expand or recategorize figures that come from the commented text and
articulate new structures that produce new effects of meaning. This gives us
information on the hermeneutical frame used by the enunciator. An
historico-critical approach would favor the first aspect of a figure while
semiotic analysis analyzes the last two aspects of a figure.
We must first analyze briefly the figures used in Romans in order
to be able to see the transformations operated by the commentaries.[4]
We will present briefly the figures of Paul (Rom 1: 1), the analysis of Rom 8:
3-4 and of Rom 8: 5-14, and the figure of creation in Rom 8: 19-22.
In Rom 1: 1, Paul presents himself as an apostle. The epistle's greeting
describes his competency, the gospel that he preaches, and those to whom he has
been sent to proclaim the obedience of faith. At the beginning, Paul, the
enunciator, initiates the process of speech. We will see that each commentary
views Paul in different ways.
The text of Rom 8: 3-4 includes some elements of a narrative program
that lead to the accomplishment of the righteous requirement of the law
"in us who conduct ourselves not according to the flesh but according to
the spirit" (Rom 8: 4). Verse 3 contrasts the competency of the law and
the competency of God. The law is linked to a /not-being-able-to do anything/
since it is weakened by the flesh. But God possesses a /being-able-to send his
Son/ and a /being-able-to condemn sin in the flesh/. With this competency, God
accomplishes in us the righteous requirement of the law (the Mosaic law and the
law of the spirit of life: Rom 8: 4). According to Thurén (2000, 75), the
"just requirement of the law" is an underlying principle that goes
beyond the law's commands. But this text does not tell us precisely what it is.
The different actorial figures of these verses can be distributed on an
actantial schema:[5]
|
God |
à |
Righteous
requirement of the law |
à |
Us |
|
|
|
¡© |
|
|
|
The sending of
the Son in a form like that of sinful flesh |
à |
God |
©¬ |
|
The sender, God, has sent his own Son but the text does not say
that the righteous requirement of the law was given by Christ. For this reason
we also show God as subject (written in bold in the actantial schema 1).
It is God who puts the receiver, us, in a relationship of conjunction
with the object, the righteous requirement of the law. The helper
is the sending of the Son in a form like that of sinful flesh. There is no opponent
here. Rom 8: 4 simply says that the accomplishment of the righteous requirement
of the law in us goes hand in hand with our conduct according to the spirit.
Concerning the meaning of peri hamartias (Rom 8: 3), we will
first mention three interpretations. Most exegetes interpret this expression as
meaning a sin-offering.[6]
But Fitzmyer and Cranfield reject the sacrificial meaning[7]
and see here an expression of the Son's mission for which he was sent. Finally
Thornton (1971) links the expression not to what comes before it in the text,
but to what follows. He adds that the preposition peri can have a
juridical meaning in the New Testament (Jo 8: 46; 16: 8; Ac 23: 6; 24: 21; 25:
9.20; Jude 15). He translates the text: "God sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh condemned sin in the flesh, on the very ground of its
sinfulness." The expression then means the motive of condemnation.
Our own semiotic analysis has shown that the syntagm peri hamartias
(Rom 8: 3) is integrated in the figurative path of the flesh along with the
other juridical figures of condemnation, justification and law. Two other
semiotic studies[8] do not
mention a sacrificial trait in these verses. Genest (1995) admits that peri
hamartias can be read in two ways. In the Septuagint and in Heb 10: 6.8 and
13: 11, this syntagm refers to a sin-offering. The second possibility comes
from the literal sense. But there is no other figure in the figurative path of
the flesh that can have a sacrificial meaning. Quite the opposite, the other
figures would give it a juridical meaning. "Une condamnation vise le
péché, non une expiation. Le sacrifice ne condamnait pas le péché, mais
l'enlevait"[9] (Genest
1995, 79). In this case, our judgment on whether the commentaries simply expand
the figures of Rom 8: 3-4 or add another figurative path to recategorize these
figures depends on our own analysis of these verses. This will permit us to see
how the different commentaries and their sources can give different
interpretations of the death of Christ.
In Rom 8: 5-14, the concerns of the flesh include all that is said about
those who live by (kata) the flesh and those who are in (en) the
flesh; while the concerns of the spirit include all that is said about those
who live by the spirit and those who are in the spirit.
Rom 8: 19-22 mentions "creation" and verse 23 makes it clear
that creation excludes humanity when it is said: "not only that, but we
ourselves who have the first fruits of the spirit, even we are groaning inside
ourselves." We will consider that reading creatura as human nature
changes the figure of the Greek text and adds a new figurative path in the
commentaries, the path of humanity.
Peter Abelard (1079-1142) traveled a lot during his life and it seems
that his school followed him wherever he went (Châtillon 1984, 188). "His
character, his genius, his sufferings, and the romance of his life make him for
ever an object of human interest" (Luddy 1947, vii). His commentary on Romans
was written between 1133 and 1137 with three or four successive drafts
(Buytaert 1969, xxiv; 37; Peppermüller 2000, 23). Buytaert (1969) published the
first critical edition. Peppermüller (1972b) noted 450 mistakes in the Latin
text and then published his own critical edition with a German translation; and
he added more corrections to the critical text and sometimes changed the
punctuation of the Latin (Peppermüller 2000, 51-57). We will quote Buytaert's
edition because it is easier to refer to, but we have followed the corrections
suggested by Peppermüller.[10]
All the translations are ours since there is no English translation of this
commentary. For this reason we have added long quotations from the exposition.
Abelard usually follows the Vulgate but Peppermüller (1972a, 4-7) has noted
some variations. Yet it is often hard to know if he is quoting from memory or
if he is paraphrasing the text.
The studies on Abelard's thought have different starting points and the
conclusions depend on their particular point of view.[11]
Our presentation is limited to some parts of the Romans commentary. We
will not take into account the Commentarius Cantabrigiensis,[12]
and we will seldom refer to his other works.[13]
Abelard makes use of the
liberal arts in his commentary: grammar, rhetoric and dialectic to which he
adds Aristotelian logic. He interrupts the flow of his commentary with
theological questions. He also glosses the text. Finally, he interprets the
Bible according to the traditional senses of Scripture and quotes the Fathers.
He is the first one in his time to use logic and dialectic and to introduce so
many theological questions in the course of a biblical commentary.
The commentary on Rom 2: 15 notes that there exists two readings of the
Latin text: cogiationes accusantium aut etiam defendentium or cogitationibus
accusantibus (Comm Rom I, ii, 311-314). Here is how he explains the
variations of the text:
But I think that the difference of the text comes mostly from the use of the Greek language, since the Greeks do not have an ablative [and] use the genitive for the ablative. The result is that, according to the different translations of the Greek into Latin, sometimes the genitive is kept as it was in Greek, sometimes following what is required by the meaning, it was changed into [what is] for us an ablative. Then, even if this epistle, which is addressed to the Romans, is known to have been first written in Latin, while it was written at Corinth in Greece, we believe that, afterwards, there can be found several of its translators or commentators who imitated the Greeks, as it was said, when they perhaps did not have at hand the written Latin text and that they had to use Greek copies. Now let us explain both texts (Comm Rom I, ii, 327-340).
Abelard starts by explaining the grammatical differences and then gives
his opinion on the original language of the letter. It astonishes us that a
twelfth-century expositor thought that he was commenting the text in its original
language by using the Vulgate. It also surprises us that, instead of trying to
find the best reading, he comments on both. Obviously his idea of textual
criticism was very different from ours.
Abelard considers all Scripture in the light of ancient rhetoric. He
applies these rules to the study of Romans and to the presentation of
his own opinions. The beginning of the prologue is a presentation of Scripture
in rhetorical perspective: "All divine Scripture intends to teach and to
exhort[14]
while using a rhetorical discourse; it teaches when it introduces us to what we
must do or avoid. It exhorts when it holds back our will by dissuading it from
committing evil or brings it to do good by convincing it through holy
exhortations" (Comm Rom Pr. 5-10).
He also uses the rules of rhetoric to qualify what
Paul does in the epistle's opening (Peppermüller 1972a; 34, note 207). The
commentary on the greeting explains this: "In the way of those who write
epistles, he who exhorts them to true salvation puts in first place a greeting.
As if in a proemium, he first writes this greeting so as ¡¦ to make them
attentive, docile and benevolent" (Comm Rom I, 1, 2-6). Paul then
recommends himself and Christ:
He truly makes them attentive to his person and to the person of Christ who is sending him, [and] also to this reality of the evangelical doctrine which he exhorts them to observe; he truly [makes them attentive] to his person, when he recommends himself as called by God to a separate apostolate and to proclaim the Gospel; but he also recommends the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, whom he calls Son of God and maintains that he is the one who had been promised to the Fathers as redeemer of the human race and who was conceived through the Holy Spirit and who appeared in his glory after his resurrection from the dead (Comm Rom I, 1, 6-15).
Finally he
recommends the gospel and his preaching: "But he does not omit to
recommend the gospel, when he recalls that [Christ] had been promised by the
Holy Scriptures of the prophets of God. And the aptness to learn (docilitas)
is noted in the fact that, through the ministry of the preaching of the gospel
for which he was appointed, he makes [them] see that what he is going to write
is part of the gospel's doctrine" (Comm Rom I, 1, 15-19).
According to the commentary on Rom 8: 9, Paul uses a sublime style to
console the Romans while warning them against putting too much trust in
themselves (Comm Rom III, viii, 101-107). He tells them that the spirit
is in them but uses an "if" that means that he does not want to
encourage them in such a way that they may have put too much trust in
themselves and thus be filled with pride. According to Abelard, Paul is
reminding the Romans that, even if the spirit who dwells in them should be
there permanently, it could also leave and be in them only temporarily (Comm
Rom III, viii, 107-114). And so for Abelard, the "if" in Rom 8: 9
expresses a doubt (Comm Rom viii, 110) and a warning against the danger
of losing the Holy Spirit (Comm Rom III, viii, 114-115).
Abelard uses a simple style in a presentation of his
own thought. In the commentary on Rom 8: 3, we will see that he gives three
interpretations of the death of Christ. The way he goes about it has the effect
of validating his own opinion. The first interpretation is his own and it is
given as a "matter of fact" without any modality of truth (Comm
Rom III, viii, 44-49). The second interpretation is a quotation of Origen
which starts by saying that his thought is "all the more true" (Comm
Rom III, viii, 50-53). The third interpretation is a theologoumenon
that comes from Origen (Froehlich 1990, 256) but the commentary does not
mention that and does not say anything concerning its value and its authority (Comm
Rom III, viii, 53-57). This last interpretation was common during Abelard's
time. The sequence of presentation and the way these interpretations are given
value - the second interpretation as "all the more true" than what
comes before it - show that it is Abelard's thought on the matter. Thus the
effect of what Origen says on truth extends to Abelard's own proposition.
Secondly, Abelard's interpretation can take its place among those of the
Fathers. Thus the presentation of his own interpretation of Christ's death also
has the effect of making the enunciatee/reader trust what he says more easily.
This seems to be a subtle way of validating and authenticating the acceptance
of his own thought.
The use of dialectics first
implies a reformulation of the patristic texts in the form of propositions that
are then compared to each other by applying the rules of Aristotelian logic.
The contradictions are finally eliminated through the subtle use of cleverly
constructed distinctions (Sheldrake 1998, 39). Here is an example from the
prologue:
We ask ourselves the following question: Who, through his preaching, converted the Romans to whom this letter is addressed? The Ecclesiastical History, Jerome[15] and Gregory of Turin tell us that it is the apostle Peter who converted the Romans. But Aymon holds the opposite opinion; he says that, in the beginning, they were not instructed to the faith by Peter or by one of the twelve apostles but by other faithful Jews who came to Rome from Jerusalem (Comm Rom Pr, 115-119).
After quoting
these two opposite opinions, the prologue examines what each author says and
resolves the contradictions through linguistic distinctions.
One must note that the doctors quoted above do not contradict Aymon if we are attentive to the details of what they say. If we review the whole chapter of the Ecclesiastical History, we notice that Peter was the first of the apostles to preach to the Romans, but not the first among the doctors. Even Jerome, when he says that the Romans received or held their faith from the preaching of Peter, does not contradict that, since that could have been done not by Peter himself but by Peter's disciples who came from Jerusalem. Aymon denies that it was done personally by Peter which is why when he mentions Peter, he adds 'himself'. And Aymon does not say that Peter did not give them any instruction but that he was not 'the first one' to instruct them (Comm Rom Pr, 143-155).[16]
Abelard uses Aristotelian
logic to make distinctions and to analyze what the texts means. In the
exposition of the figure "servant" (Rom 1: 1), he proposes a logical
solution based on the difference between simpliciter (when the word is
used alone in a context) and cum determinatione (when the servant is
called "lover of Christ" of "good"):
Since the Lord says to his apostles: 'From now on, I do not call you servants but friends', why then does the Apostle call himself servant? Let us make these distinctions. There are two kinds of servants, that is subordinates; some submit themselves out of fear and it is written about them: 'The servant does not dwell in the house for ever'; and also that: 'When you have done all the things that were ordered, say: we are useless servants'; love makes others obedient; it is said of them: 'Well done good and faithful servant, etc ¡¦' It is easy to answer to the question in itself in the following manner: in one way, the servant is said simply (simpliciter) and, in another way, the servant is said 'lover of Christ' or 'good servant' (Comm Rom I, i, 194-204).
The flow of the commentary is sometimes interrupted by questions of a
theological nature. The text may give an answer to the question or may refer to
a theological treatise for the answer.[17]
In the course of the commentary on Rom 8, three questions are raised: one on
baptism (Comm Rom III, viii, 136-141), one on the Trinity and the
incarnation (Comm Rom III, viii, 176-183) and another on predestination
(Comm Rom III, viii, 486-509).
The text also warns us that the epistle is full of difficulties as the
Fathers themselves have noticed: "We undertake this exposition of the
[epistle] that was sent to the Romans and that, according to the judgment of
the greatest erudites, is complicated by so many difficulties of the literal
sense as well as by the subtlety of its reasoning" (Comm Rom I, i,
190-193).
The gloss was probably introduced in biblical exegesis
by the School of Laon. The commentary is then quick, and only attempts to
expose the coherence of the text by giving short explanations. When using the
gloss, the text uses logical connectors such as id est, hoc est, scilicet,
uidelicet (Peppermüller 1972a, 9-10; 2000, 24-25). The following is an
example of a gloss on Rom 8: 19. According to our experience, reading such a
text requires a lot of attention in order to follow the train of thought:
Indeed the expectation. I have correctly said the future glory that will be revealed in us, that is (scilicet) in the sons of God, because the expectation of all the faithful waits for this revelation, that is (scilicet) [the revelation] of the glory that must be given to the sons of God. And as if he was saying: expecting each one expected, as it is said: 'Leaving, they left', which means (hoc est) they hope with perseverance and with trust, that is (scilicet) they merit through good deeds, the revelation of the sons of God, which means (id est) the recompense, through which it will be revealed, that they are sons of God and predestined to eternal life, which is hidden until now (Comm Rom III, viii, 320-328).
Like the medieval commentators, Abelard uses auctoritates.
He quotes the Fathers: Bede, Florus of Lyons, Rhaban Maur and the commentaries
of Pelagius (under the mane of Jerome), the Ambrosiaster and Aymon of Auxerre
(Peppermüller 2000, 21). To these authorities, he adds philosophers such as the
pseudo-Seneca (Comm Rom I, i, 109-128). As we have mentioned, he gives
his own opinions along with those of the Fathers (Comm Rom III, viii,
verses 3-4) and, using logic, he is critical of his sources.
The twelfth-century expositors generally use three
senses of Scripture when commenting the Old Testament: the literal sense, the
moral sense and the mystical sense (allegorical sense and the end times). The
interpretation of the New Testament follows the literal sense of the text. It
may talk about Christ, about the Christian life or about the end of time. When
the text comments on Rom 8: 3-4, it gives a christological sense. When it comes
to Rom 8: 12-13, the commentary gives the moral sense; and when it treats Rom
8: 17-27, the exposition deals mostly with eternal beatitude, thus giving the
mystical sense of the text. But Abelard often mentions the letter (littera)
simply because, in the New Testament, all the senses are contained in the
letter of the text (Peppermüller 1972, 24). Furthermore, part the
interpretation of Rom 8: 2 gives an allegorical interpretation of a New
Testament text, Ac 2: 2-4.[18]
We will notice that Abelard develops the typology of Benjamin and applies it to
Paul.
As one can notice from the above quotations, the prologue is written in
the third person singular. The "we" or the few appearances of a
"you" are simply a figure of speech in this commentary. The
enunciator does not manifest himself and the text never refers to an
enunciatee. Only an "objective" knowledge is enunciated. The effect
of such a presentation puts more value on the transmitted knowledge and
separates it from the "subjectivity" of the enunciator or of the
enunciatee. This model of communication is still used in scientific texts in
which the objectiveness of the data is in itself a guarantee of the truth of
what is stated.
Abelard starts his commentary by a rhetorical interpretation of Rom 1:
1-15 (Comm Rom I, i, 1-26); here he presents Paul as an apostle and a
teacher (Comm Rom I, i, 18-20).
The commentary then tells us that Paul had two names, and gives
different interpretations for the reason of having two names (Comm Rom I,
i, 28-43). It gives the meaning of each name and the reason for changing one's
name when one is called to become an apostle (Comm Rom I, 1, 44-82). It
mentions the greatness of Paul as a master of theological and moral doctrine
for Christians (Comm Rom I, i, 83-132). Finally, it presents the
typology of Benjamin and applies it to Paul as the anti-type (Comm Rom I,
i, 132-186).
The presentation of Paul's names gives the allegorical meaning of these
names as they are applied to Paul's life and conversion as an apostle.
According to Origen, Paul already had two names before his conversion (Comm
Rom I, i, 28-33). But according to Jerome, Augustine and the others, Paul
would have changed his name himself after his conversion of Paul, the proconsul
of Asia (Ac 13: 9) (Comm Rom I, i, 33-41). Just as Peter changed his
name when he was called to a new life and to preach the gospel, Paul also
changed his name (Comm Rom I, i, 38-41). The commentary proposes two
different interpretations to explain the reason for having two names. In this
commentary, Ac 13: 6-12 is used only to mention the event that caused a change
of name. Furthermore, Abelard does not try to explain or eliminate the
differences between the different opinions of the Fathers.
The commentary then gives several allegorical interpretations for each
name. Noting that King Saul and Saul both came from the tribe of Benjamin, it
adds that King Saul persecuted David and his followers while Saul persecuted
Christ and his members (Comm Rom I, i, 44-48). It refers to Jerome,
saying that Saülus is a diminutive of Saul (Comm Rom I, i, 48-53). This
diminutive means that King Saul is not as great as Saul who became an apostle.
He proves this by using the inversion of the sequence humble/proud: King Saul
was humble and then became proud while Saul was a proud persecutor of the
Church and, thanks to his humility became modest and peaceful. Following
Augustine, Paul means "modest" (Comm Rom I, i, 54-58) because
he did not judge himself as being worthy of becoming an apostle. But, according
to Ambrose, Saul means "troubled" and "trial" while Paul
means "peaceful". Before his conversion, Paul was a source of trial
for the Christians and, after his conversion, he worked hard so as not to scandalize
anyone and depend on others for his own livelihood (Comm Rom I, i,
60-69).
According to Jerome, Paul means "chosen" since he was a vase
of election. The name also means "admirable" because his life and his
doctrine are a source of admiration (Comm Rom I, i, 70-73). Paul was a
virgin and a martyr. And so all the merits of the great apostles Peter and John
are united in Paul. He received the grace of preaching and to accomplish
miracles; he converted nearly the whole world and he corrected the prince of
the apostles in Antioch. All of this means that he is the greatest of the
apostles as it is said: "The last will be first and the first will be
last" (Comm Rom I, i, 73-80).
The commentary then praises Paul's doctrine. In this part of the
commentary Paul is shown to be a master of theological and moral doctrine (Comm
Rom I, i, 83-128). According to Peter and to the Fathers, Paul is the first
or the greatest of the apostles (Comm Rom I, i, 83-90). Ambrose
acknowledges that it is often hard to explain a reading of the Apostle (Comm
Rom I, 91-94). Augustine admits that he stopped his exposition on Romans
because of the amount of work that it demanded (Comm Rom I, i, 94-99).
In many of his letters, Jerome praises Paul's doctrine, his missionary work and
his choice of a life of virginity (Comm Rom I, i, 99-108). And finally,
the pseudo-Seneca, the philosopher and preceptor of Nero, sings the praises of
the greatness and the depth of his doctrine (Comm Rom I, i, 109-128).
The text mentions that the teaching of Paul sounds like a strong trumpet (Comm
Rom I, i, 83-84) and like a peal of thunder (Comm Rom I, i, 99-101).
The commentary concludes this section and introduces the typology of
Benjamin by saying: "If you add the praise of prophetic authority to the
declaration of the philosophers, you will find that the superiority of this
apostle compared to the others reaches a certain praise that comes from the
patriarchs as well as from the prophets" (Comm Rom I, i, 129-132).
The exposition then presents Benjamin as the type and figure of Paul who
is the accomplishment of the figure of Benjamin as predicted by Jacob and David
(Comm Rom I, i, 81-82; 132-135). It starts with the figure of Benjamin
as it quotes Jacob's words (Gen 49: 27) and the song of David (Ps 67: 28) is
used to support the typology: "Thus speaks Jacob: 'Benjamin is a ravenous
wolf; in the morning he devours the prey, in the evening he divides the
plunder' or according to another translation ¡®distributes the spoils in the
evening¡¯. But David seeing in the spirit the princes of the future church and,
as if putting him ahead of the rest, says: ¡®there, the young Benjamin in the
ecstasy of the spirit¡¯ " (Comm Rom I, i, 135-140).
The commentary then develops the typology of Benjamin according to Gen
35: 16-20 and applies it to Paul (Comm Rom I, i, 141-167). Here again,
Benjamin is the last to come but the first in preference. It thus shows that
Paul, the last among the apostles, was the most loved by God (Comm Rom I,
i, 141-144) and that he is superior to the other apostles (Comm Rom I,
i, 144-146).
Finally, the commentary comes back to Gen 49: 27 (Comm Rom I, i,
168-171). Once again, the quotations of Ps 67: 28 and 2 Co 12: 4 are used to
show that Paul is the anti-type of Benjamin and the greatest of the apostles
because of his merits and of his doctrine:
This one (Paul) is the young Benjamin as the last to come among the apostles; he is superior to the rest by his spirit and by his reason, as it is natural from the one 'who was caught up in paradise' and 'heard secret words that a human being is not permitted to tell'. The first of the apostles was also corrected by him after a dangerous falling away (simulatione) and the universal Church was spiritually instructed, so that, among the writings of the saints, his epistles have been favored because of their merit and their usefulness as much as for their subtlety (Comm Rom I, i, 183-190).
Abelard uses different ways of manipulating the quotations of the auctoritates
to transform the description that Paul gives of himself at the beginning of the
epistle.
Abelard does not question the authority of the Fathers and the doctors
but he puts his own interpretation on the same level as theirs. He
discusses their opinions, criticizes them and comments on the differences of
their interpretations while using logic and dialectic. In the commentary on the
name of Paul, he first quotes different opinions of the Fathers and never tries
to solve the contradictions. But when he starts giving his own opinion (the
typology of Benjamin; Comm Rom I, i, 81-82), then all the quotations
agree with what he wants to say. There is also an order in the quotations: the
New Testament, the Holy Doctors, the Philosopher and the Old Testament.
Finally, Abelard introduces what we now call quotation marks. The texts of the
Fathers are introduced, and he gives the references to the works that he
quotes.
The commentary transforms the epistle when it describes Paul as the last
and the greatest of the apostles and the greatest master of theological and
moral doctrine. Abelard will repeat this in the confession of faith sent to
Heloise: "I would not be a philosopher if that meant a denial of Paul, nor
an Aristotle if that involved separation from Christ."[19]
Before starting the analysis of the commentary on Rom 8: 1-30, we must
mention that Abelard had already described his soteriology in the commentary on
Rom 3: 21-26 (Comm Rom II, iii, 50-125). Fudrthermore, the question that
follows immediately after this commentary is a refutation of the dramatic
theory and the satisfaction theory of Christ's sacrifice that were common
opinions during his time (Comm Rom II, iii, 125-175).[20]
The satisfaction theory was based on the equivalence between sin and the animal
victim (hostia) of a sin-offering. Rom 8: 3 was then interpreted as
having a sacrificial meaning. God had condemned sin through the sacrifice of
Christ, offered as a victim, for the sinful flesh, and Christ was the victim of
a sin-offering. The dramatic theory was based on a theologoumenon coming
from Origen: after original sin, Satan had acquired a right over humanity but
he misused it by having Christ, who was innocent of all sins, put to death. And
so Rom 8: 3 meant that God condemned sin through the sin committed by Satan
when he killed Christ, the innocent. Abelard rejected these two theories
because they imposed a necessity on God.
The commentary on Rom 8: 2-4 offers an overview of
Abelard's soteriology without mentioning one of its important features, Christ
as Mediator (Peppermüller 1972, 102). The commentary first defines what is
meant by the law of sin, the spirit of life and the law of the spirit in us
(Rom 8: 2). These definitions will be used especially in the commentary on Rom
8: 1-17. It then explains how we were liberated from sin and from death through
Christ and how Christ has accomplished in us the justification of the law (Rom
8: 4).
The commentary on Rom 8: 1-2 defines terms by giving them equivalents:
And the law. He has said that the grace of God liberates (he who is in Christ) through Christ. He now reveals how it does that: because the law of the spirit of life, that is the law of divine charity and divine love instead of [being a law of] fear as was the old law, in Christ Jesus, that is given and showed to us by him, has liberated me from the law of sin and, because of that, [has liberated me] from death, that is from the commands and the suggestions of carnal concupiscence, so that I may not obey them by giving my consent. The spirit of life, that is the Holy Spirit, is the life of the souls, because it is love. Because of that, the law of this spirit is called 'law of love' begetting sons, not forcing slaves, that is, the gospel that has been totally filled with charity (Comm Rom III, viii, 9-18).
The
commentary clearly defines three syntagms of Rom 8: 2: the law of sin and death
means the commands and suggestions of carnal concupiscence. The spirit of life,
which is the Holy Spirit, is the life of the souls because it is love. The law
of the spirit of life is the law of divine charity and love that begets sons.
But how were we liberated in Christ from the law of sin and death?
According to the commentary on Rom 8: 3-4,
the Father who is the majesty of the divine power, "brought about that Wisdom, which is co-eternal with him, was humiliated and assumed a mortal humanity capable of suffering, so that, as the penalty of sin to which it submitted itself, it seemed to possess also the flesh of sin, that is the flesh that had been conceived in sin. And, for the sake of sin, which means for the sake of the penalty of sin that it endured for us in the flesh, that is in the assumed humanity, and not in the divinity, he condemned sin, that is he removed the penalty of sin for us, through which the just were also held captive beforehand, and opened the heavens" (Comm Rom III, viii, 30-37).
This is a narrative expansion of Rom 8: 3 and the different
actorial figures assume the actantial roles as distributed in the following
actantial schema II —that we can compare with schema I above. God the Father
takes the initiative and is the sender. In the commentary, Christ, the
eternal Wisdom, is the subject because he is the one who does what the
Father sent him for: he is the subject of the verbs "condemn" and
"open the heavens". The Son who assumes humanity is the helper.
|
The Father,
divine majesty |
à |
Condemnation of penalty of sin Opening of heavens Gift of divine charity |
à |
Us |
|
|
|
¡© |
|
|
|
Humanity
assumed by the Son |
à |
Christ |
©¬ |
|
The commentary develops the objects that are transmitted and what
the subject does in order to transmit them. The figures that assumed the role
of object in this actantial schema correspond only to the first of the three
interpretations of the syntagm "condemnation of sin". This is
Abelard's own opinion and it explains the coherence of the commentary on Rom 8:
5-30. For Abelard, sin in Rom 8: 3 means the penalty of sin and that, in this
given context, means only that humanity can suffer, that it is mortal (Comm
Rom III, viii, 31-32) and that the heavens are closed to the just (Comm
Rom III, viii, 36-37). Christ bore the penalty of sin in the flesh, that is
in his humanity and not in his divinity (Comm Rom III, viii, 33-35) and
he also condemned sin and opened the heavens for all the just. Justification
means the charity of God in us, the receivers, who are in Christ.
The commentary gives three
explanations for the condemnation of sin and thus for the meaning of Christ's
death. Two of these are formulated in Abelard's own words and one comes from
Origen. Actantial schema II presents the articulation of the first
interpretation. The second interpretation mentions the satisfaction theory,
while the third simply restates the dramatic theory of redemption.
The first explanation also depends on Abelard's interpretation of
original sin. For him, humanity does not carry the guilt of Adam's sin but only
the penalty (Weingart 1970, 46-47). And so, the death of Christ removes only
the penalty of original sin, as we have seen. But Christ also "condemned
sin in us, which means that he destroyed all guilt (reatum) and all
fault (culpam) through the charity poured in us and coming from the
greatest of benefits" (Comm Rom III, viii, 47-49). This text
mentions our own sins which are not the guilt that comes from original sin.
However Abelard believes that all have sinned and are guilty, and that Christ
also removed that guilt through the charity that was poured in our hearts
(Weingart 1970, 49 notes 3-4).
The second interpretation is a quotation from Origen: "It is all
the more true for the Greeks to say ¡®that he condemned sin for the sake of
sin¡¯, that is, he became a victim for a sin-offering. By this victim (hostia)
of flesh that is called ¡®for the sake of sin¡¯, he condemned, that is, he
removed sin" (Comm Rom III, viii, 50-53). Following the
satisfaction theory, Christ was made a victim for a sin-offering. And his death
thus has a sacrificial meaning (Weingart 1970, 82.88; Froehlich 1990, 256-257).
We have already analyzed what it means to have Origen say in this exact place
that this opinion is "all the more true" than the preceding one.
Furthermore, the quotation does not mention the wrath of God. Abelard quotes
Origen but will not use this interpretation in the following exposition of Rom
8: 5-30.
Then comes a third
explanation: "Because he also accomplished for us the remission of sins in
his blood and he [accomplished] the reconciliation. Or for the sake of the sin
committed against himself by the devil or by the Jews, he condemned sin in us,
as it has been said, by using evil in the best way and by converting it into
good" (Comm Rom III, viii, 53-55). This sentence rephrases the
dramatic theory: here Christ makes something good happen out of evil. The text
says nothing about the value of this interpretation that the commentary on Rom
3: 21-26 has already criticized and rejected. Furthermore, the mention of blood
is not necessarily a sacrificial term.