Gildas and the Scriptures: Observing the World through a Biblical Lens 9782503534367

Citation preview

STUDIA TRADITIONIS THEOLOGIAE Explorations in Early and Medieval Theology

Theology continually engages with its past: the people, experience, Scriptures, liturgy, learning and customs of Christians. The past is preserved, rejected, modified; but the legacy steadily evolves as Christians are never indifferent to history. Even when engaging the future, theology looks backwards: the next generation’s training includes inheriting a canon of Scripture, doctrine, and controversy; while adapting the past is central in every confrontation with a modernity. This is the dynamic realm of tradition, and this series’ focus. Whether examining people, texts, or periods, its volumes are concerned with how the past evolved in the past, and the interplay of theology, culture, and tradition.

STUDIA TRADITIONIS THEOLOGIAE Explorations in Early and Medieval Theology 12 Series Editor: Thomas O’Loughlin, Professor of Historical Theology in the University of Nottingham

EDITORIAL BOARD

Director Prof. Thomas O’Loughlin Board Members Dr Andreas Andreopoulos, Dr Augustine Casiday, Dr Mary B. Cunningham, Dr Johannes Hoff, Dr Jonathan Wooding, Dr Juliette Day, Dr Patricia Rumsey, Dr Paul Middleton, Dr Simon Oliver, Prof. Andrew Prescott

GILDAS AND THE ­SCRIPTURES Observing the World through a Biblical Lens

Thomas O’Loughlin

H

F

Cover illustration: Tabula Peutingeriana © ONB Vienna: Cod. 324, Segm. VIII + IX © 2012, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2012/0095/192 ISBN 978-2-503-53436-7 Printed on acid-free paper

For Micéal and Margaret Conneely

+ Memoria Voteporigis Protectoris This stone, inscribed in Latin and Ogham, to the memory of Votepor, king of Dyfed, may possible be a material link to the Vortipor mentioned in DEB 31. It is now housed in Carmarthenshire County Museum.

Contents

Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Chapter 1. Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The rationale of this study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Imagining a world through a textual lens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Gildas’s sense of identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The genre of DEB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 18 24 26 28

Chapter 2. The Biblical Text used by Gildas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The problem and the status quaestionis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The situation book by book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. A synopsis of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29 29 33 46 48

Chapter 3. The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships. 53 1. The canon of the scriptures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 2. The use of the Eusebian Apparatus in reading the gospels . . . 58 3. The history of the kings of Israel and Judah: a matter for research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4. The ‘Ordinal’ of the British Church. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5. Biblical Tomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 6. Other books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

vii

Contents

Chapter 4. Gildas as Exegete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. ‘The Mirror of the Scriptures’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The book as the record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The ‘senses’ with which the book can be read. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93 94 100 104 109

Chapter 5. A working theologian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. A baptised nation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Observing times and events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Repentance, redemption, and freewill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111 113 116 119 122

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB. . . . . . . . . 125 Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 1. Sequential list of testimonia and exempla found in DEB; excluding those passages quoted because of their place in the liturgy as lections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 2. The canon lists of Augustine (De doctrina christiana 2,8,13) and Cassiodorus (Institutiones 1,1-9).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Works of Gildas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Other Ancient and Medieval Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

363 363 363 364

Indices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Scriptures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Ancient and medieval authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Modern authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

375 377 394 395

viii

Preface

I have long contemplated writing this book. Indeed the seeds of this go back to the late 1980s when I was working on the role of the scriptures in the Collectio canonum hibernensis and began to appreciate the potential for such a study as this on my early visits to the Vetus Latina Institut in Beuron. If one were to take a single author or text, explore its scriptural usage in the detail which H.J. Frede and his collaborators were devoting to the biblical text contained in that author, how much would one be able to find out about the history of the reception of the scriptures in the Latin churches and the history of theology? The idea seemed a simple one! Looking at one of the printed volumes of the Vetus Latina edition, one was struck by the level of insight they had brought to the biblical text by extracting every detail of that text from their sources – and church writers are as, if not more, important as biblical manuscripts in their work. What if one was ‘to flip’ that process, and use this level of detail about the biblical text in the task of understanding the church writer and his theology? I mentioned this to several people at the time and in the process refined my ideas. I mentioned it to Maurice Sheehy (†), then working on an edition of the Hibernensis, and he thought the idea an interesting one, but so enormous in scope as to be impractical, yet, characteristically, he was intrigued by the possibilities and so he told me ‘to keep plugging away’ at it! Later, sometime in the early nineteen-nineties, I found myself elaborating the idea to no less an authority than H.J. Frede (†) when he stopped, to utter a quick word of welcome, at the desk at which I was working in Beuron. I feared he would dismiss the notion, but to my pleasant surprise he thought that it was a worthy project if only workers could be found. He knew, probably better than

ix

Preface

anyone else, the potential value of the work he and his collaborators had amassed. So the plan for a book such as this had its formal origin in that conversation. I recall discussing the book with several other scholars over a period of well over a decade. During that time two aspects of the project became clearer to me. First, the method to be employed in the investigation, and the possible questions that could be posed of a post-patristic Latin text, became more precise: and I tested these in several studies over the period both in the form of articles and as sections of larger studies. Second, that Gildas’s De excidio Britanniae would make an ideal test-case for the project I had in mind: it seemed to offer both enough problems to test the method and to offer enough possibilities of discovery to energise the researcher! Now that the study is complete, I am content that both of my hunches were correct. Over the years I recall discussing the idea with many scholars, but some conversations stand out in my memory – and perhaps my interlocutors would be able to discern their influence in these pages: Rolf Baumgarten (†), Jacqueline Borsje, Kevin Cathcart, Thomas CharlesEdwards, John Chisholm, Pearse Cusack (†), D.P. Davies, David Dumville, Anthony Harvey, Karen Jankulak, Proinsias Mac Cana (†), J.F. Nagy, Donncha Ó Corráin, Janet Rutherford, Patrick Sims-Williams, Richard Sharpe, Claire Stancliffe, Justin Taylor, Jonathan Wooding, and Alex Woolf. While I am in the debt of many, only I am responsible for the positions taken in this book, and for anything that is found amiss in it. The proximate cause to get to work on the topic came from an invitation from Dr Luca Carpi, then of the University of Manchester, to contribute a paper to a conference on Gildas he was organising in the Spring of 2009. I had mixed feelings when his invitation came: on the one hand I knew that I wanted to test this plan, and here was an invitation to get down to work; on the other, I remembered the note of caution about the scale of the work that had been uttered by Sheehy, and hinted at by Frede and several others! Anyway after three years’ work, here it is!

x

Preface

I also want to thank my university department – and especially its head, Dr Karen Kilby, who has gently encouraged the project – and the library here in Nottingham for much help and assistance. I also want to thank my colleague, Prof. Roland Deines, for the book’s subtitle; Dr Francisca Rumsey who kindly agreed to proof read the typescript; and the Carmarthenshire Museum, Carmarthen, for permission to use a photograph of the ‘Voteporix Stone.’ Lastly, I want to thank Brepols, and especially Dr Bart Janssens and Dr Louise Visser, who, as ever, have been the most patient, and collaborative of publishers. T.O’L. Nottingham  10 August 2012

xi

Naui fracta, qui potest natare, natet 

- Gildas, Fragmentary Epistola, IV

Introduction

Gildas, the contemporary of Cassiodorus and whose lifespan overlapped with Boethius and Benedict in the earlier decades of the sixth century, and with Gregory of Tours and Columbanus in the later decades, is a figure virtually unknown in the history of theology. Studied for the light his writings can throw on sub-Roman Britain, he is well known to scholars in Celtic Studies and to Anglo-Saxonists; but one could be forgiven for not knowing that he perceived himself as prophet with a message of salvation for his people, developed his own theology of history, and constructed his work on the basis of his own extensive study of the Christian scriptures. Recalling that Gildas can claim (depending on where one locates Pelagius’s origins), to be either the first or second theologian from Britain, and he is certainly the first British theologian, his work deserved to be studied with regard to its place in the history of theology, and the light it can throw on aspects of the reception of the scriptures. Recent decades have seen a remarkable revival of interest in Gildas – the collection of essays entitled Gildas: New Approaches (1984), the work of Kerlouégan (1987), and George (2009) – but there was still no largescale study of his biblical usage. Moreover, the studies that did exist – the work of Williams over a century ago, and of a few essays after that by others – while excellent work for their time, could not take account of progress in the history of the scriptures in Latin, developments in our understanding of ‘reception history,’ the role of memory and tradition in the evolution of theology. Clearly, a new study that would examine the use of the scriptures by Gildas and the scriptures used by Gildas was needed. Moreover, another development that has taken place since the 1950s has changed the field of Latin biblical studies beyond recogni-

1

Introduction

tion: the work to produce a new edition of the Vetus Latina versions by the Vetus Latina Institut in Beuron. Earlier scholars such as Williams knew the value of this material for their studies, but had to rely on partial evidence and imperfect texts: now we have several volumes of the Vetus Latina published, but, more importantly, have access to their files in electronic format for the whole of the scriptures. We can today study every biblical text used by Gildas and compare his usage with that of every other Latin writer until the ninth century; and this allows us to form judgements about his work with a high degree of probability because they are based on the whole extent of the evidence. So in this book, in Part II, every single biblical quotation used by Gildas has been compared with every known witness to that text in Latin both as to is form (whether in a biblical text or an author) and the way it is used (in authors both before and after Gildas). But having examined every quotation in detail, can we go further? Can we build from the patterns of usage a picture of how Gildas understood his religion, and how he worked as a theologian? I have always had a great admiration for scripture scholars and their methodology of ‘back engineering’ the theological mindset that produced texts by a careful analysis of the internal rationale of the argument of a text and the way it took over and re-used memories from its tradition. One can, therefore, speak of the theology of a particular source found in later documents (e.g. the theology of the priestly author in Genesis or of ‘Q’ in the gospels) or trace how theology changed over time in a series of works (e.g. the letters written by Paul). What if a similar method were to be applied to a medieval author – with the additional control that we could compare his usage of the common element of scripture with that of others? Part I of this book is an attempt to study Gildas in precisely this way: to see how his use of scripture defines him as a theologian. It is an experiment in method, and if it is judged successful, and useful, it might be followed by other studies of individuals and their use of scripture, with the prospect beckoning of a fuller history of theology than we now possess. Lastly, as this book now begins to be public property, I am far more conscious of what I have omitted, or not dealt with in the detail I would have liked, than of what is included. I fear that this is a matter of space. The amount of space needed for Part II was a function of the size of Gildas’s text; this meant that if the book was to be manageable, other topics had to be curtailed. But scholarship does not stand still, and there are more than enough questions and problems in Gildas to keep many of us busy for a long time to come!

2

Abbreviations

1.  Biblical Materials Gen Ex Lev Num Dt Jos Jds Ruth 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Kgs 2 Kgs 1 Chr 2 Chr Ezra Neh 3 Esd 4 Esd Tob Jth Est Job Ps Prov

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel = I Regum 2 Samuel = II Regum 1 Kings = III Regum 2 Kings = IV Regum 1 Chronicles = I Paralipomenon 2 Chronicles = II Paralipomenon Ezra = I Esdras Nehemiah = II Esdras 3 Esdras = III Esdras 4 Esdras = IV Esdras Tobit Judith Esther Job Psalms Proverbs

3

Abbreviations

Qo Song Wis Sir Is Jer Lam Bar Ez Dan Hos Joel Amos Obad Jon Mic Nah Hab Zeph Hag Zech Mal 1 Mac 2 Mac 3 Mac 4 Mac OrMan Mt Mk Lk Jn Act Rom 1 Cor 2 Cor Gal Eph Phil

Qoheleth = Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon = Canticum canticorum Wisdom of Solomon = Sapientia Wisdom of Sirach = Ecclesiasticus Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Baruch Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees Prayer of Manasseh Matthew Mark Luke John Acts of the Apostles Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians

4

Abbreviations

Col 1 Thes 2 Thes 1 Tim 2 Tim Tit Phlem Heb Jas 1 Pet 2 Pet 1 Jn 2 Jn 3 Jn Jude Apoc

Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Apocalypse [Revelation of John the Divine]

2.  Sigla for Scriptural Texts, Editions, and Versions Bensly D-R

LXX LXX LXX-W NT NT

R.L. Bensly (ed.), The Fourth Book of Ezra: The Latin Version edited from the MSS, Cambridge. The Douay (Old Testament:1609) – Rheims (New Testament: 1582) version in English of the Scriptures; the 1846 Dublin Edition published by M.H. Gill and Son. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament. A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta: id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Stuttgart 1935. J.W. Wevers (ed.), Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis, Göttingen. The Greek text of the New Testament. E. Nestle, E. Nestle, B. and K. Aland, et al. (eds.), Novum Testamentum Graece, 27 ed., Stuttgart, 1981.

5

Abbreviations

NT4

MT MT NRSV RSV Vg Vg(Clem) Vg VL

K. Aland, M. Black, C.M. Martini, B.M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren eds, The Greek New Testament [4 revised ed, B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C.M. Martini and B.M. Metzger], Stuttgart, 1966 [1 ed.], 1993 [4 revised ed.]. The Hebrew text of the Old Testament. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (et al.) (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 4 ed . [H.P. Rüger], Stuttgart 1990. The New Revised Standard Version, New York, 1989. The Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition, London 1966. The Vulgate version of the Scriptures. The Sixto-Clementine edition of the Vulgate: L. Turrado and A. Colunga (eds), Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam, Madrid, 1957. B. Fischer, J. Gribomont, H.D.F. Sparks, W. Theile, R. Weber, and R. Gryson (eds.), Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, 4 ed., Stuttgart, 1994. The Vetus Latina version of the Christian Scriptures.

3.  Abbreviations for Editions of Non-biblical Texts, Works of Reference, and Journals AAAG AB AB ABD ABR AnB ACQR ACW AJP ALW AM AS ASE

Annals of the Association of American Geographers. The Anchor Bible. Art Bulletin. D.N. Freedman, et al. (eds.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York, NY, 1992. American Benedictine Review. Analecta Bollandiana. American Catholic Quarterly Review Ancient Christian Writers. American Journal of Philology. Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft. Annuale Medievale. Augustinian Studies. Anglo-Saxon England.

6

Abbreviations

ATR BA BAR BZAW BZ CA CBQ CCCM CCHS CCSA CCSG CCSL CD CE CHR CJ CLA CM CMCS CPG CPL CPPM CSEL CQ DHGE DOP

Annals of Tourism Research. Biblical Archaeologist. Biblical Archaeology Review. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Cahiers archéologiques. Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Corpus Christianorum (Continuatio Medieualis). B. Orchard, E.F. Sutcliffe, R.C. Fuller, and R. Russell (eds.), Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London, 1953. Corpus Christianorum (Series Apocryphorum). Corpus Christianorum (Series Graeca). Corpus Christianorum (Series Latina). Cuidad de Dios. Catholic Encyclopaedia, New York, NY, 1909. Catholic Historical Review. Cartographic Journal. E.A. Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores. A Palaeographical Guide to Latin Manuscripts prior to the Ninth Century, 11 volumes and Supplement, Oxford 1934-72. Codices Manuscripti. Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies [later Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies]. M. Geerard (ed.), Clauis Patrum Graecorum I-III Turnhout, 1983 [vol. I], 1974 [vol. II], 1979 [vol. III]. E. Dekkers and A. Gaar (eds.), Clauis Patrum Latinorum, 3 ed. Steenbrugge, 1995. J. Machielsen (ed.), Clauis Patristica Pseudepigraphorum Medii Aeui, Turnhout, 1990 [vol. I A and B], 1994 [vol. II A and B], 2003 [vol. III A]. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Classical Quarterly. Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de Géographique Ecclésiastiques. Dunbarton Oakes Papers.

7

Abbreviations

EDB EEC

EETS EI EMC ER ET FC GCS HI HJ HTR HDB HUCA IM IPJ IR ITQ JAAR JBC JBL JE JECS JFSR JL JML JMRS JQR JR

D.N. Freedman, A.C. Myers, and A.B. Beck (eds.), Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI, 2000. A. Di Berardino (ed.), and with amendments by W.H.C. Frend, Encyclopaedia of the Early Church, ET: A. Walford, 2 vols, Cambridge, 1992 [= Dizionario Patristico e di Antichità Cristiane]. Early English Text Society. Encyclopaedia of Islam, new ed., Leiden, 1993. Echos du Monde classique. M. Eliade (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion, New York, NY, 1987. Expository Times. Fathers of the Church. Die griechischen christichen Schriftsteller. History Ireland. Heythrop Journal. Harvard Theological Review. J. Hastings (ed.), Dictionary of the Bible, Edinburgh, 1898-1908. Hebrew Union College Annual. Imago Mundi. Irish Philosophical Journal. Innes Review. Irish Theological Quarterly. Journal of American Academy of Religion. R.E. Brown, J.A. Fitzmyer, and R.E. Murphy (eds.), Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1968. Journal of Biblical Literature. Jewish Encyclopaedia, London, 1901. Journal of Early Christian Studies. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft. Journal of Medieval Latin. Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies. Jewish Quarterly Review. Journal of Religion.

8

Abbreviations

JRS JSAI JSJ JTS JWAG JWCI KVS L᾿AP L&S LCL MGH MGH, AA MGH, SRM MS MedS NB NCCHS NCE NDR NJBC NH NM NovT NS NTS NTT ODCC PG PEQ PIBA PL PLS

Journal of Religious Studies. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. Journal for the Study of Judaism. Journal of Theological Studies. Journal of the Walters Art Gallery. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. H.J. Frede, Kirchenschriftsteller: Verzeichnis und Sigel (Vetus Latina: Die Reste der Altlateinischen Bibel 1/1), Freiburg, 1995. L᾿Année philologique. M. Lapidge and R. Sharpe, A Bibliography of CelticLatin Literature 400-1200, Dublin, 1985. Loeb Classical Library. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi. MGH, Scriptores rerum Merouingicarum. Milltown Studies. Mediaeval Studies. New Blackfriars. R.C. Fuller, L. Johnston, and C. Kearns (eds.), New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London, 1969, revised ed. 1975. New Catholic Encyclopaedia, 2 ed. Washington, 2002. New Diaconal Review. R.E. Brown, J.A. Fitzmyer, and R.E. Murphy (eds.), New Jerome Biblical Commentary, London, 1989. Northern History. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen. Novum Testamentum. The New Scholasticism. New Testament Studies. Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Patrologia Graeca. Palestine Exploration Quarterly. Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association. Patrologia Latina. Patrologia Latina, Supplementum.

9

Abbreviations

PMLA POBS PRIA PW RA RBPH RB RBib RÉA REL RES RLR RMA RMAL RSR RTAM RTPM SASLC SC SC SCat SCH SGM SE SG SHR SLH SM SP SR TDNT TF TFT

Proceedings of the Modern Language Association. Proceedings of the Oxford Bibliographical Society. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. G. Wissowa (ed.), Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1893-. Recherches Augustiniennes. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire. Revue Bénédictine. Revue Biblique. Revue des Études Augustiniennes. Revue des Études Latines. Review of English Studies. Religious Life Review. Revue du Moyen Âge. Revue de Moyen Âge Latin. Revue des Sciences Religieuses. Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale. Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévale. F.M. Biggs, T. D. Hill, and P.E. Szarmach (eds.), Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: A Trial Version, Binghampton, NY, 1990. Sources chrétiennes. Studia Canonica. La scuola cattolica. Studies in Church History. Scottish Geographical Magazine. Sacris Erudiri. Studi Gregoriani. Scottish Historical Review. Scriptores Latini Hiberniae. Studi medievali. Studia Patristica. Sociological Review. G. Kittel (ed.) and G.W. Bromiley (ed.) and translator, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI, 1964. The Furrow. Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie.

10

Abbreviations

TS TU VC VT WS ZCP ZNW ZSK

Theological Studies. Texte und Untersuchungen. Vigiliae Christianae. Vetus Testamentum. Wiener Studien. Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche. Zeitschrift für schweitzerische Kirchengeschichte.

4.  Individual frequently cited works: Mommsen VLD Williams

Theodor Mommsen ed., Gildae De Excidio Britanniae in MGH AA 13 [= Chronica minora 3], 25-88. The Vetus Latina Database produced on CD-Rom and in other electronic formats by Brepols, Turnhout. H. Williams, Gildae De Excidio Britanniae [Cymmrodorion Record Series III-IV] (London 1899-1901).

11

Chapter 1 Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

It has been argued persuasively that Gildas’s De Excidio Britanniae is the product of a rhetorician. As such it is carefully structured. Its core consists of the twin attacks on the corruption of kings and clergy in Books II and III. These attacks are essentially hortatory. Although Gildas savagely denounces his regal and ecclesiastical victims, he hopes thereby to persuade them to return to the fold. 

Wright (1984), 85.

1.  The rationale of this study This book is an experiment in method. Its basic contention is that by a detailed study of the Christian scriptures – broadly defined by the canon that began to be fixed towards the end of the second century of the Common Era – we can both understand the world of an early medieval author more adequately and discover otherwise obscure aspects of the intellectual culture in which that author lived and wrote. The examination is concerned not only with what passages were used (the most direct indication of theological perspective and preference), but how those passages were understood to be relevant to the argument being made (which constitutes an author’s fundamental exegetical praxis and understanding), how they were, at times, formally interpreted (the use, that is, of formal intellectual exegesis), how the passages were combined with one another to form more complex statements of the content of those scriptures (another aspect of both intellectual and practical exegesis), and how those patterns of use may reveal the way he encountered the

13

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

scriptures both in use (e.g. in liturgy) and the form of that encounter (e.g. how were the biblical books gathered or whether or not they came with ancillary materials bound with them). In many previous works I have tried to answer such questions using selections from the writings of several authors (e.g. Julian of Toledo1 or Adomnán of Iona2), particular biblical products (e.g. the Book of Deer3 or the Stowe St John4), or particular exegetical tools (e.g. maps5 or the Eusebian Apparatus6) but in every case found that my chosen evidence base was too narrow or the publication form, usually the article or a chapter in a more wide ranging study, was too limited to explore the possibilities offered. What was needed, I became convinced, was a monograph length study of a single, substantial text – preferably one with an evident and extensive reliance on the scriptures – in which every quotation and allusion was studied as to its text (for this might reveal a whole variety of connections to other works7), whether or not it was used in the same way by patristic or medieval writers (for this would reveal dependencies on others8), and how combinations of texts might indicate particular theological positions or attitudes.9 It is this examination that constitutes Part II of this book, and the information that can, then, be inferred from that database about the author, his context and his theology, forms this, Part I, section of this book. But what is the source of my confidence that a study of an author’s use of the scriptures might provide anything more than a very detailed apparatus biblicus? First and foremost, if any historian of theology wishes to study the phenomenon of change and variation in theology, then the scriptures offer a unique basis of comparison between theologians or Christian religious contexts. No other Christian set of practices or beliefs have had such constant and ubiquitous significance – creeds, liturgical patterns, canonical arrangements, systems of spirituality, not to mention formal doctrine – have all varied far more than the belief 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2

O’Loughlin (1993). O’Loughlin (2007a). O’Loughlin (2009b). O’Loughlin (2007b). O’Loughlin (2000c) and (2005b). O’Loughlin (1999b) and (2010b). O’Loughlin (1994). O’Loughlin (2012b). O’Loughlin (2010c).

14

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

that by appealing to a collection of texts – the scriptures – which have been understood to have, in some way or other, special significance and authority.10 Therefore, one can study variations in their use of the scriptures to note change over time between a particular author and those writers he held to have authority. For example, Gildas makes use of Jerome’s De uiris illustribus as an ‘authority,’ but for a very different purpose to that for which it was written.11 Likewise, writers who were contemporaries may use the same biblical materials but with such shifts of emphasis and exegesis that they reveal how distinct their formulation of a theological problem is from that of their fellow writers, even when they lay public claim that they are not differing from the position of others.12 By cropping a story in a particular way or using one version of a text rather than another, a variation can be introduced into a tradition such that the entire weight of evidence within that tradition moves in a new direction.13 However, having noted all the details of the use of the scriptures in an author, and so, hopefully, produced a more satisfactory reading of that author and a better appreciation of his world, this experiment is still not complete. The experiment can only be judged a success when we, as a group of scholars, possess many such studies of individual books, such as the DEB, and authors where their entire corpus has been studied. We already possess some studies of this kind, but they have usually been the work of textual critics anxious to establish from one of ‘the patristic witnesses’ the form of the biblical text at a specific time and context,14 but what is envisaged here is something more than that. Not only do I want to know the form of the text that Gildas used, but I want to see how he used that text to formulate his own theological vision: this is both ‘reception history’ (in so far as it focuses on how he understood the text and reacted to it) and ‘history of theology’ in so far as it demon Within the ‘development model’ of the history of theology there are, by virtue of the method, no end of continuities from today back to the very earliest times: the whole purpose of the investigation is to demonstrate continuity of belief and/or practice, and by means of ‘inchoate’ earlier forms the later beliefs are seen to emerge as an oak from an acorn. But that method only exists because it is so hard to find continuities, and make the assumption that the details studied can be seen as continuities, rather than variations over time, because there is a continuity of paradigm. Yet it is the desire to understand the shifts in paradigm that is the goal of empirical historical theology. 11 See 316E; and O’Loughlin (2012c). 12 See O’Loughlin (1992b) and (1996e) for parallels. 13 See O’Loughlin (2000d). 14 See O’Loughlin (1999d). 10

15

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

strates how theology was being done, and how it related to its tradition (for theology always operates within traditions as it makes sense of its authorities and faith-bases within particular situations). And, of course, all such enquiries into texts or authors form part of the larger cultural history of those times: as we shall see in this study, the fact that the British constitute a people who can be punished by God for their infidelity in the same way that the people of Israel were punished is a statement de facto of Gildas’s own sense of nationality, he belongs to the British nation,15 and so distances him from that other early Latin author from the island of Britain, Patrick, who thinks of himself as belonging to the decurion class of the Roman empire.16 So this study can only be judged to be fully a success if other scholars seek to produce similar and better studies of other writers and texts. However, it will be a success, in paruo, if what it says about Gildas’s biblical text, his use of the scriptures, his practice of exegesis, and its assessment of his theological perspective is found to be well founded in the evidence which can be derived from the DEB. If, by contrast, this experiment is judged a failure, either theoretically or in this particular case, then the study of the biblical texts should make easier the work of understanding Gildas, and provide materials of practical value for any future edition. But it is the larger possibility that drives this study, and any other benefits are per accidens. But if this is an experiment in method, why pick on Gildas and his DEB when there are many authors whose work could be seen to be more directly connected with the tradition of theology? Gildas makes an ideal subject for this experiment for a variety of reasons. First, the sheer volume of biblical material used by him, combined with the fact that many of his quotations are extensive while his paraphrases often cover whole biblical episodes provides a very adequate base of material for a study such as this. There is enough material from both Old and New Testaments to throw up a wide variety of scriptural problems and approaches to the text. Second, the biblical materials are so prominent in the DEB that it has been possible to see it as part of the ‘testimonies’ tradition, and so there is not a great mass of non-biblical material that needs to be attended to for an understanding of the text as a whole. For example, if one were to study the scriptures used in the Collectio canonum hibernensis – where scripture is a major source of law – one has to balance 15

See ch. 5. Patrick, Epistola, 10.

16

16

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

that study with the other traditions at work such as the use of councils, decretals, other authors, and locate it within their jurisprudence. While a full study of the biblical usage of the Collectio is to be desired, it would not be as good a basis for this experiment as Gildas. In Gildas, more­ over, it is the materials other than the scriptures – which form Gildas’s portrait of the state of Britain, and especially its kings, in the mid-sixth century – that have been the predominant focus of attention, and even attention to the scriptures has been seen as a means to learning more about Britain at the time. This experiment, by contrast, is focused on the scriptures themselves as a body of texts with a history, and on the history of their ‘community of interpretation’: how they used them and what they meant to them. Third, Gildas’s work appeared roughly halfway between the period of the great Latin authors (Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine can be seen as clustered around the end of the fourth and the early decades of the fifth century: Augustine died in 430), while the more organised study of the scriptures that we associate with the work of Isidore of Seville, which can be seen as the start of a process that lead to the Carolingian schools, belongs to the early decades of the seventh century. Gildas is interesting because the Vulgate is not yet ubiquitous; because he did not have ready school-produced schemata for interpretation; and because many of the handbooks which would reduce exegesis to an exercise had not yet been produced. Working on Gildas presents us with the challenge of working with a Latin theologian from a period that, from the perspective of the historian of theology, is to us a ‘dark age.’ Work on Gildas may provide background to those who belong to the same time as him (e.g. Cassiodorus), and comparisons for those earlier than him (e.g. Boethius or the ‘Master’ of the Regula Magistri) or after him (e.g. Columbanus). At an early stage in this investigation I realised that noting those comparisons would make this book too unwieldy to use, while the task would be incomplete no matter how many parallels or differences I noted. This work is focused on Gildas, and other studies can take the matter forward in greater detail; I have only noted parallels in a restrictive way where I have judged that without noting the parallel one could not appreciate a specific point in Gildas. This leaves one last introductory question: how to determine a patristic quotation, and much work has been done on this topic in recent years both theoretically and practically.17 However, because Gildas sees himself after the fashion of a lawyer presenting an argument for the There is a summary of the status quaestionis in Osburn (2005).

17

17

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

prosecution of wicked princes and unfaithful bishops, he is clear whom he is citing as part of the backbone of his indictment. These, often long, quotations he refers to at times as ‘testimonia’ – and so isolating these was the first task. On other occasions, but as an integral part of his overall argument, Gildas chooses not to cite the text directly but to provide a summary of the story – usually because the moral point he wishes to derive is not explicitly stated in the biblical text or because of the need to remove details which might ‘distract’ from his argument – and he refers to these biblical paraphrases as ‘exempla.’ Isolating the exempla was the next step in the process. It is these testimonia and exempla, taken together, which constitute the biblical core of Gildas’s argument; and, consequently, of the DEB as a text. But in making that argument, and building up a picture of the situation in which he sees himself, Gildas also relied on other quotations from the scriptures which supplement and fill-out the main argument. These are sometimes explicitly flagged as such ( … ut … ait) and sometimes not – but he seems to have expected his audience to recognise them as such. These are identified here as ‘citations.’ Their importance is often that, just as testimonia and exempla are cited in such a way that ‘scripture interprets scripture,’ so these citations are often used such that in combination with a testimonium or an exemplum we have scripture interpreting itself.18 Lastly, as he proceeds through his case, Gildas makes allusions to biblical persons, events, or passages, and these have been identified as ‘allusions’ using much the same technique as that used in building an apparatus biblicus in any medieval text.19 I have not entered the lists of those theorizing about the nature of intertextuality, not because I wish to avoid such debates in principle, but because the nature of the issue in Gildas seems to me so straightforward as to make such a discussion redundant.

2.  Imagining a world through a textual lens Gildas does not offer his audience any justification of his procedure: he will assess the situation in which he believes they are living through seeing this as the working out of a pattern laid down in the scriptures. This action involves several distinct acts of imagination. First, that the col18 This was set out by Augustine as an ideal of exegesis: using one text to explain or elucidate another; it is simply an assumption of Gildas’s method that text adds to text. 19 See Becker (2002) for a discussion of the methodology.

18

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

lection of sacred books can be seen as a harmonious and integral whole, which as ‘the scriptures’ speak with one voice – and the Christian reader is tasked with discovering ‘that message.’ This act of imagination can be found in some of the earliest texts of the followers of Jesus: they believed that their (inherited) scriptures spoke about him (Lk 24:27), and that these were to be treated (at least in theory) as a totality as God’s revelation (2 Tim 3:16). By Gildas’s time these attitudes were so embedded – indeed had themselves become part of the Christian canon – that to doubt them was tantamount to apostasy. The second act of imagination was to think of this body of divine communication as not simply being a primary historical datum as a revelation and a law, but as revealing an on-going pattern of how God dealt with the creation. In this act of imagination, God had not simply revealed himself in the past, but was acting in a way consistent with that past throughout history: ‘All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work’ (2 Tim 3:16-7). In effect, this meant that for any understanding of God’s actions with groups – call them ‘tribes’ or ‘nations’ or ‘kingdoms’ – one could study the historical books of the Old Testament. When these were read in conjunction with the prophets (with which they were seen to dovetail historically) one could find in their repeated story-patterns a recurring pattern of interaction between societies, or their leaders, and the divine. So repetitions of ‘history’ in the historical books could be seen as revealing the scheme for history. Patterns such as covenant, infidelity, prophetic warnings, punishment by invaders, renewal of covenant, or the slightly more sophisticated form found in the books of Chronicles of covenant, infidelity, prophetic warnings, punishment and/or repentance, renewal of covenant, which could be found again and again in the Old Testament took on the character of absolute laws of history. Once one had taken this view as the key to one’s time and life-situation, either an as individual or a member of a group – then one had a lens through which every other text in the scriptures could be viewed: and all announced the same message: sin leads directly to divine punishment (an expression of divine justice) in the form of suffering in this world, but this could be countered by repentance and intercession at which God would relent (an expression of divine mercy) and restore the situation. Few modern determinist historians finding ‘historical laws’ governing the evolution of societies within definite patterns have ever promoted their case with such certitude!

19

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

This notion that there was a direct link between much human suffering and the punishment due to sin (reatus poenae) was by no means a universal view among Christians. Augustine had distanced himself from such a theory of divine justice – in effect, treating divine and human justice univocally – and had proposed a different view of human history in his De ciuitate Dei: neither good events could be seen as rewards nor painful events seen as punishments! But if this was the mature and considered view of a great Latin theologian, one has only to read a miracle story in a saint’s uita, or look at one of the church historians such as Eusebius or Orosius, to see that it was not widely shared. The sinner, be it King Herod in Eusebius or some un-named person in a uita, could suffer horrible pains as a result of sin, and the only cure was a mixture of repentance and the good offices of the holy man. Moreover, the practice of anointing in the churches and the developing practice in some of the Latin churches of viewing penitence as medicinal remedies for sin meant that the connection between sin and punishment was one that was a fixed part of their imagining of the world. For Gildas this was as certain as any other part of revelation: ‘the moral universe,’ where sins provoked their punishments in life, could be seen at the level of the group – the British – and the individual: each level was the proof of the pattern for the other. Just as an individual suffered for their sins, so too did the kingdom; just as a wicked society lost divine protection, so too did the Christian who had committed sin and not availed of the penitential remedy. For modern readers of such texts at the DEB all this might appear little more than the ‘default setting’ of religious moralists – ‘sins’ cause punishments in the form of sickness and unhappiness – and a matter that is best explained in terms of the psychology of human guilt; but this reaction can obscure for us the detailed exegesis that we can see in writers such as Gildas by which he seeks to make sense of the notion of a good God and the suffering of people who, to outward appearances, are doing what is required of them and should expect divine protection. It is this act of ‘making sense’ within his theological framework that is fundamental to his whole work. Only when Gildas has ‘made sense’ of his situation can he then react to it as a prophet, seek to convince the sinners of their situation, and urge repentance. The third act of the imagination was then to take the actual historical situation of one’s group and actually read it in terms of the patterns found in the scriptures. This is an act of imagination by which the jumble of events around him are sorted into those which were significant – and that significance was determined by imagined patterns – and

20

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

then seen as either the causes or effects within the historical pattern. For Gildas the most significant ­and most terrifying ­events of his own time were the invasions by neighbouring peoples. This was the retribution brought about by sin, and therefore the sin was to be sought out – somewhat in the manner of a physician’s diagnosis from symptoms – in the ways of the rulers, both kings and bishops, and then repented. The historical passages of the DEB, to which most of our scholarship is devoted, can be seen as a product of this need to explain why the invasions have happened, and so, by way of the detailed explanations of the disease found in the testimonia and exempla, the basis for the prescribed cure: repentance. There is a rigid logic and unity in the DEB – it is a single extended argument – which derives from Gildas’s theology of history, or as he would see it from the pattern built-into the creation and made visible in the history of God’s chosen people / peoples. The theological relationship of Gildas in the DEB to recent event in sub-Roman Britain can be likened, therefore, to ‘analysis’ of the historical ‘situation’ in modern Marxist discourse. This act of imagining his world in terms of the scriptures is not a matter of taking a pattern of judgement from one location, as recorded in the sacred book, and assuming that the same will happen in a roughly similar situation. For Gildas such a view would be tantamount to determinism: this is just the way the universe works! Gildas shows no signs that he thought in terms of ‘sin punishing itself.’ Rather, the punishment Britain is undergoing is the result of a deliberate and just action by God in response to human free actions – and God can change the way he acts in response to further human actions, and so Gildas’s preaching is justified. But if this is the case, then Gildas must imagine the whole scene of his people in the exact terms in which the paradigm divine actions ­recorded in the scriptures ­took place. So not only must his people be a chosen and elect people (the result of baptism), but they must be imagined living in a land that God has given them, and that land must be a land that has all the blessings of a promised land. The geography we find in the early sections of the DEB is not there as a mise-en-scene for those who do not know Britain, Gildas is preaching to his own people who live in the land he describes, but as a demonstration that just as the first elect people lived in ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ (Ex 3:8), chosen and given them by God, so now his people are in a similar situation. So as kings and temple priests were the targets up-braided by the prophets when Israel was punished, so now it is kings and bishops that are Gildas’s suspects. Being in such as a situation the British live within a

21

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

covenant that requires fidelity; it is this that his people have broken and the book is a reasoned plea for its urgent restoration. Christianity likes to present itself as ‘an religion of history,’ but it would be more accurate to describe it as a religion of historical constructions whereby it builds up a world from out of its own meta-historical beliefs.20 Studying these historical constructions is, consequently, an important part of the history of theology. When theologians, such as Gildas, react to what is seen as a disaster in their societies two themes are often present. The first is the apocalyptic model whereby the sufferings of the elect are preparatory to the end of history, and their deliverance, justification, takes place beyond history: they just are ‘rescued,’ while the wicked are punished. Moreover, the struggles they are encountering in this world are seen as a manifestation of a cosmic struggle between light / dark, God and the devil.21 The second is the retributive justice model wherein the elect suffer in this world and are offered the possibility of a better life in this world as a result of conversion, they may have to wait (‘hope’) for their deliverance, but they can be sure that the time of suffering will pass and the happier times of yore will return. Both models can be found in the scriptures. The apocalyptic model can be found in works such as Daniel and the Apocalypse of John, and in other passages, for example, in the synoptic gospels.22 The retributive model can be found more clearly in the books of the Kings and in Chronicles, and in many other places as an underlying theme.23 Not surprisingly, most later Christian writers combine elements from both models – seemingly unaware of the mutual incompatibility – and so can draw on a far wider range of biblical images in support of their analysis. In contrast, Gildas is far more precise in his use of scripture and he shuns the apocalyptic model entirely; even the sufferings produced by sin are recompense delivered by human agents, the invaders, rather than the torments of demons. Not only is his own theology that of the Chronicler – unfaithful Israel must repent in order to be restored to the land – but there is

20 Or as Marc Bloch [(1992), 4] presented it: ‘Christianity is a religion of historians. Other religious systems have been able to found their beliefs and their rites on a mythology nearly outside human time. For sacred books, the Christians have books of history, and their liturgies commemorate, together with episodes from the terrestrial life of a God, the annals of the church and the lives of the saints.’ 21 See Collins (1984); Collins (1987); and Cohn (1970). 22 See Mk 13, and parallels. 23 See ch. 3,2 and ch. 5,3 below.

22

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

virtually no appeal to apocalyptic texts.24 In a nutshell, Gildas does not live in ‘the last times’ but in ‘bad times’ – and he knows the way forward: repentance and penance. Whether this choice of one biblical approach is by accident or design cannot be determined for certain; but in this case the argument from silence is very strong. However, this preference for one approach coupled with the absence of another, serves a more important purpose in this introduction: Gildas uses the scriptures with care, with a thorough knowledge of their contents, and, as we shall see time and again in this study, a clear vision of what he wants to present as their message. This sophistication in the use of the scriptures – nowhere better seen than in the way he combines texts from the books of Kings and Chronicles25 – is all the more amazing as his selection of the texts cited is his own work, and appears to be the result of two trawls through the scriptures first to find evidence against the kings and then, secondly, against the bishops. Moreover, while Gildas shows evidence of being aware of the tradition of Latin exegesis,26 his actual usage does not appear to depend on any other writer to any significant extent.27 This study reveals a writer who, while he thought of himself as another in the tradition of Christian writers (as listed in Jerome’s De uiris illustribus), has a distinctive and developed theological voice of his own. This may not be a voice that commends itself for the completeness of its engagement with the complexities of the dilemma which face the Christian, nor the sophistication of its theology of history, much less a voice that would be attractive to those today who seek out early medieval theology as an antidote to later developments, but it is a theological tourde-force nonetheless. And, it is my hope that this study of his use of the scriptures will make easier further investigations of Gildas’s theology

24 There is no use of Daniel; and there is one citation of the Apocalypse of John (12:8-9 / 373C). 25 See ch. 3,3 below. 26 See ch. 4,3 below. 27 See ch. 3,6 below.

23

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

3.  Gildas’s sense of identity In 1954, the late Prof. Owen Chadwick looked over the arguments put forward by Williams about the monastic status of Gildas and concluded that Gildas was, on the basis of DEB LXV and CVI more likely to have been a deacon than a monk.28 Since then, and especially in the 1984 collection Gildas: New Approaches,29 the consensus has grown that Gildas was not a monk; while O’Sullivan basing himself on DEB LXV and Chadwick’s paper took it as certain that Gildas was a deacon.30 In this work it is taken as a fact that Gildas wrote as a deacon, not only because this is the obvious meaning of DEB LXV (and indeed CVI), but because on several occasions in the work Gildas is careful to take both episcopal and diaconal examples of both good and bad clerical behaviour: just as there is the contrast of the ideal bishop, Peter, whose fidelity is proved by his martyrdom, and the wicked bishop, Judas, so there is the contrast of the ideal deacon, Stephen, whose fidelity is also proved by martyrdom, and the wicked deacon, Nicolaus.31 This modelling of clerical behaviour by these four people is used on four occasions in the DEB – and establishes not only that Gildas is a deacon, but gives him the necessary clerical standing within the Church to offer his critique of the kings and bishops of the church in Britain. The most extensively mined section of the scriptures in the DEB is the prophetical books of the Old Testament – with the notable exception of Daniel who was considered one of the four ‘major prophets.’ The prophetical critique of the political (‘kings’) and religious (‘priests’ [sacerdotes]’) institutions of Israel becomes Gildas’s critique of the institutions – which Gildas saw as the successors to those of Israel – in Britain.32 The prophetical warnings, set in context by the historical books, become the message that he must be willing to deliver to Britain, the great tuba he must sound.33 Gildas’s right to sound it derives from his Chadwick (1954). Lapidge and Dumville (1984). 30 O’Sullivan (1978), 50, 77, and 147. 31 See 26A, 309A, 369E, and 490T where the quartet is used, and the logic of identifying the various members of the quartet with both their order and their moral behaviour is examined. 32 The nearest Gildas comes to expressing this in summary form is in 29E. 33 The key reference are to the prophetica tuba in 230A and the parallel euangelica tuba in 440A; but Gildas draws on the image, itself found in the prophets, in 151C; 240T; 251T; 342C; and 417A. 28 29

24

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

being one of those chosen to have care of the Christian household as a deacon.34 Indeed, the comparability of situations is such that Gildas is not simply recalling the prophets as lessons to which is audience should attend, but sees himself as the prophet of his own time and people. By order Gildas knows he is a deacon, by vocation he believes himself to be a prophet: as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and many others were in Israel, and as the sancti uates were in the first churches,35 so Gildas is in Britain in his time. This prophetic sense of identity not only drives forward the book’s argument, but gives him the confidence that his analysis of the historical situation is the correct one, and gives him the authority to speak as he does to those who are his rulers and his seniors.36 Because he is a prophet, whose special mission comes from outside the normal structures,37 he can tell kings that they have been unfaithful and must do penance, and bishops that they have been false shepherds. But if prophets were sent to Israel, and he to Britain – for it is only the kings and bishops there whom he criticises for it is the land of that people that is invaded – then here is the third element of his identity. He is the deacon appointed prophet to his people: the British.38 The scope of his ministry is the same as the scope of his historical analysis, and this identifies the British as one of the gentes within the divine plan. This perception of his people as a distinct baptised nation marks an important break in the history of Latin theology. Earlier Latin theologians identified the oikoumene of the Roman Empire and the Church – we can see this in Augustine, those who came in his wake such as Orosius or Salvian and were also concerned with the state of civil society, or that earlier writer from the island of Britain: Patrick. Later writers such as Columbanus, Muirchú, or Bede (to mention only those from the insular region) would take the notion of distinct Christian gentes for granted. This focus on his own populus in the DEB, roughly half a century before Gregory of Tours wrote his Historia Francorum setting out the case for the Franks as a baptised gens, means that we can treat Gildas as the first medieval theologian. See the texts chosen from the ordination liturgy in ch. 3,4. See 162A. 36 This prophetic sense of identity is to be seen most clearly in 189T/E; 225T; 230A; 240T; 288C; 298A; 422T; and 423C. 37 Note the way he uses Hosea and Amos. 38 See ch. 5,1 below. 34 35

25

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

4.  The genre of DEB A first reading of DEB with its extensive chains of biblical quotations puts one in mind of similar works from Christian antiquity where the book’s argument advances by biblical quotation after biblical quotation. The most famous of these is Cyprian’s ‘testimoniorum libri tres’ [Ad Quirinum]39 and it has given the title to what is seen as a distinct genre of early writing: testimonia or ‘testimony’ literature largely through the work of J. Rendel Harris in the early twentieth century.40 However, even before the genre had a title, Williams had seen the DEB as belonging to that tradition and having Cyprian’s work or that of Tyconius41 as its intellectual parallels. However, when one looks at the testimonia literature in greater detail,42 it becomes clear that DEB does not belong to the genre. A book of biblical testimonies is not to be confused with a case for convicting a sinner that sets out in extenso the testimonia against the criminal. The disputed question about how early in Christian history we can find books of testimonies need not detain us here, suffice to say that the developed form we see in Cyprian is driven by didactic theological agenda.43 One had a structure of those elements within Christian faith which must be taught, expounded, and defended, and then one had the requisite texts, the primitive form of later ‘proof texts,’ set out conveniently: this selection can then be used as source book for further teaching, in preaching, and in writing. The book of testimonies is a didactic genre, and its aim is to pick those texts which are most convenient to each doctrinal point, thus saving the individual teacher the task of searching for suitable quotations in the scriptures, and in having the 39 See O’Loughlin (1996d); this book is also sometimes referred to simply as ‘de testimonies’; the book was written between 248 and 250. 40 Harris (1916) and (1920). 41 See O’Loughlin (1996c). 42 The most complete study is Albl (1999); and his clear formulation of what are the common elements in the genre makes clear that the DEB does not belong. 43 Cyprian arranged his testimonia in three books that roughly relate to (1) the time before the Christ – divided into 24 headings; (2) the time of Jesus – divided into 30 headings; and (3) the time of the Church – divided into 120 headings. Under each heading he provided a handful – usually between three and six – which are intended to show that either a Christian claim, for example about Jesus as the promised Christ, is attested ‘in the scriptures’ or that a demand of the Church regarding an aspect of Christian living is demanded by those same scriptures. The theological systematic comes first, and is seen as a reflection of the mind of God, and then come the demonstrative texts.

26

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

same quotations supporting the same points in any number of teachers building a scholastic tradition. When we now look at DEB we see that it does not fit with these expectations. For a start, it is more than testimonia: Gildas is as happy to use exempla when these are to his purpose. Second, he shows no evidence of any dependence on those books. And, third, he did, most probably, two trawls through the scriptures to find his own texts for one precise event. The most important difference comes, however, in purpose. Gildas does not want to produce a doctrinal textbook to be used by others, he wants to form, in the manner of a lawyer a case for prosecuting two definite groups at a single point in human history: the kings and bishops of his day in Britain. For Gildas, they now stand accused, and he will prove their guilt by citing the laws they have broken and the precedents regarding similar actions in the past from the authoritative source: the scriptures. To this end, as a good lawyer, he has done extensive research and found every text (testimonium) against them, and every precedent (exemplum) that shows their guilt. Earlier collections were not used, nor is there any suggestion in the DEB that Gildas thought he was producing a book for others to use in other situations: he had gone back to the sources, found all he wanted, and now had set it out: when those to whom he has been appointed as a prophet recognise their guilt and convert, his task – and that of his book – is finished. While there will always be a need to compare the biblical texts found in the DEB with those other great quarries of quotations: books of testimonia; we should be clear that the DEB does not belong to the genre and making formal comparisons is therefore without a base. Rather we should take note of Gildas’s rhetorical skills and his familiarity with the arts of persuasion, and think of his book as a casus against a sinful nation in the moment when it is suffering punishment as a result of its sins.44

There is an intriguing similarity between the DEB and the Patrick’s letter to the soldiers of Coroticus. In that letter Patrick says he wants to go through the whole law and find the ‘testimonies’ that would convict them of their crimes (per totam legem carpere testimonia de tali cupiditate) (Epistola militibus Corotici 9). However, for us here the point is that just as Patrick’s letter would not be placed in the category of testimonia, neither should Gildas’s work. 44

27

Gildas, imagination, and the scriptures

5. Conclusion Gildas became for later insular writers a ‘father of the church’: Gildas sapiens.45 When we read the DEB as a single sweeping argument, and note how its fundamental vision of redemption dovetails with that of the penitentials and fits with the self-image of insular Christians, it is easy to see how Gildas’s later reputation was established. He may not have been a profound theologian, but his energy and industry in working with the scriptures produced a book which was seen as the work of a master; and which, for us, is a significant monument to how the scriptures were perceived, used, and interpreted in the Latin west in the sixth century.

See Sharpe (1984).

45

28

Chapter 2 The Biblical Text used by Gildas

‘… it is time to make an attempt to assess the evidence in a form that corresponds with our present more advanced state of knowledge about the history of the Bible in Latin.’ 

Burkitt (1934), 206.

1.  The problem and the status quaestionis One of the distinctive features of the Latin churches from the late fourth century onwards was an awareness that when they read the scriptures, and in particular the Old Testament, they not only did so in translation, but that particular translations carried within them particular readings which could be significant for understanding and exegesis in many ways.1 One figure stands out in this developing awareness: Jerome (c.345-420) whose work to create a new and, in his terms, more accurate Latin translation – which we refer to as ‘the Vulgate’2 – would affect all subsequent theological writing in Latin because eventually the Vulgate displaced the earlier translations – referred to collectively as ‘the Vetus Latina’ – to become the west’s bible. Following from this, information on how writers in the period after Jerome, roughly between 400 and 800, used or did not use the Vulgate gives us a view of where they stand 1 This awareness can be seen in the discussion of versions by Augustine in De doctrina Christiana 2,15,22 (see Burkitt (1910)) written towards the end of the fourth century. On the general position on versions, see Metzger (1977), 285-362. 2 See Sutcliffe (1948).

29

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

within the Latin tradition, and it has been a scholarly desideratum since the work of the Maurist scholar Pierre Sabatier (1682-1742). Clearly, the closer a writer is to the time of Jerome, especially if that writer makes extensive use of biblical quotations, the more interesting is the matter of the biblical version/s used. Consequently a work such as the DEB is of the greatest interest in this quest – and so it has been a consistently expressed interest in studies of Gildas since the nineteenth century. Such knowledge is a key part of the larger picture of what was happening in the schools of the Latin west in that relatively dark period after Augustine – and is all the more interesting if that writer is one such as Gildas in one of the outlying provinces: ‘la question de savoir quel type de texte biblique utilisait Gildas a son importance.’3 Moreover, because of Reformation disputes over the authority of the Vulgate, in the past studies of its adoption often took on a keenness that is normally reserved for doctrinal issues, and its use was sometimes imagined in terms of the promulgation of an ‘authorized version’ or ‘editio typica’ – and, as such, there was a hint that anyone who did not adopt it was in some way ‘making a statement.’ Even those who realised that the manner in which texts could be given ‘authoritative’ status by a judicial fiat (and, thereby, displace older texts) belonged both to the age of print and far more centralised church government, often still assumed that once the Vulgate was available its authority ensured that from that time onwards the older versions were put aside4 – and any subsequent use must have stemmed from a small number of sources: common texts which had established themselves in the common memory, biblical quotations taken from intermediate sources, simple blunders, or some very deliberate theological decision.5 In any case, knowing the relationship between an early medieval author and the Vulgate was deemed to be a most valuable insight into the author’s religious situation and world. And in the case of Gildas, it is clear that Hadden and Stubbs shared this view of the denominational significance of the Vulgate / Vetus Latina divide. Hence the importance of discussing the question of Gildas’s use (alongside that of other insular authors) of different versions in the Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland in 1869.6 This same concern was also present in the work 5 6 3 4

Kerlouégan (1987), 105. This assumption underlies Burkitt (1934). See O’Loughlin (1995a) where such liberate retention of the VL is examined. Hadden and Stubbs (1869), 181-5.

30

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

of Williams, and that he made a thorough study of the matter is evident from his running notes in his edition7 and his detailed comments in his study of the early British church.8 By contrast, Mommsen – with far less interest in ecclesiology – by-passed the issue as a curiosity.9 In the wake of these early discussions the topic was picked up again Burkitt in 1934, who dominated the discussion for most of the twentieth century, and, again, by Grosjean in 1957. Both noted that there had been many developments in our knowledge of both the pre-Vulgate versions and of the dissemination of the Vulgate, yet each saw their own work as building on their respective predecessors, and, in effect, refining the position that Gildas made extensive use of the Vulgate. This use of the Vulgate was implicitly seen as a decision by Gildas to favour of the better translation. Then, by implication, Gildas’s use the Vetus Latina was a pointed to the not-availability of the Vulgate; while the fact that there are some books where his text shows contact with both versions pointed to his problems in getting access to reliable texts.10 This broad consensus can be seen in the book-length work of O’Sullivan11 and in many articles devoted to Gildas. This tradition of scholarship that began with Hadden and Stubbs came to a new peak of precision in the work of François Kerlouégan who presented the results of scholarship up to his time in his survey of Gildas’s bible which he saw as a special sub-set of the study of Gildas’s library.12 However, not only has a century passed since the last complete study of the citations by Williams, but both the parameters of the investigation and its significance have been transformed. What Burkitt could refer to in 1934 as ‘advances’ in the study of the Vetus Latina could today, due to the work of the Vetus Latina Institut in Beuron, be more accurately characterised by the term ‘revolution.’13 By virtue of the way they And see the extended notes on the topic on 88-96; 129-39; and 242-45. Williams (1912). 9 Mommsen, 6-7. 10 Mention should also be made of the word of Grey ((1943) and (1952)) which, while not devoted to the text of Gildas, should be seen as part of the endeavour to establish the extent of the survival of the VL as part of the ‘distinctive’ Christianity of the Celtic-speaking lands. 11 O’Sullivan (1978), 53-9. 12 Kerlouégan (1987), 70-142 [on the library of Gildas] and 100-112 [on the biblical text]. 13 North (1995) is the most convenient introduction; but see also Burton (2000), 3-13; and Parker (2008), 57-63 and 213-4. 7 8

31

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

assembled their materials upon which to decide the text of the Vetus Latina versions – on filing cards in the laboratory in Beuron (now available electronically) and in the apparatus to their printed editions – they have enabled the comparison of any one Latin writer’s use of the scriptures with every other extant use of that verse: thus allowing a study of that writer’s text with a depth, and a degree of comparison, that could not even be dreamt of before their work was nearing completion. Despite the enormous range of reading in the Latin fathers that can be seen in work of Williams and Burkitt, and their methodical habits of noting comparisons, they could not compete with the massive volume of comparative material assembled by Beuron. While some of this work was used by Kerlouégan,14 a complete study comparing each biblical use by Gildas with the data assembled by Beuron has not been attempted until this present work. So, whatever its faults, I hope it will mark a new start in that it looks at the evidence afresh and seeks to come to its conclusions on the basis of what had been done by the Institut in Beuron not using a series of sample comparisons (those set out by Burkitt are cited repeatedly in the literature), but the whole extent of the evidence. Some other developments should also be noted. Older studies seem to have imagined that the replacement of the Vetus Latina versions by the Vulgate could be viewed in a neat, cut and dried, way akin to that by which the Authorised Version of the bible replaced earlier translations or the Missal of Pius V supplanted a variety of older liturgical books. We see this attitude in this, albeit very sympathetic, vignette in Williams: The two books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, in the continuous quotations, copied, no doubt, by the writer with a codex before him, are from the Vulgate version. … but there seems to be on the whole, … a clear indication that Gildas, at that time of life when words of Scripture impress themselves forever upon the memory, knew the Old Latin version, and the Old Latin only.15

Implicit is that in Gildas’s youth there was one, and only one, version in use: the Vetus Latina; then the Vulgate arrived, and therefore this became the text chosen by scholars when working with a book – ‘ … with a codex before him … ’ – but memory had already settled on the earlier forms encountered in the impressionable youthful mind, and to this 14 Kerlouégan (1987), 107 which notes the work of Beuron and, in particular, the work of Thiele on 1 Peter (Thiele (1956-69)). 15 Williams, 92 (this is also cited by O’Sullivan (1978), 58).

32

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

familiar text the memory returned unconsciously! So the Vetus Latina survived, a lingering presence from the time before the Vulgate. But the adoption of the Vulgate was a far more complex and piecemeal process than such simple models supposed. Indeed, we can only generate models when we have a sufficient range of modern studies of the versions used by a range of authors. Few writers – Jerome being the most notable – in the period before the twelfth century, and the rise of the written text as the privileged locus of knowledge,16 related to texts with what we consider ‘accuracy.’ One has only to look at any well-attested verse in the VLD to see that a writer such as Augustine, who might make use of that verse dozens of times in his lifetime, will have quoted it in many forms even within the same work. Decisions as to versions used, therefore, are rarely clear-cut, and usually based on the balance of the evidence. Similarly, ‘neat’ explanations such as that the Vulgate arrived during Gildas’s lifetime, or that it was available in one place but not another, have to be approached with caution. These explanations assume an attitude to the Vulgate, its authority, and an attitude to the authority of particular texts which is anachronous. We may think of the situation of Gildas vis-à-vis the biblical versions as ‘plus complexe’17 or even downright messy, but we have no basis for thinking that Gildas had any such thoughts about the matter. So, what does a study of the citations against the background of the work of Beuron reveal?

2.  The situation book by book Genesis18 Since there is no quotation of Genesis we are must try to decide on the version Gildas used on the basis of exempla and allusions. However, there is no case among those where we can glimpse the underlying scriptural text where the evidence points to any specific versions. These are the instances where the evidence is ambiguous: 15:16 / 73A; 5:27 / 103A; 49:9 / 126A; 19:1-29 / 315E; 4:4 / 318E; 5:24 / 320E; 6:13-8:1 / 324E;

See Illich (1993), especially 93-114. Kerlouégan (1987), 106. 18 The detailed evidence is laid out under each biblical heading in the Part 2, the biblical database, of this book. 16 17

33

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

14:1-24 / 325E; 22:1-18 / 326E; and 50:15-21 / 329E. We, consequently, do not know which version was used. Exodus The evidence as to the version Gildas used is, in effect, a single citation: 32:31-2 /331C – and this is far closer to the Vetus Latina than to the Vulgate. On this basis we can conclude that he used a Vetus Latina version. Leviticus There is only one definite reference to Leviticus, but it takes the form of an exemplum (10:1-2 / 4E); and the details referred to by Gildas could have been obtained from any Latin version. Numbers Numbers is only used by Gildas as a source of exempla – and on only one occasion is there material significant for this issue: 22:21-33 / 37E. It seems probable that the Vulgate form of the story of Balaam’s ass is that which Gildas knew. Deuteronomy On two occasions we have positive evidence for the use of the Vulgate by Gildas: 32:39 / 105C and 32:28-32 / 148C. Against this we have less convincing evidence for the presence of the Vetus Latina (7:6 / 29E; 32:32 / 92C and 124A), but taken together these instances do not point to a second version being used. Joshua The evidence turns on word-choices in two exempla (7:21 / 6E and 9:320 / 7E) which resemble the Vulgate and are markedly different from the Vetus Latina. So on this, albeit meagre, basis we can assert that Gildas used the Vulgate. Judges All of the references to this book take the form of exempla, however, on one occasion (6:25-6 / 341E) the description points to a story having been inspired by the Vetus Latina rather than the Vulgate. So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can assert that Gildas’s text was Vetus Latina.

34

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

Ruth No evidence available. 1 Samuel = I Regum The evidence points to two different texts in use by Gildas. The virtual catena of exempla from 166-172 all point toward (e.g. 3:20 / 166A) or use (e.g. 15:22-3 / 171T and 173C) the Vulgate, as does 12:2-4 / 349T. On the other hand, 2:30 / 284T and 2:27-36 / 384T exhibit what is definitely a Vetus Latina text; however, this may be due to an intermediate source. Ockham’s Razor suggests that Gildas’s own text is the Vulgate, and the departures are due to contact with an intermediate author. 2 Samuel = II Regum Of the three uses of this book, on two occasions (21:1-9 / 7E and 14:14 / 228A) it is impossible to determine which version Gildas used; however, on the other occasion (24:12-7 / 177T/E) Gildas uses a text that is distinctly Vulgate. We can infer from that that his version of this book was the Vulgate. 1 Kings = III Regum The slender evidence base for this book presents evidence for the use of both Vetus Latina (16:2-4 / 180TE) and Vulgate (see 11:6 and 11 / 179T; and 13:21-4 / 385T) versions; while 21:19 / 181TE and 22:19-23 / 183T are instances where the versions coincide. Two citations side-by-side, as is the case with 179T and 180TE, seem to imply equal ease of access to both versions (see 180TE). 2 Kings = IV Regum Most of the uses of this book are valueless in terms of deciding with which version Gildas was familiar. However, two uses suggest a text other than the Vulgate. The first is 6:15-7 / 354E which has a detail at variance with the Vulgate; but which is otherwise not attested and so may be a slip of memory on Gildas’s part, of a complex scene. The second case is that of 2:12 / 189TE where we have a variant preserved in the tradition of DEB which points to a Vetus Latina influence later harmonized with the Vulgate. Since such an influence is unlikely to be subsequent to the text leaving Gildas’s hands, we can conclude that this was the original form. On this slender base of evidence we can state that Gildas’s version of this book was the Vetus Latina.

35

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

1 Chronicles No evidence available. 2 Chronicles On three occasions Gildas uses a version that is certainly Vetus Latina (15:1-2 / 185TE; 18-19:2 / 186TE; 24 / 190T); in the case of 21 / 189TE we do not have any way of determining the version he was using; and on no occasion is there any hint of the presence of the Vulgate. Ezra Gildas used Ezra (5:1 / 253A) inadvertently when introducing the prophet Zechariah, but this use could depend on either the Vulgate or the Vetus Latina; consequently we cannot decide which version he had. Nehemiah In only one place in the DEB does Gildas use a phrase found only in Nehemiah (9:16-7 / 136A) – all the other references are more distant allusions – and this case does allow us to observe which text he was using. 4 Esdras A discussion of this book’s citations in DEB (15:21-7 / 264T and 16:3-12 / 265T) is irrelevant to this study of biblical versions because Jerome did not include them in his canon. Tobit No evidence available. Judith No evidence available. Esther No evidence available. Job The text of Job is the Vetus Latina, untouched by either of the revisions of Jerome – see the note preceding 257T in the database. This Vetus Latina text is seen in each of the quotations in the catena running from 257T to 262T, and is even supported by 260A.

36

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

Psalms The psalter presents three difficulties in any study such as this: first, the usual distinction between the Vulgate and the versions that preceded it does not really apply as the version ‘iuxta LXX’ is related to the Vetus Latina in a most complex way; and, second, the place of the psalms in the liturgy – recited de facto from memory – means that echoes from the psalter abound in any theologian’s writings; while the combination of these two factors has also to be taken into account in assessing psalm texts embedded within other texts. Third, the psalter is not a single book like Genesis, Sirach, or John’s gospel, but the collective name for approximately one hundred and fifty different texts, so it is possible that on one occasion a writer took his quotation of a particular psalm from biblical codex or a codex designed as a psalter, and on another occasion from a liturgical book, or a quotation from a psalm from a commentary; hence any conclusion with regard to ‘the psalms’ (understood collectively) must be seen as far more tentative than in the case of biblical books which were understood then to have been written by a ‘single’ author. On the one hand, there is sufficient evidence to support the contention that Gildas’s primary psalter was the Iuxta LXX (73:7 / 77T; 43:12 / 82C; 33:9 / 98C; 54:22 / 127C; 18:5 / 343C; and 21:7 / 378C – while 25:5 / 319C supports this). However, there are also citations which display a range of departures from the Iuxta LXX: Williams thought he found the influence of the Vetus Latina in 78:1 / 78T and 105:28-31 / 334C, but in these cases (and we can add 33:15-8 / 114C) we have departures from the Iuxta LXX but these appear to be so unique to Gildas as to suggest that he is paraphrasing rather quoting his text exactly. That said, we do have a Vetus Latina form in 25:5 / 499T, and probably the influence of the Iuxta Hebr. in 106:40 / 66C. Taken together this points to a situation where his own text is the Iuxta LXX, but he is sufficiently familiar with other versions of particular psalms for this knowledge to have a serious effect on his work. Three of Gildas’s uses of the psalter (2:13 / 108C; 96:10 / 188C; and 127:5 / 147C) do not help us resolve the question of version one way or the other. Proverbs In all ten citations from this book the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate differ significantly, and in each case it is clear that Gildas is following the Vetus Latina (69C; 70C; 141C; 142C; 152C; 154C; 155C (twice); 187C; and 540C).

37

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

Qoheleth = Ecclesiastes There is not enough material relevant to forming a judgement. Song of Solomon There is not enough material relevant to forming a judgement. Wisdom of Solomon There is a widely held belief that the Vulgate and the Vetus Latina are identical in the case of this book (‘Sapientia Salomonis’), however, a glance at Thiele (1977) can show that this is not the case. That said, it is often very difficult to distinguish between the versions; and Gildas is not an exception to this difficulty. Three of his citations (1:3 / 279T; 1:5 / 280T; and 1:7 / 282T) are identical with both Vetus Latina and Vulgate. Three more are cases where, the texts closely resembling one another, it appears that Gildas’s text leans towards the Vetus Latina (1:1 / 277T; 1:2 / 278T; and 6:2-11 / 285T). Therefore the decision turns on just one citation: 5:15-7 / 283T. There, in Wis 15:15, as quoted by Gildas, we have a reading that is unique to the Vulgate. So we can conclude that Gildas had a Vulgate version of this book, but he had also access to other forms of the text. Sirach It is sometimes asserted that Sirach (‘Ecclesiasticus’) was ‘accepted into the Vulgate keeping the Old Latin form’ with the consequence that the question of which version an author used is then passed over. While it is true that there are parts of this book where there is only one form of the text, then treated as the equivalent of the Vulgate (e.g. 8:14-19), for most of the book there are extant Vetus Latina forms: hence the work of Thiele (1987). In Gildas’s use of this book there is no positive evidence for his use of, or access to, the Vetus Latina; there are five instances (41:11-3 / 137Cbis; 21:1 / 139C; 22:8-9 / 143C; 4:27-8 / 153C; and 21:2-3 / 286C) where he uses the Vulgate where it is distinct from the Vetus Latina; and three instances (5:8-9 / 140C; 17:28 / 287C; and 10:9 / 381C) where, for a variety of reasons, we have no basis for making a judgement between versions. Thus we can conclude that Gildas had a Vulgate version of Sirach. Isaiah The evidence of the two catenae (192T to 213T; and 386T to 392T) from this prophet allows us to conclude with certainty that the text used by

38

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

Gildas was the Vulgate. This is supported by the version used at 22:12-3 / 72T; 5:20 / 159C; 14:13-4 / 375C; and by 106A. However, the question then arises as to whether the other uses constitute evidence indicating the use of another, Vetus Latina, version? Five of the remaining cases (1:18-20 / 200T; 1:23-4 and 28 / 202T; 5:11-4 / 205T; 59:14-5 / 213T; and 58:1 / 342C) show a Vulgate text with Vetus Latina interference, and the first four of these fall within a catena. This allows us to suppose that either (a) the codex used by Gildas had been contaminated with Vetus Latina readings, or (b) some other form of contact affected him as he copied the biblical text. This leaves us with nine other citations. Of these four are valueless as indicators of which version was used: 52:2 / 96C; 33:1 / 129C; 37:25 / 376C; and 29:13 / 460C. While 19:11 / 74C; 6:6-7 / 358A; 50:4 / 422T; and 48:22 / 184A show Gildas using texts which are not clearly either version but departures from the Vulgate such that the variations are reminiscent of Vetus Latina readings. This suggests that Gildas was personally familiar with the Vetus Latina text and that when he quoted from memory he recalled that text’s forms. This would argue in favour of option (b): that even when Gildas ‘copied’ a text an already familiar wording affected what was written.19 This leaves just one use of Isaiah which is certainly Vetus Latina, 1:4-6 / 64T, but in this case the intermediate source appears to be Lucifer of Cagliari. In conclusion, we have only evidence for the actual use by Gildas of a Vulgate codex, but considerable evidence for the availability of the Vetus Latina to Gildas. Jeremiah Jeremiah is one of Gildas’s main sources with three catenae of testimonia (215T to 225T; then 231T to 237T; and lastly 395T to 408T), and despite minor variations, these catenae represent a Vulgate text. This is supported by 2:19 / 123C; and 9:1 / 137C. However, the picture can appear more complicated than this because, with minor variations present, given the number of quotations it can appear that Gildas was using a ‘mixed’ text. Of the remaining quotations, these have no value in the determining the issue: 23:9 / 124A; 4:14 / 144C; 32:39 / 147C; 6:14 / 184A; 18:11-5 / 235T; 22:3-5 / 236T; 22:24-5 / 237T; 9:5 / 313C; 48:10 / 328C; and 23:11-20 / 408T. This leaves us with However, we need not adopt the abeunt studia in mores model suggested by Williams, and quoted above. 19

39

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

four uses where there appears to be evidence of the Vetus Latina: 6:10 / 398T; 14:13-6 / 406T (note that these two are part of a catena which is otherwise solidly Vulgate) ; 18:7 / 145C; and 18:8 / 146C (note that these adjoining verses were treated as a couplet in the tradition). But in these four cases, the text appears to be the Vulgate and the Vetus Latina variants appear as (a) ‘contamination’ within a Vulgate codex or (b) from the memory of one or two verses in the form in which other writers had cited them – and this is the most likely explanation: taken together they do not amount to a counter-indicator to Gildas’s text being the Vulgate. Lamentations Four of Gildas’s uses of this book indicate clearly that he was using the Vetus Latina (1:1 / 10C; 3:40-1 / 291C; 4:1 / 11C; and 4:2 and 5 / 12C); while one use (4:7 / 13C) has no value in determining the version used. Baruch No evidence available. Ezekiel The two catenae of testimonia (269T to 273T; and 434T to 439T) indicate that Gildas was using a Vetus Latina text. The other citations (33:11 / 95C and 544E) support this judgement, but are of less probative force. Daniel No evidence available. Hosea Although there are not many uses of this prophet, the testimonia all point to the Vetus Latina (5:1-2 / 412T; 8:1-4 / 240T; and 8:4 / 534T); while 5:4 / 138A does not provide evidence affecting the decision. Joel Although there are not many uses of this prophet, the testimonia all point to the Vetus Latina (1:5 / 409T; 1:9-12 / 409T; and 2:17 / 411T); while 2:12 / 107A does not provide evidence affecting the decision. Amos The evidence points overwhelmingly to the use of the Vetus Latina (see the catena of testimonia from 241T to 249; supported by 413T and 415T). Other uses do not challenge this result (244A and 410A).

40

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

Obadiah No evidence available. Jonah The uses of Jonah do not provide us with a basis for deciding which text Gildas used. Micah Gildas’s use of Micah presents a complex picture. Two quotations are explicitly Vetus Latina (6:9-12 / 250T and 7:1-2 / 290C); and two point towards the Vetus Latina (3:1-12 / 418T and 7:1-3 / 419T). However, 3:8 / 151C shows several signs of contact with the Vulgate, and suggests that (when viewed in conjunction with 418T) that Gildas’s text was affected by the Vulgate. The other uses (4:1 / 452A and 7:1 / 80A) do not help us to clarify the situation. Nahum No evidence available. Habakkuk Both testimonia point towards a Vetus Latina text: 1:2-4 / 239T and 2:12-3 / 238T; and this would be supported by the possible allusion to 1:8 / 315A. Zephaniah Four of the uses of this prophet point towards a Vetus Latina text: 1:142:2 / 251T; 3:1-2 / 421T; 3:3 / 315A; and 3:3-5 / 422T; while 1:4 / 420A does not affect this conclusion. Haggai The one significant use, 2:22-3 / 252T, points towards a Vetus Latina text; while Gildas’s probable use of 2:12 / 252T does not affect this conclusion. Zechariah All five testimonia exhibit a distinctly Vetus Latina text: 1:3-4 / 254T; 5:2-4 / 255T; 7:9-12 / 424T; 10:2-3 / 425T; and 11:3-6 / 426T. The one allusion, 1:1 / 253A, does not affect this conclusion.

41

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

Malachi The evidence we have for Malachi presents a complex scene: side-by-side we have testimonia that are distinctly Vetus Latina or Vulgate, and in a couple of places a mixture of the two. 1:6-9 / 427T: distinctly Vetus Latina. 1:13-2:3 / 428T: distinctly Vulgate. 2:5-7 / 430T: distinctly Vulgate. 2:2-10 / 431T: distinctly Vulgate. 3:1-3 / 432T: a mixed text. 3:13-5 / 433T: distinctly Vulgate. 4:1 256T: a mixed text. The evidence points to Gildas drawing his materials from two codices one of which contained the Vetus Latina and the other the Vulgate. 20 1 Maccabees No evidence available. 2 Maccabees No evidence available. Matthew There is no case of a quotation from this gospel, where the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate differ, where the variation found in Gildas does not point towards a Vetus Latina version being used by him. The cases where the quotations have no significance for the issue of which version Gildas used are: 8:11 / 19C; 19:6 / 90T; 13:13-5 / 160C; 23:4 / 274C; 5:13 / 448T; 5:14-5 / 449T; 5:16 / 451T; 7:21 / 459T; 15:7-8 / 460C; 10:28 / 466T; 24:49-51 / 471T; 6:2 / 528T; 16:16 / 530T; 16:18 / 532T; 7:26 / 533T; and 16:19 / 537T. While in these instances the text of the DEB points to the use the Vetus Latina: 5:16 / 453T; 5:19 / 454T; 7:3-4 / 456T; 7:6 / 457T; 7:1-2 / 455T; 7:15-7 / 458T; 7:23 / 538T and 20C; 7:27 / 536T; 8:12 / 16C; 10:16 / 461T; 11:28 / 94C; 11:28-9 / 149C; 15:14 / 467T; 15:24 / 15C; 15:26 / 17C; 16:17 / 530T; 16:18 / 535T; 16:19 / 539T; 23:2-3 / 468T; 23:13 / 469T and 18C; 24:45 / 442C; 25:10-2 / 22C; and 25:31-46 / 538T.

The elegantly simple solution proposed by Burkitt (1934)208-9 that a VL codex of the minor prophets had lost some leaves at the end, and these had been replaced by text (after Mal 1:10) copied from a Vg codex will not solve the problem of 432T and 256T. 20

42

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

Mark The only possible evidence would be 16:16 / 23C, but at this point the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate are identical. We therefore have no evidence as to which version of this gospel Gildas used. Luke The only possible evidence would be 23:29 / 21C, but at this point the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate are identical. We therefore have no evidence as to which version of this gospel Gildas used. John Of the three citations of John, none is able to throw light on his version. In the case of 10:15 / 51C and 5:30 / 379C we have the situation that the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate are identical in these verses; while 6:38 / 339C Gildas uses a stock form of the verse – familiar from his patristic authorities but which is different to the form found in texts of the gospel. Acts of the Apostles On the three occasions when there is a difference between the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate, Gildas’s text is noticeable closer to the Vetus Latina: 1:15-6 / 513T; 1:18 / 514T; and 20:26-7 / 542C. The other four quotations do not provide any evidence pointing to a particular version: 4:32 / 27C; 5:9 / 28C; 5:29 / 382C; and 8:20 / 308C. Romans On the basis of five citations where the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate differ we can be certain that Gildas used a Vetus Latina text of this letter (1:21-2 / 475T; 1:28-32 / 477T; 1:32 / 478T; 2:5-6 / 479T; and 13:12-4 / 484T). The other seven quotations have no evidential value as to which version was used (1:25-6 / 476T; 2:11-3 / 480T; 6:1-2 / 482T; 6:13 / 134C; 8:35 / 483T; 9:3 / 288C; and 11:3 / 352T). 1 Corinthians Only two of the citations from this letter can help decide which version was in use by Gildas: 3:10-7 / 485T, and 5:8-11 / 488T. Both of these exhibit a Vetus Latina text. The other uses (3:18-9 / 486T; 5:1 / 61C; 5:5-7 / 487T; 10:33 / 340C; and 11:1 / 474T) do not, for a variety of reasons outlined in the database, provide any indication as to which version was used.

43

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

2 Corinthians Only three of the uses of this letter have a bearing on the version being used: 4:1-2 / 489T; 4:7 / 344C; and 11:13-5 / 490T. Of these, the two testimonia exhibit a distinctly Vetus Latina text, while the citation could be a variation on the Vulgate or on the Vetus Latina. The balance of probability suggests that Gildas used only a Vetus Latina text. Galatians On two occasions Gildas uses stock phrases found in this letter (4:25-6 / 547A; 4:26 / 472A) but makes no other use of it; consequently we do not have evidence for any particular biblical text. Ephesians Gildas only cites this letter on two occasions (4:17-9 / 491T; and 5:17-8 / 492T) but in each case there is definite evidence that he was using a Vetus Latina text. Philippians On the one occasion when Gildas makes use of this letter (1:8 / 292C) what we find is a free paraphrase that is unlike any form of the verse in either the Vulgate or the Vetus Latina. Therefore, despite Williams’s confidence that Gildas had a Vetus Latina text, we must conclude that there is no evidence for any particular biblical text. Nor do any of the possible allusions help us towards a decision. Colossians Gildas quotes Colossians on three occasions, but in no case is there unambiguous evidence of a particular version. In one 3:5-6 / 496T we have a text that manifests symptoms specific to the Vetus Latina; while in 3:5 / 347C we have a quotation that shows a definite link to the Vulgate. The third quotation, 3:19 / 91T, looks like the Vetus Latina but could equally well be a Vulgate variant reading. The evidence points to Gildas’s familiarity with two different versions. 1 Thessalonians The two testimonia from this letter (2:5-8 / 493T; 4:2-8 / 495T) each exhibit a text that cannot be identified as either Vulgate or Vetus Latina: but which show a familiarity with both. The other allusions add nothing to the matter.

44

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

2 Thessalonians None of the possible allusions provide evidence for any particular biblical text. 1 Timothy The evidence for Gildas’s text of this book is complex. On the one hand three uses (6:3-5 / 503T; 3:1-5 / 526T; and 3:8-10 / 527T) point to a distinctly Vetus Latina text; while on the other hand (6:17-9 / 120C) points to a Vulgate text, albeit one with Vetus Latina influence. The other uses of this letter (1:15 / 525T; 2:4 / 48C; and 3:2 / 304A) do not provide any evidence either way. So Gildas was familiar with both versions. 2 Timothy Gildas’s use of 3:1-5 / 498T; 3:7-9 / 500T; and 2:3-5 / 502T all point to the Vetus Latina. None of the other allusions to this book challenge that conclusion. Titus Gildas’s use of 2:7-10 / 501T points to the Vetus Latina; while his use of Tit 1:12 / 312C is inconclusive. Philemon No evidence available. Hebrews Gildas only quotes this book, explicitly on one occasion (11:37-8 / 362T) and there his text reflects the Vetus Latina rather than the Vulgate. On two other occasions when his text does not reflect the Vulgate (2:7 / 36A and 10:28-9 / 163C) the evidence is not decisive. James None of the possible allusions provide evidence for any particular biblical text. 1 Peter There are seven testimonia (1:3-5 / 505T; 1:13 / 506T; 1:14-5 / 507T; 1:223 / 508T; 2:1-3 / 509T; 2:9 / 512T; and 2:11 / 508T) in the DEB all of which are distinctly Vetus Latina. There is no evidence in other uses of this book to the use of the Vulgate.

45

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

2 Peter Gildas makes several allusions to passages in this book (e.g. 2:7 / 325E) but only one of these offers evidence for a particular version. This is found in his use of 2:4 / 85A which is a distinctly Vulgate reading. This is confirmed by Gildas’s use of the same image in 135A, 156A and 314A. 1 John While on several occasions Gildas uses language and phrases that echo this book, there is no citation of it and the allusions are so distant as to be useless in determining which version or versions he used. 2 John No evidence available. 3 John No evidence available. Jude No evidence available. Apocalypse of John Gildas, on many occasions, makes allusive use of this book or uses images from it to elaborate other descriptions; but he does not cite it, nor are any of his allusions such that one of them might indicate which biblical text he used. As we noted in the previous chapter, Gildas exhibits no interest in any of the apocalyptic texts in the scriptures.

3.  A synopsis of results VL without evidence of Vg -VLExodus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges

Evidence for familiarity with more that one version

•

Vg without evidence of VL -Vg-

• • •

•

46

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

VL without evidence of Vg -VL1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 2 Chronicles 4 Esdras Job Psalms Proverbs Wisdom Sirach Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Hosea Joel Amos Micah Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Matthew Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Ephesians Colossians 1 Thes 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Hebrews 1 Peter 2 Peter

Evidence for familiarity with more that one version

Vg without evidence of VL -Vg• •

• • • Although part of Gildas’s canon, irrelevant here. • • • (Iuxta LXX) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

47

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

Books for which no evidence Genesis, Leviticus, Ruth, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Qoheleth, Song, Baruch, Daniel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Mark, Luke, John, Galatians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, James, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Apocalypse

4. Conclusions The result of this examination might seem, at first sight to be little more than a restatement of the situation – albeit one where the decision for or against particular books is different – first proposed by Hadden and Stubbs: Gildas used both the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate, and there was also a third, default, category, mixed or contaminated texts which do not neatly fit either label – and for which some justifying explanation is then required. Indeed, if one sees the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate as two distinct ‘well formed formulae’ then, even on the limited evidencebase used by Burkitt, such a conclusion is inevitable. Moreover, in order to provide – from the necessity of human communication – a synopsis such as that just given, one must set up a grid with lines and each marker dot must fall in one square or another! The process by which pre-modern authors cited the scriptures is, however, a far more complex matter than has been assumed in studies of Gildas. It is common to note his accuracy – ‘he had a codex before him’ – and this is seen as the expression of a quality in Gildas that is itself worthy of praise: this is, after all what we expect in our own use of quotations, and in the case of the scriptures it is further praised in that it is seen as showing a respect for the detail of the sacred text – such as is taken for granted in biblical studies today. However, not only did writers in the past not meet this standard, but its causes are far more deeply seated within the way we remember and interact with texts than it has become customary to note as ‘Errors of the Mind’ or ‘Harmonistic Corruptions’ in introductions to textual criticism.21 As studies of the role of memory in the transmission of biblical narratives have shown, 22 what is Metzger (1968), 192-3 and 197-8. This field where the study of biblical narrative touches on that of orality studies has been explored in a number of works by Alan Kirk: see Kirk (2005); Kirk (2007); Kirk (2010); Kirk (2011); and Kelber (2005). 21

22

48

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

remembered is not akin to some kind of ‘tape’ being replayed, but rather a story that links together the elements of a story, a scene, or even a verse. Harmonization, word substitution, silent conflation, and unwitting harmonization may be bane of the text-critic’s task – and it is from that background that most scholars approach biblical citations in a work such a DEB – and may be seen as ‘errors’ to be explained, or excused, but such shifts in memory are the normal life of the tradition. It is a deliberate act of one who valued literal repetition that such human tendencies are seen as ‘defects.’ When we read Gildas without our modern values on ‘reproduction’ we see that he was willing to paraphrase, to substitute words, and to shorten in his quotations and yet be sure that he is citing his authorities – and these changes, which we are all too ready to see as slips or blunders, do not need to proceed from the presence of other texts, versions, or ‘interference’ though there are undoubtedly many times when we can explain the forms he presents to us in such terms. From this flows perhaps the most important lesson we can take from a study of Gildas such as this: we are apt to see a textual mess at times, to posit ‘mixed texts’ for the presence of one or two words, or to blame memory for ‘problems’; but, in fact, these ‘blunders’ and ‘slips’ may be a key to his fundamental attitude towards the scriptures. The books were read and re-read,23 no doubt aloud, 24 by Gildas and this reading formed his overall position as he notes the passages and scenes that were for him the analysis of the problems of his church. Already in this process, the text was mutating from being fixed marks in a codex to being a text living within his mind, already mutating, as is the way with texts in the mind. Words change, scenes focus on particular points, phrases take on heightened significance and link with others as the larger arguments against rulers and clergy take shape. In this reading stage he certainly was hearing the words from codices that we can place in two distinct groups: Vetus Latina and Vulgate – and any one of them may have already been influenced by a copyist who ‘contaminated’ the text of one with the other. But in addition to this deliberate study of the scriptures, Gildas was exposed to the scriptures in many other ways. First and foremost, as a deacon, he was exposed to them, day by day, in the liturgy. The liturgy conveys the meaning of the scriptures within a larger frame 23 Religious texts, sacred narratives do not function in the same way as reading within modern research: by their nature they call for the repetition of their content – institutionalised in the case of Christianity by the role of lectionaries in the liturgy; see Smith (2001). 24 See Achtemeier (1990).

49

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

of remembering such that texts heard are no longer simply passages from their respective books, but part of the liturgical event at which they are heard. The penitential texts that Gildas combines so frequently are far clearer in their message when experienced in the context of the endeavour of penitence – where they become part of a pattern of memory and behaviour – than when read as elements within the works of their biblical authors. Again, in the liturgy older forms and phrases survived the arrival of the Vulgate – the reciting text of the Pater noster is not the lone case of the Vulgate failing to affect the liturgy! – and this liturgical experience moulded and remoulded both Gildas’s thinking and his memory of his texts as he composed the DEB. Alongside this liturgical experience was Gildas’s encounter with other Christian writers:25 many of his texts had already ‘stock value’ within western Christianity as expressions for aspects of the Christian life – these too entered the realm of his memory and took on a new life, and often a new verbal form, in his work. And writing such a work as his is probably best not imagined as that of a lone writer in a room, it was no doubt spoken about to his fellow clergy, it was used in preaching, and it may have formed the matter of teaching: in each encounter with others, the materials once selected changed again until that moment when their form was frozen in marks with pen or stylus in the process that formed the DEB. So the DEB presents us with the reality that the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate were in circulation in Britain at the time of Gildas – there is no need to postulate the presence of other biblical materials26 – and these were used, reflected upon, and owned through long familiarity and study by Gildas. There is no evidence that one or other was given special status by Gildas: in the end, he was interested in preaching the reform of Christian morals not in biblical studies. From this ease with which Gildas related to both versions, his freedom in substituting words and cropping passages, emerges one other important aspect of his relationship with the scriptures. One aspect of Christian use of the scriptures has been concern over the exact wording found in the text as the bearer of its meaning and truth. When this be See Kerlouégan (1987), 74-100. The need of earlier scholars to look to the LXX or the New Testament in Greek to explain non-Vg forms has led to the regrettable tendency to note when Gildas ‘followed’ or was ‘true’ to the Greek texts – but such comments are a distraction: he had access to the scriptures in Latin and there is no positive evidence suggesting otherwise. It is best to leave appeals to Greek and Hebrew to those studying the formation of the Latin versions. 25

26

50

The Biblical Text used by Gildas

came an issue may be a matter of debate, but it is clear that with Jerome it became a distinct feature of Latin theology and would, eventually, take the form of a belief in the ‘inerrancy’ of scripture and of ‘verbal inspiration.’27 Gildas’s freedom with regard to wording, his willingness to paraphrase and to turn long scenes into exempla, not to mention his complete silence on the question of versions – it seemingly was simply not important for him – show that while on the one hand the scriptures are the word of God that can convict a sinful people, the meaning of these scriptures does not turn on their exact wording or textual form: the meaning lies elsewhere and the words are recollections of that meaning. Truth lay in the revelation, but the revelation was not to be identified with the words – and consequently he had no notion of inerrancy despite having a developed sense of the scriptures’ inspiration. It is this insight into his view of revelation that is, plausibly, the most valuable outcome of the study of the versions he used.

27 See O’Loughlin (1995a). It should be noted that the nature of inspiration and the question of verbal inerrancy was running in the background of all biblical studies in English from the mid-nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century – and scholars such as Williams and Burkitt were not only aware of it but took, very consciously, positions on these issues in their work as theologians beyond their interest in Gildas, and so many of their comments on how accurately Gildas cited the scriptures have to be seen against that backdrop: in their world to cite accurately was a theologically important act and this seems to have predisposed them to noting the same virtue in their subject. That this was perhaps not a major feature of Gildas’s own agenda has prompted the many instances where his text as that of the Vg has been set out in parallel columns in the database.

51

Chapter 3 The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

… almost every possible advance in knowledge of Gildas’s world now depends on achieving the closest possible scrutiny of the author’s text and on attempts to create from new textual approaches a picture of that world’s total context. 

Dumville (1984), viii.

Attention to the structures of biblical studies in the Latin west in the aftermath of Jerome and Augustine is largely focused on the reception of their work, and on the exegesis of a handful of others, most notably Eucherius of Lyons (? -c.450)1 and Cassiodorus (485/90-c.580).2 For the sixth century, the study of the exegesis practiced in the British Isles is confined, de facto, to the study of Gildas and some inferences as to the training that Columbanus (? -615) would have received in Ireland before leaving for the continent.3 Given the weight we must give to the study of Gildas’s DEB in the study of early insular theology, any knowledge we can obtain about the intellectual hinterland of his practice of exegesis is doubly valuable. Firstly, it adds directly to the sum of our information on what was available and happening in Britain at the time; and, secondly, it allows us to appreciate Gildas’s work and methods with greater precision. Now since most writers leave traces in their writings of the materials and apparatus with which they worked, attention to this matter is the subject of this chapter and precedes the examination of his See O’Loughlin (1995c). See O’Donnell (1979). 3 See Stancliffe (1997). 1 2

53

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

exegetical method in the subsequent chapter. Most such studies take the form of a study of the library that was available in a particular place to a scholar, but since this has been done in the work of Kerlouégan,4 and involved wider questions than those that are the focus of this study, this will not be attempted here. The focus here is on what Gildas’s actual use of the scriptures in DEB reveals about his biblical and scholarly context.

1.  The canon of the scriptures One of the doctrinal convictions of most modern commentators on early Christian texts – and one still commonly found in the late twentieth century5 – was that there was ‘a canon of scripture’ which was a fixed element in the ‘depositum fidei.’ From the rule of that fixed element one found deviations, but these were significant in that they showed the extent to which that element had been ‘received’ by some individual or group and, thereby, the relationship of a particular Christian situation to the wider Christian world.6 The origins of this assumption did not lie within historical scholarship but within dogmatic theology. Already in the later fourth century there were claims, often conflicting, as to what constituted ‘the canon’ but agreement that there was such a divinely given entity.7 This notion that there is ‘a canon’ which is to be discovered, accepted, and obeyed, over against the actual usage of the various groups of texts which they considered ‘the scriptures,’ became itself a matter of doctrine: accepting the canon became one more item demanding religious assent.8 Moreover, there was a parallel belief that one could define a well-formed set known as the ‘apocrypha’ which were to be avoided.9 And this notion that there was a clear gulf between ‘the canonical’ and ‘the apocryphal’ became a theme underlying modern scholarship.10 Moreover, when western views, among theologians, on (1987), 70-142. See, for example, McNamara (1975), who assumes implicitly that there is ‘a canon’ as imagined by dogmatic theologians, and then seeks to gauge deviations, even though they be accidental, from that canon. This is essentially a doctrinally driven methodology, not that of an historian of ideas or texts. 6 This is part of the shift from ‘dogma’ to ‘history’ as expressed in Frend (2003). 7 See Howorth (1909). 8 See McDonald (2007), 190-223. 9 See O’Loughlin (2009a). 10 See Schneiders (1990). 4 5

54

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

the canon reached their greatest precision (for both Catholics and Protestants this occurred in the mid-sixteenth century) there was a concomitant belief that their respective views on the canon, and in particular on the canon of the Old Testament, were not new views but represented the original state of the question: in the moment of origins there was both unity and clarity – and changes from that position could then be understood as either corruptions or blunders, but these were worthy of study as part of the pathology of human frailty.11 Therefore, it had to be taken as a matter of formal belief that the apostolic church had a true canon and that this was identical with that of the time of the final doctrinal clarification,12 and every departure from that later canon merited study as a symptom of a larger theological malaise. It was, of course recognised that these categories were not absolutely watertight,13 but the overall picture was held to be, by all sides, sufficiently clear that a few blips did not amount to contradictory evidence for the whole approach. Moreover, most historians seeing that both ancient authors and modern theologians were both claiming that there was an ‘original’ and ‘authentic’ canon carried out their work by treating any text not canonical in their own theological world as ‘apocryphal.’ Virtually all discussions of ‘the canon of Gildas’ fall into this pattern.14 An empirical approach to this matter presents the evidence in a radically different way. Firstly, most Christian writers in Latin had a sense that ‘the scriptures’ – leaving aside the question as to which texts might be included under this label – formed a distinct body of texts which were qualitatively different from all other texts. This was seen as a category sui generis, and did not need to be either explained or defended: ‘the scriptures’ themselves endorsed the distinction, for instance in Lk 24:27, and explained their own inspired value, for instance in 2 Tim 3:16. The ‘scriptures’ might need to be defended in the face of attacks on their See O’Loughlin (2012a). See Beckwith (1985) for a modern restatement of this position. 13 Protestants noted the presence of a quotation from the Book of Enoch in the Epistle of Jude; Catholics noted the widespread early appreciation of ‘the Books of Esdras’ while the Council of Trent ordered that they appear in an appendix to the editio typica of the Vg: ut ne pereant. 14 Williams, 132-6, presents a very learned discussion of the issue of 4 Esdras, but assumes from the outset that the mere fact of the use of this text by Gildas is an indication that Gildas was in a flawed situation. Confirmation of this view can be seen in Williams’s discussion of ‘Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus’ (Williams, 137-8) where he mentions that Britain in Gildas’s time ‘was yet unenlightened by the correcter [sic] views’ which spread from Jerome. 11

12

55

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

veracity by outsiders, such as Porphyry,15 but among themselves, Christians took the unique quality of ‘the scriptures’ as self-evident. This can be seen throughout the DEB: the force of Gildas’s arguments is that he can appeal to, and cite, those testimonia which have this special status within his world. With each citation as he goes through the different books, and each appeal to the name of the author of a biblical book, coupled with the fact that he does not appeal to any other authority, we see that ‘the scriptures’ is a category full of meaning for Gildas. Secondly, one could draw up a list of those books that could be included in that unique, sacral collection. This list would be both a checklist for the anthology and a guide to those texts that, belonging to the category of ‘scripture,’ shared in the special qualities and authority of scripture. This list is ‘the canon’ and we have evidence of concerns over the list that stretches back into the second century.16 By Gildas’s time there were many lists available – and despite the reservations of Jerome – there was little practical difference between them.17 So we can take it for granted that having distinguished biblical materials from every other text in the DEB, Gildas was familiar with the notion of a canon of the scriptures, and believed that this canon listed a body of texts that was not simply given a different status by the churches, but which existed ab initio in the will of God which made those texts ontologically different. Moreover, we can infer that he knows the category of ‘apocrypha’ but the evidence from those who used it is that it was a confused and ambiguous term.18 This inference is based on the fact that there is no appeal to any author or book that could not be seen by him as canonical. Thirdly, we have the actual sets of books, written probably in more than one codex, which were to be found in churches, monasteries, and schools. Each such collection was recognised by its users as ‘the scriptures’ – and ipso facto was the canonical collection – however, even if care had been taken to ‘tick off’ each of its texts against a formal list / canon, we cannot be sure that all those collections contained the same texts, or that any one of them contained only those texts which were subsequently distinguished as ‘canonical.’ So, in practice, we must distinguish accepting / having the correct list (on which there was, Jerome excepted, virtual unanimity), having a collection of texts which its users 17 18 15

16

See Berchman, (2005), 56-71. See McDonald (2007), 364-83. See O’Loughlin (2009a). See O’Loughlin (2009a).

56

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

believed was the canonical collection, and the question (which is solely a question belonging to later historians) as to whether the collection there and then being used as the canonical collection corresponds to that declared normative in the sixteenth century. Given that Gildas cites a text, 4 Esdras, which is, ever since the sixteenth century, set firmly within ‘the apocrypha,’ we might question the assertion that we have no evidence that Gildas had any other ‘canon’ than that which rapidly gained widespread currency in the west, and which can be seen in Augustine and Cassiodorus,19 and, indeed, formed the basis of the sixteenth-century doctrinal definition which excluded it from ‘the scriptures.’ However, as this section will make clear, this is exactly the situation we find in the DEB. This apparent contradiction is due to a sequence of confusing names which makes futile any attempt (in late antiquity or the early middle ages) to identify (a) holding a particular ‘canon’ as the true canon with (b) holding that any particular set of books are the ‘canonical’ set. It is the failure to recognise this problem, itself counter intuitive, that has caused so many circular discussions of ‘Gildas’s canon’ in the past. The problem can be seen to originate with Augustine who wrote thus in De doctrina christiana 2,8,13: deinde quattuor Regnorum, et duobus Paralipomenon, non consequentibus, sed quasi a latere adiunctis simulque pergentibus. Haec est historia, quae sibimet annexa tempora continet, atque ordinem rerum; sunt aliae tamquam ex diuerso ordine, quae neque huic ordini neque inter se connectuntur, sicut est Iob, et Tobias, et Esther, et Iudith, et Machabaeorum libri duo, et Esdrae duo, qui magis subsequi uidentur ordinatam illam historiam usque ad Regnorum uel Paralipomenon terminatam

However, for anyone adopting this canon, it is not clear which texts [libri] Esdrae duo refer. The LXX contains two books of Esdras, and these are canonical for the Eastern churches: ‘I Esdras’ is composed of a more fluid translation of 2Chr 35-6, Ezra, Neh 7:38-8:12, and has only unique element: a story about Darius’s guards and riddles told between them. ‘II Esdras’ is composed of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah as a single narrative. In the Latin churches the LXX’s ‘II Esdras’ came to be split into Ezra and Nehemiah, so there were three books of which two looked like no more than excerpts from ‘I Esdras.’ Moreover, it was this ‘I Esdras’ that was used by Augustine, because he referred to its unique element: a riddle about the world’s strongest forces (wine, kings, women, See Appendix 2.

19

57

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

or truth), and considered as scripture by him, and seen as a prophecy of Jesus as ‘the truth.’20 But if these three books (‘I Esdras’ and Ezra and Nehemiah) were thought of as one, yet there were thought to be two books of Esdras, then there was room for another ‘Second Esdras’ (our 4 Esdras) to fill the canon prescribed by Augustine.21 Therefore, when Gildas proceeded through the scriptures moving from Job (262T) to 4 Esdras (263A – 265T) and on to Ezekiel (269T)22 we have to see him adhering to a canon which defined the boundaries of ‘the scriptures’ and which mentioned ‘two books of Esdras’ – and all this looked to be in full accord with Augustine. He went through these two books (3 Esdras and 4 Esdras) and found just two testimonia to his purpose, and these he cited at the appropriate point in his argument, while he introduced their author, as was his practice with prophets and apostles, in the customary way (263A), and, thereby, showed that he considered 3 Esdras (= the LXX’s ‘I Esdras’) and 4 Esdras to be the ‘two books of Esdras’ mentioned in canon lists. Gildas is, therefore, not a witness to ‘a distinctive canon among the western churches,’ much less should his citations of 4 Esdras be seen as some curious idiosyncrasy, but rather a symptom of the confusion of names and overlapping texts that puzzled many – and seems to have been clarified in antiquity by no one – which stemmed ultimately from the LXX incorporating two translations / recensions as separate books.23 Gildas is a witness to the confusion, prevalent throughout the Latin churches, not regarding the canon, but to what specific texts corresponded to the demands of that canon.

2.  The use of the Eusebian Apparatus in reading the gospels One of the abiding problems, since the second century, in Christian study of the scriptures is that of the questions raised by overlaps and discrepancies between the four gospels.24 While there were many at-

See De ciuitate Dei 18,36. On 4 Esdras, see Kraft (1979), and Stone (1990). 22 See Appendix 1. 23 The confusion continues still, see the diagram in Metzger (1983), 516 which is an attempt to offer graphic clarity; while Stanton (1977) has introduced a ‘5 Ezra.’ 24 Hengel (2000), 19-33. 20 21

58

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

tempts to resolve this,25 by the sixth century that of Eusebius of Caesarea (c.260-c.340) had gained widespread acceptance in both Greek and Latin world.26 This solution took the form of his apparatus placed in the margins and in the fore-matter27 of gospel books, and was not only as a solution to a variety of problems, but was used as a way of using the gospels such that Matthew was given priority and the others were only introduced into argument in so far as they could be seen as adding to Matthew’s gospel. So whenever we find an author, such as Gildas, where there is a preponderant use of Matthew when stories from, or passages of, the gospels are being cited, then we can suspect that the choice of Matthew indicates an author treating his gospel as the ‘basic text’28 and using the others as supplements,29 and this should lead one to suspect that this selection has been done already for him in the margins of his gospel codex. This raises an immediate problem. We have only evidence for Gildas using the VL for gospels, yet our explicit definite evidence for the Eusebian Apparatus’s presence is Jerome’s references to it and his decision to incorporate into his revision of the gospels.30 However, that said, there are later VL gospels which do possess the Eusebian Apparatus;31 therefore, it is possible that a VL gospel in mid-sixth century could have possessed it.32 So, at the outset, we have to be clear that any argument for See O’Loughlin (2010c). O’Loughlin (2010b). 27 The best guide to this material which established ‘the frame’ for reading the biblical text is still de Bruyne (1912), 153-208 – which focus on the gospels. 28 Eusebius took the fact that Matthew was seen as the basic gospel and institutionalised it within his system in that Matthew’s text is the one against which all the others are collated and can be seen as adding to or omitting details not found in ‘the four’ to which Matthew is the key – it is this that I refer to by the term ‘basic gospel.’ While this is a role for Matthew that is referred to by several scholars, it has not received any specialist attention. 29 See O’Loughlin (1996b) for a case-study of this phenomenon in Tyconius. 30 Vg, 1515-26. 31 See Houghton (2010), 113-5; and Houghton (2011), 319-22. 32 An objection might be made that if a text had been copied in a milieu independent of the Vg, how could the Apparatus have come to be attached to it? This question assumes that the Apparatus is merely some elaborate ancillary to the text without intrinsic value and appeal to readers of the gospels. Let us imagine a situation like this: someone has a gospel codex and is shown the Apparatus and its possibilities, that person decides to have this added on to his existing codex – which is a relatively simple matter of adding the numbers in the margins and adding an insert with the canons at the front. This ensemble is then copied when that codex is used as an exemplar. The fact that there were many who did not understand nor value the Apparatus does not detract from the many who did use it with care and attention. 25

26

59

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

its availability to Gildas needs be wholly inductive from the way he actually uses the gospels in the DEB, and that there is little weight in any argument of deductive probability such that ‘it was common’ therefore he could have had use of it. The only evidence we have that his VL gospel had the Eusebian Apparatus is that derived from his use of the three other gospels in relation to Matthew’s. Moreover, despite the many allusions and echoes to the gospels that can be found throughout the DEB, it is only quotations that are relevant to this question because it is only in them that a choice has to be made between the gospels. For example, ‘the Parable of the Sower’ is found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but is only alluded to by Gildas (93A). Now while it is the case that one of Gildas’s details in the allusion is not found in Luke, and this suggests that Gildas remembered the parable in its Matthaean form, and, therefore, that was his basic gospel (we can set Mark aside on the basis that he was imagined as the abbreviator of Matthew), this is not conclusive because Gildas could just as well have read Luke and harmonised the image against the wide gospel tradition – a phenomenon of memory found throughout Christians’ writings.33 However, if we have quotations from Mark, Luke and John when there is no parallel in Matthew, then we have a situation where there is positive evidence for the use of another gospel because it is not found in the ‘basic gospel.’ Moreover, this is a situation that was envisaged by Eusebius in his Canon VIII (Luke and Mark only), Canon IX (Luke and John only), and Canon X (Mark only), Canon X (Luke only) and Canon X (John only). The most striking fact is that Gildas makes use of 43 quotations from Matthew’s gospel, but from the other three gospels he uses only 5 verses. When we examine these we notice that his only use of Mark is of 16:16 (23C) which is a case where the text is found only in Mark, but this does not help us as the final section of Mark (‘the long ending’) was not found in the codices with which Eusebius worked and so it was not part of the apparatus.34 But it should also be noticed that this verse of Mark is the most extreme statement found in any of the gospels on the necessity of baptism and, as such, it was the text used for making the link, as Gildas desires, between baptism and salvation.35 As such, it had a life in the tradition as a command by Jesus quite apart from it being a verse within Metzger (1968), 197-8 – and see ch. 2 above where the effects of memory in gospel citation are noted. 34 See Metzger (1975), 122-6. 35 For example, it is echoed in the opening line of the formula ‘Quicumque vult’ [‘the Athanasian Creed’]. 33

60

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

a gospel narrative. There is only one explicit use of Luke in the DEB: 23:29 (21C) and this is a case where Luke’s uniqueness was pointed out by Eusebius (section 316/10). When it comes to John, Gildas uses 5:30 (379C) and this is identified by Eusebius as unique (section 41/10); while in the case of his use of 6:38 he does not use the quotation from a gospel codex but in a common form that is found in the tradition, it, therefore, should be treated as an allusion for the purpose of this question. The last use of John is of 10:15 (51C) where, despite the fact that he uses most a verse (and in this wording it can only be found in John), Gildas was not thinking in terms of citing a gospel but of making reference to the reality of Christ as the Good Shepherd who in the text read in the liturgy (John) is the one ‘who lays down his life for his sheep.’ The complete dominance of Matthew for testimonia, and his predominance for other gospel citations, coupled with the fact that the only two gospel uses (21C and 379C) – which cannot be seen as echoes from the tradition of theological writers’ use – are those identified by Canon 10 as proper to, respectively, Luke and John, points to Gildas reading the gospel by way of a filter that made Matthew the primary and base gospel – and the most likely form of such a filter was a gospel book, albeit a VL codex, with the Eusebian Apparatus.36 Moreover, given that many who encountered the gospels did not appreciate the purpose or possibilities of the Apparatus,37 this shows us Gildas alert both to the issue of the interrelationships between the gospels and to the technical paraphernalia of books he was using.38

3.  The history of the kings of Israel and Judah: a matter for research In DEB XL – XLI Gildas provides a sequence of seven kings who model for his audience both good and bad kingship. These kings are Jeroboam, 36 One could speculate about the possibility of a diatessaron of some sort, but not only do we find Matthew cited without harmonization, but such a hypothesis is even more demanding than that of the presence of the Eusebian Apparatus. 37 From slightly later we have abundant evidence for incomprehension of the nature of the text: see O’Loughlin (2007b); O’Loughlin (2009c); and O’Loughlin (2010b), 25-8. 38 While blunders in the use of the Eusebian Apparatus are the most apparent feature of its presence in the British Isles, it is worth remembering that there is evidence for deep appreciation of its potential and careful attention to making it as conveniently available as possible: see O’Loughlin (1999b).

61

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

Baasha, Ahab (all kings of Israel), Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, and Joash (all kings of Judah) – and all reigned at more or less the same time and are connected with one another, by conflict or descent, in the biblical narratives. That Gildas, in a work addressed to kings, should turn to the history of the kings who came after Solomon is in no way surprising, indeed what is surprising is that he did not make even more use of this material. However, when we examine the use he did make of royal exempla we can see something of Gildas’s background work for the DEB. The first, but not most obvious, point to notice is that this selection of kings is not found, to my knowledge, in any other source – and it is certainly not a specific grouping in any biblical work. While they are all linked in some way to one another in Kings / Chronicles, the only time that any of them appear in a list is the father – son couple of Jehoshaphat – Joram which can be found in the genealogy in Matthew’s gospel (1:8). So, assuming that the selection is Gildas’s own, what can we learn about his manner of studying the scriptures from it? The period between the rise of the monarchy, with Saul, through to the deportation to Babylon is found in six books in the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings (= I – IV Regum in the LXX / VL / Vg), and 1 and 2 Chronicles (= I – II Paraleipomena in the LXX / VL / Vg).39 This was not simply a time-range for Gildas, or any early Christian writer, but formed a distinct Aetas mundi on the basis of the division of the time before the Christ into ages: so this collection of kings have an historic unity for Gildas not simply due to the interconnections he could find in the biblical texts, but because they all belong to the same Age. However, when it comes to the information that Gildas presents on these kings we notice a complex pattern emerging. On the one hand, the set of links that attach one king – whether of Israel or Judah – to another is derived from the survey histories of the kings found in 1 Kings 15 and 22 (see 185TE).40 Then in other places in 1 and 2 Kings, more details are given about their exploits. But Gildas does not follow this obvious course: in the case of the first three kings he draws his infor39 The LXX title is paraleipomena (usually rendered in Latin as ‘paralipomena’) which means ‘the things left out of [the books of the kings]’; Jerome in his prologue to the book preferred to take over the notion of a diary / annals inherent in the Hebrew title as so gave the books the Latin title ‘Verba dierum’ and this prologue (Vg, 546-7) directly influenced the Reformation translators who rendered it as ‘chronicles.’ 40 Jeroboam is first mentioned in 1 Kgs 15:1; Asa in 15:8; Baasha in 15:16; Jehoshaphat in 15:24; Joram in 1 Kgs 22:50; and Joash in 22:26.

62

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

mation, and his testimonia, from 1 Kings; but in the cases of the other four he goes to the accounts, often with their unique details as can be most clearly seen in 185TE, that are to be found in the Books of Chronicles. That the work of the Chronicler would be attractive to a Christian cleric who imagined his church under attack might not seem unusual: the Chronicler was probably a priestly author established at the heart of the Jerusalem cult and was interested in the king supporting the cult [for Gildas read ‘church’], he was interested in the details of the temple [this for Gildas would be seen as relating as antetype to the church, her clergy, and her liturgy], and Gildas would have found the Chronicler’s simple formula that kings who walk with the Lord are sustained, while those who neglect the covenant suffer failure in their rule or in the rule of their dynasties.41 But if the perspective of the choice is obvious, the mechanism by which it is made reveals some of Gildas’s research methods – for this selection of kings and their exploits is not otherwise attested. We might begin by noting that there is no evidence that Gildas knew that the Greek name for the Books of Chronicles, paraleipomena, meant ‘the things omitted’; in its Latin form ‘paralipomena’ would have been the name Gildas would have given to these books, but probably he simply thought of it as a proper name rather than as a description. On the relationship between these books and the four Books of the Kings he probably would have relied on this comment by Augustine: deinde quattuor Regnorum, et duobus Paralipomenon, non consequentibus, sed quasi a latere adiunctis simulque pergentibus. Haec est historia, quae sibimet annexa tempora continet, atque ordinem rerum … .42

This gives the impression that the books of Chronicles provide a parallel account, and that they and the books of the Kings are all of a piece: an orderly narrative of events. And, if accounts are seen to parallel one another, why attend in detail to the second account? We already have an example of this very phenomenon in the way that Gildas used the gospel of Matthew with the Eusebian Apparatus serving the function of a filter of apparently duplicated accounts. It is possible that Gildas understood the references to the Liber uerborum dierum regum Israhel and the Liber uerborum dierum regum Iuda found in 1 Kings to be reference 41 On this historical perspective of biblical source we refer to as ‘the Chronicler,’ see Freedman (1961); Cross (1975); and Knoppers (1996). 42 De doctrina christiana 2,8,13.

63

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

to Chronicles as adding more detail,43 but if that is the case it adds yet another layer of significance to Gildas’s method. We have no positive evidence that Gildas viewed the Books of Chronicles as the texts referred to in Kings, but given the similarity between the titles given in Kings and the description of the meaning of the Hebrew title of Chronicles given by Jerome in his prologue, Verba dierum, for anyone with a detailed knowledge of both Kings and Chronicles, as we can see that Gildas had, then this is a likely way in which he could have construed the relationship between the two sets of books. Since the deeds of all seven kings are to be found in both sets of books, but Gildas takes that of the first three from Kings and the latter four from Chronicles, we must assume that he created some sort of matrix within while aligned the materials from both narratives against each king’s name. Then Gildas was in a position to select those portions from this composite view of the history of the kings that were most suitable to his purpose. This procedure not only provides another illustration of the extent of Gildas’s familiarity with the scriptures, but shows that he recognised that drawing historical lessons from the scriptures was merely a matter of finding suitable passages, but required careful assembling of evidence from various locations in the scriptures. Since Gildas’s use of such background research is so blatant in the case of his integration of Kings with Chronicles, it allows us to see other combinations (e.g. his use of the patriarchal material within the context of Hebrews 11:1-40 in DEB LXIX) as the result of deliberate exegetical research rather than merely the recollection of details.44

4.  The ‘Ordinal’ of the British Church Few questions were more controversial in the late nineteenth century at the intersection of English-speaking Christianity and Roman Catholicism than the nature of the transmission of ‘Holy Order’ by ordination: 43 In 1 Kgs 14:19 there is reference to more of the deeds of Jeroboam thus: “reliqua autem uerborum Hieroboam quomodo pugnauerit et quomodo regnauerit ecce scripta sunt in libro uerborum dierum regum Israhel”, and there are no fewer that 18 other references to this book which is rendered in English as ‘the Annals of the Kings of Israel’; while in 1 Kgs 14:19 we have: “reliqua autem sermonum Roboam et omnium quae fecit ecce scripta sunt in libro uerborum dierum regum Iuda”, and there are 14 other references to this ‘Annals of the Kings of Judah.’ 44 We shall return to this topic in ch. 5 suggesting that Gildas may have absorbed the theology of the Chronicler as his own.

64

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

was it ‘consecration’ or ‘ordination,’ did it require unction or the imposition of hands, did it distinguish between ‘priesthood’ (i.e. implying a potestas sacedotium) and ministry, how were the three ‘major’ orders different: where they generically one (i.e. order but in three grades distinguished by function) or substantially distinct (bishops and priests, on the one hand, with the potestas confectionis [eucharistiae], and deacons, who on the other hand were really recipients of ‘orders’ but had no such power), and, lastly, what was the nature of the ‘intention’ of the ordaining consecrating bishop: was it ‘sacrificial’ or ‘ministerial.’ This contentious issue reached its climax with the judgement by Pope Leo XIII that Anglican Orders were null and void in the letter Apostolicae curae, but came in the context of a shared belief that this matter could be solved factually by an appeal to historical evidence.45 Antiquity was the common ground, and by an appeal to it a definitive answer could be found.46 Moreover, since claims to continuity with ‘antiquity; was part of the declared self-images of all concerned, it was assumed, tacitly, that any author in antiquity while he might be excused the use of the formal scholastic jargon of the modern debate, had to be aware ‘inchoately’ of the very same problems.47 History might be the court of the dispute, but history was itself viewed anhistorically by the disputants! It should come as little surprise, therefore, that Gildas as the witness to the ‘ancient British church was a prime quarry, and that his passing reference to ordination in the DEB should be seen as ‘evidence’ for more than one of these questions. The first scholar to draw attention to this ‘evidence’ was Louis Duchesne in 1889 who contrasted Gildas with later ordination rituals from England and that in the evidence he gives could be found an early witness to anointing in the Gallican Rite – and so to an ‘Old Testament’ view of the nature of ordination and priesthood which had its origins in the church before the time of Gildas: The anointing peculiar to the Gallican rite must have been suggested by the Old Testament, where we have frequent mention of the anointing of priests. It would seem not to have been very ancient. Certain indications would lead us to look for its origins in the Churches of Britain [Duchesne adds this footnote: Gildas is the earliest author who mentions it. The Statuta know nothing of it. … It was always more widely prac Leo XIII (1896). See O’Loughlin (2012). 47 See O’Loughlin (1999a). 45

46

65

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

ticed in Great Britain than elsewhere. …], where it was practiced as early as the sixth century.48

Gildas, therefore, could be seen as a supporter of a ‘sacerdotal’ as distinct from a ministerial view of clergy, a consecratory view of ordination, and, for Duchesne, this included presbyters and deacons. Williams, who cited the work of Duchesne and the even earlier work of Martène, entered the question fully alert to the debates, and without explicitly entering the fray – his own churchmanship would have precluded that – sought to derive as much information in relation to the debates as could be squeezed from the text.49 It is a tour de force in the methodology of development: Gildas is the most primitive element in a continuity which is seen in full flowering in the later liturgical manuscripts which provide texts of ordination rituals. But the key-stone of the whole argument is also its weakest point: he assumed (and this would have been accepted without doubt at the time) that there was present in the British church at the time of Gildas a specific liturgical book, an ‘ordinal,’ and that what we have in the DEB are its sole extant remains in the form of biblical quotations. Since Gildas says that he will now refer to what was heard, in the form of lections, on the day when their hands were blessed it was, for Williams, reasonable to assume that those readings were found in such a specific liturgical book, and this was confirmed by what he saw as changes to the biblical text arising from its use in an ordination ceremony.50 Moreover, the references to the ‘second lection’ and the ‘lection from Acts’ seemed to confirm that the texts were being read as pericopes; and this too seemed to point to a specific book used in the ritual which laid out these pericopes as lections. Lastly, though this was a silent assumption on the part of all concerned in the late nineteenth century, all the changes in the biblical texts due, as they saw it, to liturgical use took the form of imperative plurals – and this fitted perfectly with their own experience of group ordinations, and the plural forms found in later liturgical books. So, it seemed clear that Gildas had, at the end of DEB CV put down his biblical codex, gone to the armarium, picked up an ‘ordinal,’ and with this beside him had cited lections in DEB CVI to CIX. Furthermore, these snippets from the ‘or Duchesne (1923), 378; and see 370 (I am using the English translation of this work, 1923, as there is nothing to be gained from citing the original French text of 1889). 49 Williams, 230-9 and 242-5. 50 Williams, 242-3. 48

66

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

dinal’ could be used, in turn, as the basis for speculation on Gildas’s church’s views on orders. Williams’ work was then taken up Ellard51 and its influence can still be glimpsed today.52 Meanwhile, in studies of Gildas, it became commonplace to add the ‘ordinal’ to the list of books used, and, therefore, to the catalogue of his library.53 The theory of the presence of an ‘ordinal’ succumbs, however, to several fatal flaws. First, the concept of a specific liturgical book known as an ‘ordinal’ is not attested in the middle ages: it was first used in the Reformation period.54 Second, specialised liturgical books for these ceremonies are not found anywhere until much later.55 Thirdly, we do not have evidence of a liturgically altered text in the DEB, as the variants are either VL or assimilations to other passages in Paul or 1 Peter. Fourth, there is no evidence that specific lectionaries as books were yet in use; and, fifth, it is most unlikely that ordinations of more that one man at any ceremony were known. So the notion of an ‘ordinal’ should be abandoned. What then can we learn about ordinations from the DEB? All we can say is that there was some ritual of ‘blessing the hands’ and this could be taken to refer to the ordination of the three orders of deacon, presbyter, and bishop. It is these clergy now, as a group, who are being addressed, so quoting the scriptures in their own form (i.e. in the plural) speaks to all of them – just as they were read on the day ‘when they stood at the altar’ whether that was individually (most probable ritual) or in a group (almost certainly an anachronistic retrojection of later practice). In those ceremonies there were lections, and we do have a basis for speculating about their content. In DEB CVI Gildas presents a lection – we cannot assume this is the first reading at the liturgy – which appears to be begin at 1 Pet 1:3 and continue to 1:16 (the passages in bold are cited by Gildas):56 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for 53 54 55 56 51

52

Ellard (1933). Crehan (1978), 324. Kerlouégan (1987), 112-3. See Bradshaw (1971); and ODCC, s.v. ‘Ordinal.’ See Palazzo (1998), 195-212. For a detailed analysis, see 505T to 507T in the database.

67

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

you, who are being protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you rejoice, even if now for a little while you have had to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith – being more precious than gold that, though perishable, is tested by fire – may be found to result in praise and glory and honour when Jesus Christ is revealed. Although you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and rejoice with an indescribable and glorious joy, for you are receiving the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours made careful search and inquiry, inquiring about the person or time that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things that have now been announced to you through those who brought you good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven – things into which angels long to look! Therefore prepare your minds for action; discipline yourselves; set all your hope on the grace that Jesus Christ will bring you when he is revealed. Like obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires that you formerly had in ignorance. Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; for it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

That this lection concluded with 1 Pet 1:16 seems to be certain not only as this is a natural division point in the biblical text, but also because when Gildas introduces the next biblical quotation (1 Pet 1:22-3 / 508T) he states that it comes from ‘the second lection’ from Peter.57 Moreover, because this reference is to the second lection from this same source (sed uideamus quid in eiusdem secunda lectione contineatur) we do not know if these were the first two lections of the liturgy or just two lections from the apostle Peter out of a longer sequence. The second lection began: Now purify your souls by your obedience to the truth so that you have genuine mutual love, love one another deeply from the heart. 57 In this section we are treating 1 Peter as the work of the apostle Peter and 1 Timothy as the work of the apostle Paul because Gildas imagined these men as the actual authors of these letters – we should also bear in mind that until quite recently these letters held an authority very different to what they receive in modern scholarship and had a centrality in thinking about ‘apostolic origins’ that is all but unheard today.

68

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

You have been born anew, not of perishable but of imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God. [?] [?] [?]

But we do not know whether this second reading was just those two verses or whether it continued; nor does the biblical text help us: the end of v.23 or two points in v.25 or the end of 2:3 would all make suitable endings of the pericope. Gildas proceeds58 to quote 1 Pet 2:1-3 (509T) and 1 Pet 2:9 (512T) which Williams, working on the assumption that these citations came from the ‘ordinal,’ assumed were part of the same lection,59 but this is not clear from the text. The language of the second sentence of DEB VII could just as well imply that having heard the lections, his audience should also note what else the apostle says on these matters (1 Pet 2:1-3) and that perhaps they have heard another of Peter’s injunctions (1 Pet 2:9) so often, and Gildas does not imply they heard it on the day of ordination, that they have become deaf to it. In this case, these two quotations from 1 Peter could be seen as glosses on the text that formed the second reading (and we shall see that Gildas glosses the gospel lection with other passages from the same gospel). So, while it is plausible that the ‘second [Petrine] lection’ ran from 1 Pet 1:22 to 2:9; this should not be seen as certain. In the same ordination ceremony (in eodem die) at which there were two lections from 1 Peter, there was reading from Acts (513T and 514T) which began with 1:15 and concluded with 1:26. For the opening (1:15) we not only have Gildas’s paraphrase of this verse, but it is the beginning of an episode in the narrative, and it begins with those favourite openings for lections: in diebus illis. But where did the lection end? While Gildas only quotes one other verse, 1:18, which he does in order to draw attention to the figure of Judas Iscariot,60 we can be certain that the reading continued after that point, and concluded with v.26. This certainty is based on several grounds: first, the episode’s narrative end is 1:26 when this scene concludes and, in the following verse, a new scene opens; second, a key purpose of reading this passage at an ordination is We are now in DEB CVII. Williams, 245. 60 Note that there is no hint in Gildas that v.18 is the end of the lection, and it forms a parenthesis in the narrative in Acts. 58 59

69

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

to underline the notion of apostolic tradition (in addition to the identity of the position of bishops in the church with the apostles61) and without 1:26 (Matthias was ‘numbered with the eleven apostles’) this point would not have been made; but, third, and most importantly, Gildas concludes his comments62 by speaking of the exemplum of Matthias in the aftermath of the apostolic election which is only referred to in v.26 (521E). So this was the reading: In those days Peter stood up among the disciples (together the crowd numbered about one hundred twenty persons) and said, “Men and brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘Let another take his episcopal position.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.” So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed and said, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Gildas then proceeds, without any hint that he has changed his target audience or the historical moment (the day when each of them was ordained) to recall what was heard in the second lection from Paul (auscultastis quidem secundae lectionis apostoli Pauli uerborum sonum). However, reconstructing the extent of this ‘second lection’ is very difficult. Gildas’s first citation is 1 Tim 1:15 (525T) followed immediately 61 In patristic writings on the office of bishops there is frequent resort to this passage from Acts with the two key verses being 1:20 (Judas Iscariot was not only an apostle but a bishop, and so had to be replaced as a bishop: et episcopatum eius accipiat alius (see O’Loughlin (2012d)) and 1:26 (on the election and transmission of authority). 62 We are now in DEB CVIII.

70

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

by 1 Tim 3:1 (526T), and then, in sequence, v.2, v.3, 4, 5, and 8-10.63 The idea that it began at 1:15 and ran to 3:10 seems unlikely: firstly, it would produce a very long reading – but this would not in itself undermine the possibility; but, secondly, it would produce a lection that covered many topics which are irrelevant to the roles of clergy. It is far more likely that the lection began at 3:1 – when the topic of bishops is introduced – and that 1:15 is a general reminder to Gildas’s audience of the need to pay attention to the words of Paul. That the reading ended with 3:10 we can take as certain, not only is this the last verse cited by Gildas, but it concludes the section of the letter dealing with clergy, and 3:11 moves on to the topic of women in the church. So, most probably, the second Pauline reading had this extent: The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way – for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil. Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money; they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons.

We should note that there is no suggestion that this forms two separate lections (i.e. one for the ordination of bishops and another for the ordination of deacons); it is possible that the same texts were read at all ordinations. Having added some commentary to 3:8-10, Gildas moves to another reading, from the gospels, with these words: ‘You [clergy] also hear on that day’ (Audistsis etiam in illo die). The extent of the gospel reading is not as complex as it seems from a casual reading through the text of DEB, if we suppose that the commentary on the gospel lection involves a series of glosses from elsewhere 63

See 526T and 527T.

71

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

in the gospels by way of its exegesis. What they heard was the passage with Jesus asking the disciples whom they thought him to be, and then this is followed by a citation of Mt 16:16. So the beginning of the pericope would appear to be Mt 16:13 which sets the scene for the question by Jesus. We then have this sequence of quotations from that pericope along with glosses: Quotes Mt 16:16 (530T) Mt 16:17 (530T) Mt 16:18 (532T) Mt 16:18 (535T) Mt 16:19 (537T) Mt 16:19 (539T)

Glosses

Mt 7:26 and 24 (533T) Hos 8:4 (534T) Mt 7:27 (536T) Mt 7:27 and Mt 25:41 (538T) Prov 5:22 (540C)

Mt 16:19 – the ‘power of the keys’ text which was, no doubt, what made it attractive as a lection for ordinations would appear to have been the conclusion of the reading because v.20 would have appeared problematic when read in ‘the time of the church’ when it seemed the task was to tell everyone about the Christ rather than keep it secret. So the gospel reading – and we have no evidence that there was more than one gospel pericope read – would have been this: Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

72

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

To sum up: we must dismiss any notion of an ordinal or special liturgical book, and it is best to dismiss the reference to the ‘blessing of hands’ as just a metaphor for the day of ordination rather than as an ‘inchoate pointer for what was to come’ – we simply do not have enough evidence and are wont to find more than Gildas can supply. However, about the content of the ‘liturgy of the word’ in the ordination liturgy we have this, albeit incomplete, picture: – at least two readings from Peter’s writings; – at least two readings from Paul’s writings; – at least one reading one from Acts; and – at least one reading from the gospels.64 It would be strange it there were not at least one from the Old Testament, and we can assume that there were psalms included at various points. Two points stand out from this study of the liturgy standing behind the DEB. First, the liturgy of ordination gave a major role to a cursus, we might think at once of the parallel which is to be found in the cursus of vigil liturgies,65 and even on the basis of the partial reconstruction we can make we see a very specific view of clerical self-identity emerge from these readings. Second, not only is it impossible to divide these readings between the various grades of order (bishop, presbyter, deacon) because Gildas uses terms that seem deliberately to include the whole clerical group, but it would appear that the same selection of readings – see especially 1 Tim 3:1-10 – was used at ordinations to the different grades, and this conclusion is reinforced by the notion that his audience severally look back to that same day when they heard all these readings. While we should not imagine that Gildas in DEB supplies us with a lectionary list – the evidence is far too patchy, he does allow us to see a far more complex Liturgy of the Word of ordinations than we might otherwise imagine.

64 The most recent reference to these chapters of the DEB is in George (2009), 80 who writes: “[Gildas] gives part of the ordination service; two lessons were read, one involving 1 Peter 1-2 and 1.15-21, and one involving 1 Timothy 3 and Matthew 21.1319.” But I am at a loss to know what the author means by this conclusion, how a lesson could ‘involve’ two different texts, and how the conclusion that it included Mt 21:13-19 was derived. 65 One is put in mind of the lection cycles that formed part of the Easter Vigil liturgy in the early medieval period, but it would take us too far from our purpose to pursue possible parallels to what we find in Gildas – this is but a fragment for those working on a history of western lectionaries; see Avery (1947).

73

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

5.  Biblical Tomes In his study of the biblical version used by Gildas, Burkitt made this remark: Gildas’s quotations consist of two chains of passages (§§ 51-58, 83-89). The first chain begins with ‘Ababcuc’ and then goes from Hosea to Malachi, the second begins with Joel and then goes from Hosea to Malachi. This surely does not testify to a peculiar order [of biblical books], but rather that Gildas opened his codex in the middle, before proceeding to more or less methodical excerpting.66

This note hints at the intriguing possibility that by looking at the results of his methodical excerpting, we might be able to learn something about the codex or, more precisely, the codices – since the possibility that Gildas had a pandect is remote – he opened. The first step is to isolate those cases where Gildas offers his readers a testimonium or an exemplum in prosecution of his argument as distinct from cases where he quotes the Scriptures in a more general way or where he makes allusions of one sort or another to them.67 While Gildas might have referred to these as sparsim throughout the Scriptures,68 that does not imply that he did not search them out, scattered though they might be, in a careful and methodical way. Second, we can dismiss the material in the final chapters of the DEB for he tells us that his rational in citing those passages is that they can be found in the lections for an ordination. Thirdly, we cannot divide the text of DEB by subjects or groups addressed, and then seek sequences within these; rather we must start with raw lists of testimonia and observe sequences of quotations from single books and then from books in sequence. If in this process we find that Gildas used them seriatim, we can infer that that was the sequence in which he found them in the course of his search, or searches, book after book. That such a hypothesis is likely can easily be demonstrated: 4 Esdras was not read in the liturgy, is far less common in biblical manuscripts than the other Old Testament books, and is quoted far less frequently: therefore, the fact that quotations from this book fall in

66 Burkitt (1934), 208. Burkitt’s §§ 55-58 equates to 238T to 256T, and his §§ 8389 equates to 409T to 433T. 67 See Appendix 1. 68 DEB CVI.

74

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

one place, and in sequence, points to Gildas working through the text of the biblical book and noting the passages that he would later quote. The most obvious sequence we find is that which covers the whole of the New Testament and comes towards the end of the DEB just before he moves his attention from the Scriptures as a whole to those passages used in the ordination liturgy. At the beginning of DEB XCII Gildas announces that he is going to sound ‘the euangelica tuba’ and after several quotations from Gospel of Matthew, and allusions to other gospels, he begins to cite Matthew at 448T – and note he cites no other gospel as a testimonium69 – and then continues through Paul. Here is the sequence: Matthew

448T. Mt 5:13. 449T. Mt 5:14-5. 451T. Mt 5:16. 453T. Mt 5:16. 454T. Mt 5:19. 455T. Mt 7:1-2. 456T. Mt 7:3-4. 457T. Mt 7:6. 458T. Mt 7:15-7. 459T. Mt 7:21. 461T. Mt 10:16. 466T. Mt 10:28. 467T. Mt 15:14. 468T. Mt 23:2-3. 469T. Mt 23:13. 471T. Mt 24:49-51. All these testimonia fall in order as we proceed through the gospel. 474T. 1 Cor 11:1. While this appears as erratic in the sequence, in fact it is used to provide a rationale as to why, having heard the euangelica tuba, one should now imitate Paul and attend to his words.

This is a further confirmation of what we have seen in the section on the Eusebian Apparatus: Matthew is the only gospel through which he went for testimonia. 69

75

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

Romans

475T. Rom 1:21-2. 476T. Rom 1:25-6. 477T. Rom 1:28-32. 478T. Rom 1:32. 479T. Rom 2:5-6. 480T. Rom 2:11-3. 482T. Rom 6:1-2. 483T. Rom 8:35. 484T. Rom 13:12-4.

1 Corinthians

485T. 1 Cor 3:10-7. 486T. 1 Cor 3:18-9. 487T. 1 Cor 5:6-7. 488T. 1 Cor 5:8 and 9-11.

2 Corinthians

489T. 2 Cor 4:1-2. 490T. 2 Cor 11:13-5.

Ephesians

491T. Eph 4:17-9. 492T. Eph 5:17-8.

1 Thessalonians

493T. 1 Thes 2:5-8. 495T. 1 Thes 4:2-8.

Colossians

496T. Col 3:5-6.

2 Timothy

498T. 2 Tim 3:1-5. 499T. Ps 25:5. 500T. 2 Tim 3:7-9. The two quotations from 2 Timothy are in sequence and act as a warning conclusion to the excerpts from Paul. Ps 26:5 would appear to be an erratic, but while it is formally a testimonium in that it is added to one; functionally, it is a moral gloss on list of wicked people in 2 Tim 3:1-5.

Titus I and 2 Timothy

501T. Tit 2:7-10. 502T. 2 Tim 2:3-5. 503T. 1 Tim 6:3-5. These three quotations form a small concluding sequence before Gildas moves to the ordination lectionary, and he clearly thinks of them as in sequence: first to Titus and then to Timothy – in the process he seems to have forgotten the order in which these letters occur. This suggests that he had excerpted his texts and then, somehow, the order was jumbled.

76

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

The Pauline letters follow the order in which they are found in Latin codices,70 and still today. That there is no further excerpt here from other New Testament letters suggests that having gone through a codex with the gospels, using the Eusebian Apparatus as a synopsis quattuor, Gildas then went through a codex containing the Pauline epistles. Having isolated the major New Testament sequence we can identify a second sequence of methodical searching of the Scriptures by noting that after a cluster of New Testament exempla and a testimonium,71 we have a long sequence, where the quotations from each book are in narrative order, beginning with 1 Samuel and ending with Ezekiel.72 This implies that Gildas encountered the books in this order: 1 Samuel; 1 Kings; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Joel; Hosea; Amos; Micah; Zephaniah; Zechariah; Malachi; and Ezekiel. We can now isolate a third sequence whose beginning is indicated by its coming after a cluster of New Testament testimonia and an exemplum;73 and whose conclusion is identified by a return to Genesis – always the first book in any complete list of biblical books – for a series of exempla following that biblical book in their narrative sequence.74

See De Bruyne (1912), 213-20. 362T; 366E; 367E; 368E; 369E; 370E; and 371E. 72 384T / 1 Sam 2:12-7; 22-5; 27-34; 385ET / 1 Kgs 13; 386T / Is 3:11-15; 387T / Is 10:1-3; 388T / Is 28:7-8; 389T / Is 28:14-5; 390T / Is 28:17-9; 391T / Is 29:13-6; 392T / Is 66:1-3; 395T / Jer 2:5; 396T / Jer 2:7-9; 397T / Jer 5:30-1; 398T / Jer 6:10; 399T / Jer 6:12-5; 400T / Jer 6:28-30; 401T / Jer 7:11-5; 402T / Jer 10:20-1; 403T / Jer 11:15-6; 404T / Jer 12:9-10; 405T / Jer 14:10; 406T / Jer 14:13-6; 407T / Jer 23:1-2; 408T / Jer 23:11-20; 409T / Joel 1:5; 9-12; 411T / Joel 2:17; 412T / Hos 5:1-2; 413T / Amos 5:21-3; 415T / Amos 8:11-2; 418T / Mic 3:1-12; 419T / Mic 7:1-3; 421T / Zeph 3:1-2; 422T / Zeph 3:3-5; 424T / Zech 7:9-12; 425T / Zech 10:2-3; 426T / Zech 11:3-6; 427T / Mal 1:6-9; 428T / Mal 1:13 – 2:3; 430T / Mal 2:5-7; 431T / Mal 2:2-10; 432T / Mal 3:1-3; 433T / Mal 3:13-5; 434T / Ez 7:26; 435T / Ez 13:8-10; 436T / Ez 13:18-9; 437T / Ez 22:24-6; 438T / Ez 22:30-31; 439T / Ez 33:1-9. 73 90T; 91T; and 97E. 74 318E; 320E; 324E; 325E; 326E; and 329E. 70 71

77

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

This sequence runs from 169T to 317E, and comprises 92 items.75 We encounter the biblical books in this order, and within each book the order of passages in Gildas follows that in the book being used without exception: 1 Samuel; 2 Samuel; 1 Kings; 2 Chronicles; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Hababuc; Hosea; Amos; Micah; Zephaniah; Haggai; Zechariah; Malachi; Job; 4 Esdras; Ezekiel; Wisdom. There are, however, some intrusions into this sequence which merit comment. The first is the exemplum from Jonah.76 If this stood between books, for example after all the testimonia from Jeremiah, it might suggest that Gildas consulted Jonah after Jeremiah, but coming as it does in the middle of the Jeremiah sequence, it is better to see it as a comment on the preceding text of Jeremiah – that the example of Jonah as a preacher of repentance should come to mind is not in the least surprising: in the gospels he is described by Jesus as a preacher of repentance whose preaching bore fruit for the men of Nineveh. At the end of the sequence we have a series of passages from Wisdom interrupted by 1 Sam 2:30 (284T) but this is a response to the previous testimonium and so should be seen functionally as a citation which reinforces the point made in Wisdom 5:15-7. Using the block of exempla from Genesis as the marker for the beginning of the next series leaves us with two stragglers at the end of the sequence: Hebrews 11:1-40 (316E) and 1 Samuel 2:12-7; 75 169T / 1 Sam 13:13-4; 170T / 1 Sam 15:20; 171T / 1 Sam 15:22-3; 172T / 1 Sam 15:28-9; 177T/E / 2 Sam 24:12-7; 179T / 1 Kgs 11:6 and 11; 180T/E / 1 Kgs 16:2-4; 181T/E / 1 Kgs 21; 183T / 1 Kgs 22:19-23; 185T/E / 2 Chr 14; and 15:1-2 186T/E / 2 Chr 18 – 19:2; 189T/E / 2 Chr 21; 190T / 2 Chr 24; 192T / Is 1:2-3; 193T / Is 1:8; 194T / Is 1:10; 197T / Is 1:13; 198T / Is 1:15; 199T / Is 1:16-7; 200T / Is 1:18-20; 202T / Is 1:23-4; 1:28; 203T / Is 2:11; 204T / Is 3:11; 205T / Is 5:11-4; 206T / Is 5:22-5; 207T / Is 13:6-11; 208T / Is 24:1-6; 209T / Is 24:7-13; 210T / Is 24:16-23; 211T / Is 59:1-4; 212T / Is 59:6-9; 213T / Is 59:14-5; 215T / Jer 2:1-2 and 4-6; 216T / Jer 2:20-22; 217T / Jer 2:29-32 and 4:22; 218T / Jer 5:3; 219T / Jer 5:20-4; 220T / Jer 5:26-9; 221T / Jer 7:27-8; 222T / Jer 8:4-7; 223T / Jer 8:21-9:3; 224T / Jer 9:13-5; 225T / Jer 11:14; 229E / Jon 3:4-9; 4:1-2; and 4:11; 231T / Jer 13:22-3; 232T / Jer 14:10-2; 233T / Jer 15:1; 234T / Jer 15:5-6; 235T / Jer 18:11-5; 236T / Jer 22:3-5; 237T / Jer 22:24-5; 238T / Hab 2:12-3; 239T / Hab 1:2-4; 240T / Hos 8:1-4; 241T / Amos 2:4-7; 242T / Amos 5:6; 243T / Amos 5:10; 245T / Amos 7:14-7; 246T / Amos 8:4-5; 247T / Amos 8:7-8; 248T / Amos 8:10; 249T / Amos 9:10; 250T / Mic 6:9-12; 251T / Zeph 1:14-2:2; 252T / Hag 2:12; and 22-3; 254T / Zech 1:3-4; 255T / Zech 5:2-4; 256T / Mal 4:1; 257T / Job 21:7-13; 258T / Job 21:17-20; 259T / Job 24:2-7; 261T / Job 24:18 and 20-4; 262T / Job 27:14-6; 263A / 4 Esd 14:45-7 and Neh 8:1-8; 264T / 4 Esd 15:21-7; 265T / 4 Esd 16:3-12; 269T / Ez 9:9-10; 270T / Ez 7:23-5; 271T / Ez 14:12-6; 272T / Ez 18:20-4; 273T / Ez 39:23-4; 275T / Wis 1:1; 277T / Wis 1:1; 278T / Wis 1:2; 279T / Wis 1:3; 280T / Wis 1:5; 282T / Wis 1:7; 283T / Wis 5:15-7; 284T / 1 Sam 2:30; 285T / Wis 6:2-11; 316E / Heb 11:1-40; 317E / 1 Sam 2:12-7; 22-5; 27-34; 3:12-4; 4:10-8. 76 229E.

78

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

22-5; 27-34; 3:12-4; 4:10-8 (317E). However, here their distance from the rest of the sequence (Wisdom 6:2-11 is 285T) and Gildas’s statement at the beginning of DEB LXIV that he is now moving his gaze from ‘the rulers of his fatherland’ (Hactenus cum regibus patriae …) indicate that one sequence of methodical searching ended with 285T, and everything after that belongs another of Gildas’s arguments. This leaves us with three collections of testimonia / exempla: the first runs from 3E to 97E, and the second from 316E to 371E.77 The first of these covers the early part of DEB and shows almost no repeated uses, in sequence, of the same biblical book, and, therefore, can be dismissed as a sequence. The second, however, does show a certain methodical progress through biblical books. One of the characteristics of this collection is that it is made up predominantly, in contrast to the other sequences, of exempla: it is the praise of the ‘fathers’ of the Old Covenant (as sketched out in Hebrews 1178 and then exemplified by references to them in books of that covenant) and then of the ‘disciples’ of the New Covenant (as sketched out in Jerome’s De uiris illustribus79 and then exemplified in the books of that new covenant). So it has a conceptual unity reaching from Abel to the men of the early church. Since the material on the ‘apostles’ / ‘disciples’ is gathered using the Hieronymian hermeneutic, we can dismiss from this investigation the example after 362E, but this leaves us with twenty-four items in which a sequence is discernable.80 Moreover, this can be thought of as a ‘set’ by its relation to Hebrews 11 which determined the overall historical vision. However, the sequence running from Genesis through Exodus to 2 Kings does not indicate that Gildas followed this sequence of books in his own investigations, but rather that the common sequence was already long established in the

The contents can be seen in Appendix 1. See 316E. 79 See 367E. 80 316E / Heb 11:1-40; 317E / 1 Sam 2:12-7; 22-5; 27-34; 3:12-4; 4:10-8; 318E / Gen 4:4 with Heb 11:4; 320E / Gen 5:24; 324E / Gen 6:13-8:1; 325E / Gen 14:1-24; 2 Pet 2:7; and Heb 7:1; 326E / Gen 22:1-18; Heb 11:17; 329E / Gen 50:15-21; 330E / Ex 19-20; 34:29-35; and Heb 11:27; 333E / Num 25:5-12; 335E / Jos 3:10; Heb 11:9; 337E / Jos 13:8-32; and 22:1-34; 338E / Jds 11:1-40; 341E / Jds 6:25-6; 36-40; and 7:1-22; 345E / Jds 16:23-30; 348E / 1 Sam 7:5-11; 9:15-10:25; 12:1-25; 15:10-35; and 16:1-13; 349T / 1 Sam 12:2-4; 350E / 1 Kgs 18:20-40; 19:1; 2 Kgs 1:2-17; 352T / 1 Kgs 19:4-10; 353E / 2 Kgs 5; 354E / 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 355E / 2 Kgs 4:8-37; 359E / 2 Kgs 19:14-35; 360E / Jer 20:1-3; 26; 37:11-16; and 38:7-13. 77 78

79

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

LXX by the time the author of the Letter to the Hebrews did his work: Gildas merely followed, and augmented,81 that sequence. We can now express this information on the Old Testament in tabular form: Sequence 2

Sequence 3

Common Vg sequence

1 Sam

1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Kgs 2 Chron

1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Kgs 2 Chron Job Wis Is Jer Ez

1 Kgs

Is Jer

Is Jer Hab

Joel Hos

Hos

Amos Mic

Amos Mic

Zeph

Zeph Hag Zech Mal Job 4 Esd Ez Wis

Zech Mal Ez

Hos Joel Amos Mic Hab Zeph Hag Zech Mal has no location in the Vg

We can infer from this that the ‘Twelve Minor Prophets’ were found in a single codex, albeit one with Habakuk and Joel bound in a different sequence to the one usually encountered. That Isaiah and Jeremiah are found together, but Ezekiel far from them indicated that these ‘major prophets’ were not bound together, but probably Isaiah and Jeremiah were together (and possibly with the minor prophets). Similarly, that Job and Wisdom are not found in their ‘normal’ location indicates that they too were not bound in the usual order.

81

See the table in the database at 316E.

80

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

When we compare this evidence with both that of the common Vg order we expect that Job would come before the prophets, as also would Wisdom, while Ezekiel would come between Jeremiah and the Minor Prophets. When we compare it with that which is found in Augustine82 and Cassiodorus,83 we find that we should expect Ezekiel to come after Jeremiah, and Wisdom to come before the prophets. So this investigation yields as its direct outcome only the meagre point: Gildas arranged the books of the scriptures in codices in a manner different from that which we find elsewhere. However, it reveals something far more significant about the manner in which Gildas composed the DEB. He methodically searched the Scriptures as research for DEB either on two separate occasions, or he went through them once using two question-frames simultaneously. Moreover, by uncovering the sequences of test­imonia and exempla we are provided with further confirmation that Gildas worked with ‘whole cloth’ in finding scriptural support for his arguments.

6.  Other books Much attention has been devoted over the years to discovering the extent of Gildas’s library.84 However, when we examine his quotations from Scripture we find that it is frequently the case that the form quoted does not match that found in any other witness in the VLD – yet having a body of common forms, differing from those found in VL and Vg codices, is the most valuable indicator of the use of one author by another.85 This suggests that while Gildas did read a variety of authors, that he went, for the most part, directly to the Scriptures in his search for evidence against those before whom he had to act as a prophet. In nuce, Gildas cut his argument from whole cloth! However, in view of the suggestion by Burkitt that Gildas made use of two works of Lucifer of Cagliari (d. c. 370),86 and the obvious similarity in the way that Lucifer and Gildas use testimonia and exempla to prosecute their cases, the De doctrina christiana 2,8,13 Institutiones 1,1-9. 84 Kerlouégan (1987), 70-142. 85 See O’Loughlin (1994) for an example of common variants being indicative of Adomnán’s dependence on intermediate authors in his use of some biblical materials. 86 Burkitt (1934), 207. 82 83

81

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

question arises as to whether Gildas took over material directly from Lucifer.87 A comparison of the scriptural indices88 for the works of Gildas and Lucifer suggests a number of potential overlaps. It is worthwhile examining each of these in turn as it brings out how distinctive Gildas’s usage is from that of Lucifer.89 Case 1. Num 25:5-12 (333E). Lucifer par 1 cites Num 25:10-13 and makes allusion to the whole passage. However, there is no verbal dependence and while Lucifer see the execution as punishment for idolatry, Gildas sees is as penitential medicine. We have no basis for suggesting an influence from Lucifer. Case 2. Dt 1:17 (297A). Where Gildas makes an allusion to a single verse, Lucifer, Ath 1,4 quotes Dt 1:16-7 and makes a further allusion to v. 17; but there is no similarity of context. Case 3. Dt 17:2-7 (294A). While Gildas makes an allusion, Lucifer, Ath 1,6 quotes Dt 17:2-3; then 17:5-7; and then 17:8-13 while giving a running exegesis of the whole passage. Case 4. Dt 30:14-8. Both writers make a general allusion to this scene (Lucifer, mor 11,11) but there is no similarity of context. Case 5. Jos 6:20 (6E). While Gildas has an exemplum, Lucifer, con 2, has a quotation of Jos 6:20-4. Both authors are drawn to the same point in the Joshua narrative; but there is no similarity in what they draw from it. Case 6. Jos 7:10-26 (6E). While Gildas links Jos 6:20 with 7:10-26, this latter passage is used in a different work by Lucifer, par 3, as a broad allusion introducing a citation that runs from 6:27-7:26. There can be no influence from Lucifer. Case 7. Jds 7:1-22 (341E). Lucifer, reg 1, has an allusion to just verse 7:21. Case 8. 1 Sam 2:27-36 (384T [and 317E]) and 1 Sam 2:30 (284T). This is a particularly important case as here Burkitt believed that the departure of Gildas from the Vg could be explained by the ‘almost word for word’ agreement with Lucifer, Ath 1,10. 87 It should be noted that O’Sullivan (1978), 57 declared that ‘But Burkitt was wrong’ and went on to show that ‘the author of the De excidio was not quoting from Lucifer, but directly from a version of the Scriptures similar (but not identical) to the version used by Lucifer.’ That judgement will be upheld and extended in this chapter. 88 The index to the biblical usage of Lucifer is to be found in CCSL 8, 331-62 (and see pp. 530 and 561-2 also); the index to Gildas is the index in this volume. 89 In this section, but here only, the abbreviations of the Vetus Latina Institut will be used for the works of Lucifer: Ath = De Athanasio; con = De non conueniendo cum haereticis; mor = Moriundum esse pro Dei filio; par = De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus; reg = De regibus apostaticis.

82

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

Gildas

Lucifer

haec dicit Dominus manifeste ostendi me

Et uenit [inquit] homo Dei et dixit: haec dicit Dominus manifeste ostendi me ad domum patris tui

domum patris tui cum essent in Aegypto seruientes [in domo] Pharaonis et elegi domum patris tui ex omnibus tribubus Israel mihi in sacerdotio

ex omnibus tribus Israel mihi in sacerdotium ut ascenderent ad sacrificium meum et incenderent incensum et tollerent Ephod. Et dedi in domo patris tui omnia frumenta filiorum Israel in escam. Et tu quare respexisti in incensum meum et in sacrificium meum improbo oculo et honorificasti filios tuos plus quam me, ut

Quare respexisti in incensum meum et in sacrificium meum improbo oculo et honorificasti filios tuos plus quam me, ut benediceres eos a primordio in omnibus sacrificiis coram me?

benediceres eos a primordio in omnibus sacrificiis Israel coram me? Propter hoc haec dicit dominus Israel: Dixi, domus tua et domus patris tui transiet coram me usque in aeternum, et nunc non est sic dicit Dominus nequaquam mihi, non sic erit a me quoniam qui honorificant me, honorificabo eos et qui spernit me ad nihilum redigetur. Et ecce dies ueniunt et disperdam semen tuum et semen patris tui

Et nunc sic dicit Dominus quoniam qui honorificant me, honorabo eos et qui pro nihilo habent me ad nihilum redigentur. ecce dies uenient et disperdam nomen tuum et semen domus patris tui

83

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

Gildas

Lucifer

Et hoc tibi signum sit, quod ueniet super duos filios tuos Ofni et Finees In uno die morientur ambo in gladio uirorum

et non erit tibi senex in domo mea omnibus diebus, et uirum disperdam tibi a sacrario meo, ut deficient oculi eius, et defluet anima eius. Et omnis quae superauerit multitudo e domo tua decidet in gladio uirorum. Et hoc tibi signum, quod ueniet super duos filios tuos Ofni et Finees In uno die morientur ambo in gladio uirorum

When the quotation from 1 Sam as found in each is laid out in parallel it is immediately obvious that while neither are Vg (see the database), neither do they share the same VL text, and Gildas is not citing from Lucifer but making independent use of the same incident. Moreover, while Gildas makes use of 1 Sam 2:30 on two occasions in the DEB, in neither case does his text coincide with that that found in Lucifer: DEB LXII (284T)

Lucifer

DEB LXXVI (384T)

eos qui honorant me honorabo et qui me spernunt erunt ignobiles

quoniam qui honorificant me, honorificabo eos et qui spernit me ad nihilum redigetur

quoniam qui honorificant me, honorabo eos et qui pro nihilo habent me, ad nihilum redigentur

All told, there is no evidence here to sustain Burkitt’s conjecture. Case 9. 1 Sam 4:10-8 (317E). Lucifer, Ath 1,11, gives verses 10-11 as a testimonium whereas Gildas’s exemplum covers the whole story. Case 10. 1 Sam 15:10-35 (348E). Lucifer, par 4, gives just two verses as a testimonium whereas Gildas’s exemplum covers the whole story. Case 11. 1 Sam 15:17 (63A); 15:17-9 (168A); 15:20 (170T); 15:22-3 (171T); and 15:23 (173C). Lucifer, reg 2, quotes 1 Sam 15:12-5 and 17-28 (the two passages linked by ‘et infra’) as a single block of text,90 not in the interrupted way we find them in Gildas. In Lucifer, Ath 1,13, there is an allusion to 1  Sam 15:23, but not only is the context different, but Gildas quotes the verses. 90

84

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

Case 12. 1 Sam 15:28-9 (172T). Lucifer, par 4, quotes verse 15:28. The fact that Gildas uses 1 Sam 15 in a sequence, while these verses are in different works by Lucifer is sufficient to prove that Lucifer is not an influence on Gildas. Case 13. 1 Kgs 16:2-4 (180TE).91 This is the other case where Burkitt believed that Lucifer held the key to understanding Gildas’s biblical text; but in order to make the connection he had to assume that the textus receptus of Lucifer was lacunose. However, the expedient of looking at the sequence of quotations from 1 Kings in the two works shows that each author was using the biblical book independently: Gildas

Lucifer

1 Kgs 11:6 and 11

Cf. 1 Kgs 15:33 1 Kgs 15:34

I Kgs 16:2-4

1 Kgs 16:25-6 Cf. 1 Kgs 16:25

1 Kgs 21

Cf. 1 Kgs 22:42

Case 14. 1 Kgs 21 (181TE). Lucifer, Ath 1, 18-19, uses verses 8-14, 9-10, 17-24, and 20 as a series of quotations; but his citations do not match Gildas’s use of this story. Case 15. Ps 25:5 (499T and 319C). Lucifer, con 5, uses Ps 25:3-5; not only is it a longer quotation, but is used to make a very different point. Case 16. Ps 96:10 (188C). Lucifer, Ath 1, 30, uses this verse twice, once invoking it as ‘Dicit Spiritus Sanctus in XCVI: … .’ But there is no similarity of argument between the two writers; nor would anyone concluding an argument with this verse, as is Gildas, likely to have omitted a line like that just quoted from Lucifer. Moreover, the sequence of biblical quotations being used in building the argument are completely different in each writer. Case 17. Prov 24:11 (154C); 24:24-5 (152C); and 26:11 (133A). Lucifer works through the book of Proverbs in a sequence: Ath 1,18 using 24:112; then Ath 1,28 using 24:23-5; and Ath 1:29 using 26:11; but while there

See also 385ET in the database where another possible overlap is examined – and no evidence for a link between the two authors can be found. 91

85

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

are material overlaps in the verses quoted, there is no formal correspondence, nor common contextual comment. Case 18. Wis 5:15-7 (283T) and 6:2-11 (285T). At first sight this looks like a case where two quotations can be found in both authors, in 283T and 285T in Gildas and in Ath 1,32 in Lucifer. However, a closer comparison reveals decisive differences that point toward a coincidence rather than a case of dependence: Gildas Wis 5:15-7 1 Sam 2:30 Wis 6:2-11

Lucifer Wis 5:16-7 Wis 6:2-10

Case 19. Is 1:2-3 (192T). Lucifer, par 19, uses just verse 2.92 Case 20. Is 1:10 (194T); 1:15 (198T); 1:16-7 (199T); and 1:18-20 (200T). Again, the use of a similar sequence in Lucifer, Ath 1,39, raises the possibility that here Gildas originates his sequence not from a study of the biblical text, but with Lucifer. But as in Case 18, a detailed comparison of the sequence shows that there is no relationship other than both are using the same biblical author. Gildas Is 1:8 Is 1:10 Cf. Gen 19:1-29 Is 1:11-2 Is 1:13 Is 1:15 Is 1:16-7 Is 1:18-20

Lucifer Is 1:10

Is 1:15 Is 1:16-7 Is 1:19-20

Case 21. Is 3:11-5 (386T). Lucifer, reg 11, quotes just 3:11. Case 22. Is 10:1-3 (387T). Lucifer, Ath 1,40, uses these same verses, but while Gildas used the Vg, Lucifer used the VL. For another potential overlap, but again without any evidence that Gildas used Lucifer, see 64T in the database. 92

86

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

Case 23. Is 56:10 (151C). While Gildas only quotes this verse, Lucifer, par 34, uses 56:10-11. Case 24. Jer 2:4-6 (215T). Lucifer, con 8, uses 2:4-8. Case 25. Jer 2:26 (29E). Lucifer, con 8, quotes this verse which Gildas treats as the basis for an exemplum. Quite apart from the other differences, the widely differing positions of these texts from Jer 2 in DEB, while they are found in close company in Lucifer, is a further demonstration of the independence of the two authors. Case 26. Jer 7:11-5 (401T). Lucifer, Ath 2,1, quotes only verse 11. Case 27. Jer 9:5 (313C). Lucifer, Ath 2,1, quotes verses 5-9. Case 28. Ez 33:11 (95C). Gildas uses this as a ‘stock phrase’ on repentance, so it is particularly significant if it could be shown that Lucifer was also interested in this notion; and he uses it in reg 12. We can see the distance between the authors, firstly, by noting the different biblical sequences which form the context for its use: Gildas

Lucifer

Mt 11:28 Ez 33:11 Is 52:2

Is 30:15 Sir 5:4

Secondly, the versions do not agree: Gildas

Lucifer

qui non uult peccatoris mortem

Nolo mortem morientis dicit Dominus quantum ut reuertatur et uiuat

sed ut conuertatur et uiuat

Case 29. Hos 5:1-2 (412T). Lucifer, Ath 1,35, uses only verse 1. Case 30. Jon 4:11 (229E). Lucifer, Ath 2,33, quotes 4:9-11. Case 31. Zeph 3:1-2 (421T). Lucifer, Ath 1,36, quotes 3:1-5. Case 32. Zech 7:9-12 (424T). Lucifer, Ath 1,37, quotes 7:9-10; then 7:112; and then 7:13. Case 33. Mal 3:13-5 (433T) and Mal 4:1 (256T). Lucifer, Ath 1,38, quotes as a single text from 3:13 to 4:1 (eight verses). Case 34. Because of the unique place of the gospels in the work of Christian preachers, the relationship of both Lucifer and Gildas to these texts, and in particular the gospel of Matthew, is more likely to throw up over-

87

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

laps in the quotations used. The best way to see that Gildas is not following Lucifer is to see how there is no pattern in the way each has selected the quotations they used. This is facilitated in that most of the use of Matthew by Lucifer comes in the form of a catena of quotations in De Athanasio. Gildas 454T

7:1-2 (455T) 7:3-4 (456T) 226A 7:15-7 (458T) 7:24 (533T) 7:24-6 (445A) 7:26 (533T) 7:27 (536T) 8:11 (19C) 16C

Lucifer 5:6-7 (2,4) 5:19 5,20 5:21-2 5:22-3 5:23-4 5:43-8 7:2 7:3-5 7:13 (2,5) 7:15-6 7:16-21 7:24-7 8:2 (2,6) 8:12 (allusion)

A few other overlaps can be found in Matthew – none in the other gospels – but as with this sequence from the Sermon on the Mount, there is no evidence of any familiarity with Lucifer’s work by Gildas. Case 35. Rom 1:28-32 (477T). Lucifer, Ath 2,6, makes use of this favourite passage for theologians, but in a completely different context.93 Case 36. Rom 2:5-6 (479T). Lucifer, reg 12, quotes 2:4-6. Case 37. 1 Cor 5:1 (61C) and 5:9-11 (488T). Lucifer, con 11, quotes both of these in close company as part of a catena of quotations from 1 Corinthians. Lucifer, mor 10, quotes just 1:28 – but again there is no contextual similarity.

93

88

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

Case 38. 2 Cor 11:13-5 (490T) and 11:14 (62C). Lucifer, para 27, quotes both of these in close company as part of a catena of quotations from 2 Corinthians. Case 39. Eph 4:15 (462A) and 4:17-9 (491T). Lucifer, Ath 2, 30-31, quotes both of these in close company as part of a catena of quotations from Ephesians. Not only is the context different from the contexts in Gildas, but where Gildas alludes, Lucifer quotes, and Lucifer does not use 4:19. Case 40. 1 Tim 2:4 (48C). Lucifer, par 19, uses 2:1-4. Case 41. 1 Tim 6:3-5 (503T). Lucifer, con 12, uses 6:2-5. Case 42. 2 Tim 3:1-5 (498T). Lucifer, mor 10, uses this as final element of this catena: Phil 3:17-9 and 1 Tim 4:1-2 – there is nothing similar in DEB. Case 43. Tit 2:7-10 (501T). Lucifer, Ath 1,37, uses only verse 7. Case 44. Heb 4:12 (351A). Lucifer, con 10, quotes 4:11-3. Case 45. 1 Pet 5:8 (315E). Lucifer, par 23, quotes 5:8-9. It can be seen that there is not a single instance of any genuine overlap, other than the coincident use of the common deposit of the Scriptures, between Gildas and Lucifer. This has a direct and an inferential consequence for how we read Gildas. First, since the time of Burkitt’s conjecture in the 1930s, the figure of Lucifer of Cagliari has hung around the fringes of Gildas scholarship:94 similarities in their method of building a legally formatted case against opponents have been noted, concerns with clerical discipline have then been seen as a common element linking them, and there was in the background the possibility that Lucifer could explain some of the difficulties in Gildas’s biblical text. Not only is there no basis for the problem with the biblical text that Burkitt sought to resolve,95 but there is no evidence whatsoever of any contact by Gildas with Lucifer’s works. Any common interests are purely coincidental. It would be as well now, if references to Lucifer were to disappear completely from studies of Gildas. The second consequence concerns how we view Gildas’s own working practice with the Scriptures. We see repeatedly in the database that Gildas is the only Latin writer up to his time to use a particular passage or else one of only a handful to do so. Likewise, we see that he edits passages carefully not only to his argument but to his situation. And 94 However, Burkitt was not the first to draw attention to Lucifer in studies of Gildas, this practice seems to have originated with a footnote by Williams, 50, n. 1, which suggested a common text of Isaiah: see 64T in the database. 95 See ch. 2.

89

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

now we can see that when we compare him with a potential source of material – this does not affect the statement that both have adopted the format of a set of testimonia to prosecute their arguments – Gildas shows himself to be completely independent in his searching and use of the Scriptures. One conclusion suggest itself: that the selection of biblical passages found in the DEB is the result of Gildas’s own familiarity with, and searching within, the Scriptures.

7. Conclusions This chapter had looked at Gildas’s use of the scriptures from a variety of perspectives, some of them overlapping, with a view to seeing how he interacted with the collection of texts in front of him, how he thought of them as a group, what can we say about their form, and to what extent are we looking at the result of Gildas’s own labour in the DEB, as distinct from a reworking of existing materials. The most significant conclusion is that Gildas was working directly with the biblical texts in their whole extent: he searched the scriptures for the evidence he needed, selecting testimonia and exempla, for his precise purpose. He was not dependent on the work of others for his selection, even if the way he used the scriptures, and many of his choices of verses for citation, coincided with that of others. So the most significant conclusion of this chapter, devoted to studying details, is that we can look at his editorial work as reflecting his own theological vision.96 Therefore, looking at how he framed and responded to questions, albeit under the headings of the testimonia of the Law, means that we have to view Gildas as working theologically from scratch, not simply excerpting, and adapting, views already formed. But if Gildas worked directly with the scriptures and selected his own passages and perspectives, he was also a man of the tradition. He thought of himself as working within the boundaries of the canon, and this canon was the source of the authority of his evidence. Gildas may have been acting in an original way, but his whole argument was based on the premise that he was no more than the mouthpiece of the tradition: we do not hear his words, but the words of the prophets, the evangelists, and the apostles. He saw himself as wholly a man of the tradition, who employed the whole of the tradition in his arguments. He 96

This will be examined in ch. 5.

90

The Scriptures: Contents, Forms, and Relationships

already exemplifies that most notable characteristic of early European Latin theology: the paradox that innovation takes the outward form of non-innovation, by authors whose most strident claim for what they preach is that it is not their message.97 Where there were accepted ‘short cuts’ to reading the tradition, the work of Eusebius comes to mind, he used them: this was how the gospels were being read, so why do something new. But when the evidence was complex in its form within the biblical books, then its message could only be obtained by diligent research. Thus, we can be sure that his selection is not simply a collection of apt ‘proof texts’ but that the testimonia are selected as a result of his exegetical endeavour, and it is to this topic we now turn.

See O’Loughlin (1998a); and O’Loughlin (1999a), 273-96.

97

91

Chapter 4 Gildas as Exegete

There are no grounds for imagining Gildas as a lone voice speaking to an uncomprehending audience of illiterate barbarians. His work is highly polished and sophisticated and implies an audience (no matter how great or small) of similar sophistication. 

Lapidge (1984), 49-50

Not the least important development in Gildas studies in the recent past has been the awareness that one can no longer ‘regard Gildas as an eccentric and idiosyncratic writer.’1 Rather, he must be seen, in terms of his education and Latin culture as comparable with continental writers of the same period, and his work measured against such writers as Salvian of Marseilles or Faustus of Riez2 – writers whose exegetical method, formed in the aftermath of Augustine, was to establish a pattern for Latin teaching until ninth century. So, can we compare Gildas’s work as an exegete with such writers? At first sight, the answer must be negative. Those writers of southern Gaul consciously saw themselves as standing in the shadow of the great magistri, and sought to produce didactic works,3 and, consequently, their approach to the scriptures is plain for all to see. Gildas, by contrast, is not interested in teaching exegetical method, but acting as a prophet to kings and bishops. However, he did practice exegesis on a grand scale and this affords us enough ma Lapidge (1984), 27. See, for example, Lapidge (1984), 47. 3 A fact recognised by Cassiodorus when he grouped some of these works together entitling them ‘the introductory books’ (Institutiones 1, praef. 1); and see O’Loughlin (2004). 1 2

93

Gildas as Exegete

terial to try to discern parts of his method. And, in addition, he has left occasional traces of the formal terminology of exegesis, and assembling these throws further light on his working practices.

1.  ‘The Mirror of the Scriptures’ At the beginning of the DEB Gildas offers us this insight into his method both as a theologian and as the author of the book: Ista ego et multa alia ueluti speculum quoddam uitae nostrae in scripturis ueteribus intuens conuertebar etiam ad nouas et ibi legebem clarius, quae mihi forsitan antea fuerant, cessante umbra ac ueritate firmius inlucescente.4

This statement could be seen as the very heart of Gildas’s hermeneutic and his rationale for analysing the situation in Britain as he does, and the rationale for his own work in assuming that kings and priests are guilty of failing in their duties, and so in need for repentance. In essence the scriptures can be held up as a mirror to make what is happening before one’s face clear, and so one makes sense of life by looking to the scriptures of the Old Covenant, and then, for even greater clarity, to those of the New Covenant. Faced with any serious issue or crisis Gildas believed that he could search the scriptures and there find patterns in history which could analyse the situation for him in terms of both causes and remedies. While the actual processes by which a human being can find in any large narrative body the pattern by which they read their lives and formulate responses is a matter for psychology, for Gildas this searching after patterns was an explicit and formally approved way of explaining both history and politics, and was employed as an authoritative guide to action. Certain assumptions underpinned this method of looking simultaneously at life now and in the past. The premise of the enterprise was that history was legible: God had acted in electing a people, established a covenant, sent them leaders, priests and prophets: and all this was simply a matter of fact and these facts could be found in the scriptures. But as Christians, the centre of their belief was that ‘when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law’ (Gal 4:4). Their DEB I.

4

94

Gildas as Exegete

faith in Jesus as the Christ was implicitly that history was divinely purposeful and, from the perspective of the Christian, supremely legible. This was seen in the designation of Jesus as the ‘Alpha and Omega’ (e.g. Apoc 1:8), in the genealogies which linked the gospels to all the earlier histories, and in the statement that the risen Jesus ‘beginning with Moses and all the prophets, … interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself ’ (Lk 24:27).5 To deny that history could be read was tantamount to denying the belief in Christ. That established, one acknowledged that God worked within covenants, testamenta, each recounted in its books, and so worked in a ‘faithful,’ i.e. consistent, way. So people living in the time of the ‘new’ testament, which Gildas shows explicitly to be his understanding in DEB LXXIII – LXXV (and of which we shall say more in the next section), the patterns seen in the scriptural books about that time are a true guide to the workings of history. But this new time which reaches from the moment of the incarnation (identified as the moment recorded in Lk 1:38) to the day when Gildas’s book is read is, itself, part of a larger pattern of earlier covenants: how God intervened in the past was the guide to how he would intervene in the future. This mirroring of future to past is the cosmological expression to Gildas’s belief that his life situation finds its reflection in the events recorded in, for example, the books of Kings and Chronicles. Gildas’s primary exegetical strategy reflects this cosmology: it finds correspondences between what he believes is happening in Britain, a gens electa, and what he understands to be happening in the history of the earlier gens electa. This mutual interplay, which Gildas saw as a matter of picking out patterns, is his primary exegesis. But could he have viewed history as a pattern book? For Gildas this was not some activity of discerning ‘cycles’ or ‘patterns’ or ‘historical laws’ in the way that Greek historians sought out the patterns of hubris and tragedy, much less the fatum of the annus magnus, but was related to constants in a stream of discrete events. The absolute constant was that of the primary actor in history: God. Ever faithful (Dt 7:9) he acts as he promises, and his law does not change: it is not by some inner necessity that he responds to sin in particular ways but in faithfulness to his nature and the situation. The second constant for Gildas was human sinfulness: it was this that provoked God’s anger and his mercy, and the true manner of human action, after sin, was to engage in repentance – a theme he found in the prophets and as the opening of the gospel: ‘The time is fulfilled, See O’Loughlin (1998a).

5

95

Gildas as Exegete

and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel’ (Mk 1:15). This view of the relationship of the past and the present is, in Gildas’s understanding free of any determinism: God is choosing to act, and his audience can choose to repent; and so it can be seen as a genuinely historical vision. Indeed, the discernment of the time, that is the quality of the reading of the time, was the one area of doubt in the whole system: was Gildas reading the history of his own time aright, for if he was then his exegesis of scripture would be correct, and his analysis of the possible outcomes would also be correct. But in reading the scene one could make mistakes as people were warned in the gospel: ‘You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times’ (Mt 16:3). So Gildas found himself in a situation whereby he could know with certainty how God would act (he had the evidence in the past) and so every possible outcome in terms of its finality, but what was at issue was ‘the signs of the times’: establishing where Britain’s rulers and priests stood in relation to the divine law. In the mirror relationship between life and scripture, it was the former that was open to question, not the latter. So the task of exegesis confronting Gildas was not what scripture meant, but what do the events of this time signify about the condition of the people within the covenant? The answer to this involved ‘reading backwards’ from effect to cause, and then demonstrating the parallels between the events in the book and the events on the ground – and the latter process was the proof of the reading of the causes such that scripture and life were mirroring one another. The activity of ‘reading backwards’ was not, of course, confined to Gildas – it can be found in Christianity in every age as a manifestation of a popular belief that suffering must be some sort of punishment for sin – and while it does raise questions about his overall insight as a theologian, for the purposes of this chapter we can take it as a given. For our purposes here, the focus is on how he set about showing that his reading of Britain’s problems was to be found in the particular scenario of a people who were being punished for their sins within the covenant and must now change morally if they are to avoid total disaster. The answer lay in providing a series of parallels: if the situation of the earlier peoples and their kings and priests is shown often enough to be that of his people, then he has read aright the signs of the times he is living through. The paralleling begins with the opening pages of Gildas’s work. DEB 1 is a history of the first Israel as the chosen people of God (beginning at 3E) which leads on to the warning of Paul that they

96

Gildas as Exegete

should be watchful (33A), and the parallel is made explicit through the comment about Lam 1: 1 (10C) that the statement about ‘the widowed city’ is a statement about the church. Having described the first Israel and given its history in a potted form, Gildas must then give his audience a description of the island of Britain and its history. This account begins with the laconic: Habet Britannia rectores, habet speculatores. Britain has kings and bishops and if we know their history we shall see that they are in a state which allows him to read the situation in terms of the sin and its punishment. This descriptive history then occupies him from DEB 3 to 26. The sorrow of the tale lies in the reflection of one kingdom with another: the lawless Britain to which Gildas speaks is similar to the lawless Israel to which Isaiah spoke;6 and the fate of Britain before its invaders can be compared to that which happened long ago in ‘Judea’ (olim in Iudeam comparando) when they were attacked by the Assyrians.7 While Britain and Israel can be seen as reflections of one another, the patterns of divine punishment are even more widespread: the British are now like the Amorites of times past (ut olim) who were dispossessed of their land;8 and as God punished the princes of Zoan with foolishness and defeat, so he can punish the princes of Britain.9 It is ironical that it is this part of Gildas’s work that has, since Bede’s time, attracted most attention as our principal literary source for what was happening in ‘sub-Roman Britain,’ but, from Gildas’s perspective, this narration is but the preliminary proof that he has an important message for the rectors and overseers of his own time: Britain’s history was the prologue to the argument. While establishing the parallel of Israel and Britain forms the rationale for Gildas’s argument (and provides the basis for his technique of citing the scriptures to convince his audience of their sin), throughout of the reminder of his book he hardly refers to it. However, this silence is more probably explained by its being taken for granted as the basis of the argument rather than that Gildas having made the point moves on to other issues. So, for example, he reminds us that there is a parallel between Vortipor and his father and Manasseh and his father, Hezekiah: both are worthless sons of good kings.10 Likewise, there is a parallel DEB XXI (64T). DEB XXIV (76A). DEB XXII (73A). DEB XXIII (74C). 10 DEB XXXI (111A). 8 9 6 7

97

Gildas as Exegete

between the clergy of his own day and wicked Simon Magus.11 While warnings issued to Jerusalem by Solomon are to be seen as the same warnings that must be heard in Britain.12 One could continue and cite many more examples where Gildas points out that what is relevant to his Britain is what happened centuries before in the Levant, but multiplying examples may actually obscure the major point: all Gildas’s testimonia, exempla, and other quotations fit somewhere within the pattern of scripture as a mirror. He used scripture because it spoke not only in the moment of its composition, but because it can speak to the same condition in Gildas’s now. One further question suggests itself concerning this use of the scriptures as a mirror in which to see present realities: is this interpretation strategy a species of typological exegesis? While there are some similarities, Jerusalem then being equated with the church or Britain now, a closer examination of Gildas’s method suggests these are simply coincidences. Typology is a manner of relating to two or more people or events such that they are believed to be intrinsically related in some way such as ‘prefigurement’ to reality; ‘promise’ to fulfilments; imperfection to perfection; shadow to clear image; polar opposites (i.e. type and antitype); earthly to heavenly; a past to a present; or, now to the future – and these last two relationships are where this method coincides with Gildas. But the material of this form of exegesis is two ‘facts’ which are clearly not the same reality, and then its dynamism lies in finding a way that they can be shown to be closely related parts of a greater whole such that both are illumined by the relationship established. This can be seen in these cases of typology all of which are found in New Testament documents and so would have been known to Gildas. Consider these examples. First, the crossing of the Red Sea is a antetype of baptism (1 Cor 10:1-2): but knowing this one sees that both events, and the death and resurrection of Jesus, are all to be seen as acts of divine redemption – and so the crossing of the Red Sea can be viewed as a promise looking to fulfilment, and as a shadow looking to the reality of the time of Jesus, and one can keep expanding on the nature of the links and relationships. Second, Adam is a prototype and Jesus is ‘the last Adam’ who brings creation to perfection (1 Cor 15:22 and 45). Once this link is accepted then the relationship can be seen as one of imperfect to perfect, first to last, antetype to DEB LXVII (305A). DEB XXXVI (143C); in introducing this citation Gildas makes clear that he believed Solomon to be the author of Sirach; something that was rejected by Augustine, but upheld by Cassiodorus (Institutiones 1,4). 11

12

98

Gildas as Exegete

type such that only through knowing about Jesus does one understand Adam, but if one does not know about Adam one cannot make sense of Jesus – and the process expands knowledge by the contrast (in 1 Cor 15:22 the two figures are antitype to type): Adam caused death, Jesus caused life. This couplet can now be seen as forming the nucleus of a whole theology, and it can spin out into ever-greater detail as in the Eve – Mary typology. Third, the manna of the desert is related in Jn 6 to the food which Jesus gives whether that be seen as his life, his message, or the Eucharist – and the kind of typology depends on how one wants to interpret John’s gospel – and, indeed, one can interpret the relationship validly in every possible way because these are simply ‘exegeses’ of the underlying link between the manna and the food Jesus gives. Typology belongs within a sacramental universe, and it is suited to making sense of the on-going religious realities people meet in liturgy and study.13 Gildas does not have available to him two discrete events which he can relate to one another in his exegesis, nor can he view the situation that gives rise to his analysis as part of revelatory scheme. He has his own incomplete crisis whose causes he is seeking, and then he goes back to the record for parallel examples. This is not a case of seeking an inherent link between dissimilar realities, but looking for exactly comparable situations – it is the method of the medic making a diagnosis and prognosis on the basis of past experience. As such, the events surrounding Manasseh and Vortipor are not expressions of one reality, but two distinct historical moments. In each case free human agents have committed sins (and thus involved the divine agency), but due to the direct similarity of their situations and actions one can make a prognosis on the incomplete case (that of Vortipor) by comparison with the complete case (Manasseh): and in so far as the present situation is as yet incomplete, there is the possibility that Vortipor can change and thus history need not be repeated. Indeed, the past is studied by Gildas precisely so that it will not be repeated in the present, but rather people ‘will turn and live.’14 Therefore, far from being a typological / allegorical / sacramental reading of the scriptures, Gildas’s approach was radically historical. He was searching out the factual, historical15 – and to that extent the literal See O’Loughlin (2000b), 34-48. Ez 18:23 – this is one of the central planks of Gildas’s theology, see 95C where this is dealt with at length. 15 We shall return to what ‘historical’ (historialiter) might mean for Gildas later in this chapter. 13 14

99

Gildas as Exegete

– meaning of the scriptures: because knowing what happened then is a guide to causes and effects.16

2.  The book as the record The scriptures form ‘the bible’ of Christians. This bible is so identified as ‘the Christians’ book’ that it is not uncommon for contemporary Christians to adopt willingly the notion of ‘a people of the book’ as an unproblematic way of understanding themselves in relation to other monotheisms. Moreover, for western Christians the book, ‘the Good Book,’ has had such a prominence in their religion that ‘the bible’ has become a synonym for any essential rulebook. By extension, when contemporary scholars read Gildas and find there long quotations from the scriptures, along with phrases such as dum ergo, ut Salomon ait: seruus durus … ,17 one could easily imagine that Gildas shared this view of ‘the bible.’ However, assuming that view supposes that the divine revelation and the book are co-terminous if not identical, and this implies that Gildas held views on the ‘sufficiency,’ inerrancy, inspiration, and authorship of scripture that were common in some strands of theological scholarship between the later Middle Ages and the nineteenth century. But we have no evidence that Gildas held any of those positions or that those concerns ever troubled him. Therefore, it is necessary in any study of an early medieval writer to warn ourselves of the dangers of imposing later Christian approaches to the scriptures, based on noting certain common features of their differing hermeneutics, on these authors – an anachronistic action that was further blurred by the rhetoric of continuities with antiquity that was an important element in theology until very recent times.18 The counter-indicator to “the bible is the vehicle of truth” position can be easily demonstrated for Gildas. For instance, in the quotation above, the authority of the statement seruus durus non emendatur uerbis is not because it can be found in the book, or the Book of Proverbs, but because it was the statement of Solomon It is possible that the best way to understand Gildas’s approach to the past is to compare him with the way military thinkers before the First World War viewed military history as a book of examples of what to do and what to avoid. Consider this statement by Marshal Ferdinand Foch: La connaissance précise et minutieuse de l' histoire est à la base même de toute étude militaire (see Marshall-Cornwall (1972), ii). 17 DEB XXII (69C). 18 See O’Loughlin (2012a). 16

100

Gildas as Exegete

who was known for his wisdom. Solomon having said it, ut ait, it had come to Gildas by being written in a book. That there is not-an-identity in Gildas’s mind between the book and the truth he wishes to call to the attention of his audience can be seen time after time in the DEB in what are almost throw away phrases such as … a Salomone notatur … or hoc modo per prophetam … or in euangelio Dominus dicit … ,19 but this phenomenon has more significant implications for how we read Gildas. Case 1: the patriarchs In the Letter to the Hebrews the author offers his Christian audience a view of the early history of the world and of the chosen people as the history of people who placed their faith in God: it is this faith that is the key to what happened in the whole of history, and this history had only become complete – and so visible – in the coming of Jesus.20 This long passage – itself an appeal to history – became the core of DEB LXIX to LXXII. What is significant is that while Gildas takes his basic pattern from Hebrews, he has no hesitation in taking other people as his examples of faith – Eli, Melchizedek, Phineas, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, and Jeremiah – and of omitting some of those mentioned in Hebrews: Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Rahab, Barak, and David. This exchange of characters is only possible because it is the history of the people concerned, not the selection as found in the Letter, that is of primary significance. Once Gildas has chosen the men (the Letter to the Hebrews includes two women: Sarah and Rahab) who will be his examples of holiness, he then proceeds to search out all the other historical information about them that he can find – in the scriptures – and it is this fuller historical picture that forms the basis of his argument. That this is so can be seen in the case of the flood in Noah’s time. For the author of Hebrews, Noah is saved because of ‘faith,’ whereas for Gildas those saved – understood as the collectivity of the church – are the penitent.21 Likewise, when Gildas selects Melchizedek he uses the fact of his blessing Abraham as the final point for his argument.22 Again, it is the whole story of Phineas – built up from at least four sources23 – that provides Gildas with his example of

21 22 23 19

20

All taken from DEB XXXVI. Heb 11:1-40 See 323A and 324E. See 325E. See 332A – 334C.

101

Gildas as Exegete

a man of zeal. In every case, the focus is upon the historical individuals, and not the book. Case 2: the apostles DEB LXXIII – LXXV is one of the most interesting sections in the whole work for appreciation of Gildas’s attitude not only to the scriptures but to the times, and the events of those times, narrated in them. His opening sentences could be seen as a summary of his theology of revelation, within which is located his views of scripture: Sed quid immoramur in exemplis ueteribus, ac si non essent in noua ulla? … … … de extento sanctorum noui testamenti tironum amoenoque prato.

These exemplary individuals – namely the patriarchs and the apostles – belong to two different covenants. The nouum testamentum Christi has succeeded the older covenant, and the latter’s relative inferiority (a notion he would have read in the final verses of Heb 11) means that, rhetorically, we need not delay with it. The people are to be seen in relationship to the covenant within which they live; and it is these sets of facts that have authority. Having recalled the earlier covenant, he passes to an even greater group, greater because they belong to ‘the lovely pasture of the new covenant,’ who can show what are the demands necessary for those who want to be sacerdotes of this covenant; and incidentally showing that for Gildas the clergy are within the new covenant equivalent to the levitical sacerdotes of the older covenant. So who are these exemplary men who can act as models for the new covenant’s priesthood? The list has eight members: (1) James the bishop of Jerusalem – a complicated figure for the tradition because the early sources all refer to him as the ‘brother of Jesus’ a fact that became unacceptable in the second century,24 so Gildas avoids the problem by using this detail from Jerome; (2) James the brother of John; (3) Stephen; (4) Peter; (5) Paul; (6) Ignatius; (7) Polycarp; and (8) Basil of Caesarea. What is significant is that in only three of these cases (James the brother of John; Stephen; and Paul) is evidence from within the New Testament canon used,25 in other cases it is historical narration (i.e. Acts) that is used as the source of the exempla; and in the case of Paul details are 24 On the complexity of this issue see the collection of Chilton and Neusner (2001); and on the problem in Gildas’s immediate source, Jerome’s De uiris illustribus, see O’Loughlin (2009b). 25 See 366E to 371E.

102

Gildas as Exegete

added from other, non-canonical, sources. The significance of this is that the scriptures as a book are not privileged, but rather the events of the covenant are – and one can build up the information base on those events from any relevant sources be they canonical or not. But perhaps more importantly this list lets us see how Gildas imagines the time of the new covenant: it reaches from the moment of Jesus’s conception (the standard accepted moment) to the time of his own writing, and it stretches in a seamless line from the very first clerics in Jerusalem as recounted in Acts through the time of Basil of Caesarea to the cleric to whom he speaks. There is no notion of a qualitatively different ‘earliest period’ such as the ‘New Testament Period’ (i.e. a time of the canonical books before the ‘church’s books’) or a period before ‘the death of the last apostle.’ There is a ‘great forest of saints’ (magnam … sanctorum siluam) in the time of the new covenant; some information is found in the canonical books and some not – but since it is the saints that are the focus, Gildas makes no distinction between the books. In both these case it is the actual history of the people involved which is the basis for comparison with those of the people of Gildas’s own time. His contemporaries are not judged by the standard of ‘the scriptures’ but against the standard of actual behaviour of human beings called to be saints, whose memory is recorded in the historical narrative of scripture.26 Thus, in Augustine’s language, the scriptures form a set of signa ordered towards a complex res: the actions in history that they bring to the mind of reader.27 Whereas, if it was ‘the scriptures’ that was the revelation, these signa would be ordered to that res which might be named ‘the divine mind’ / or ‘the divine author’ (or similar), and would have to be respected as such. But there is no trace of this view of the scriptures in Gildas. One consequence of viewing the scriptures as a record of the history of God’s people rather than a collection of divine utterances is that Gildas has no hesitation in editing the texts he cites, dropping verses, or combining texts. Likewise, he can produce exempla that are mosaics of biblical images. The constant element is not the sacred book, but the pattern of divine responses to the behaviour of people pursuing either holiness or sinfulness. Each pattern of life elicits a divine response, and the record of those interactions in the past is the scriptures. Since God is constant, knowing what has happened in the past, facilitated by the See Augustine, De doctrina christiana 2,28,42-4. See De doctrina christiana 1, passim.

26 27

103

Gildas as Exegete

biblical record, allows Gildas to understand the present with certainty and so predict one definitely possible future (i.e. an inevitable outcome within the present state of affairs, but one which can still be avoided). It is the series of testamenta that is fundamental, and each has its record in this series of books.

3.  The ‘senses’ with which the book can be read By the sixth century it was clear that the Christian scriptures had to be read in a variety of ways, both to avoid the possibility that being the word of God they might contain falsehoods or contradictions and so that they could have several meanings simultaneously in the time in which they were written, in terms of the Christ, in terms of the church, and, possibly even a still future meaning.28 During the fourth century in writers such as Jerome, Augustine, and John Cassian these strategies were explored as a set of interconnected meanings which demonstrated how a single reality, for example the city of Jerusalem, could be read with several real and true meanings in the text when read with the appropriate ‘sense’;29 and it was not long before these were being set out as systems by writers such as Eucherius of Lyons who set out a three-fold system as if the multiplicity of the ways that scripture had been interpreted by the fathers were expressions of an underlying dynamic inherent in the text.30 Many other writers would struggle with the problem of creating a systematic order of ‘the senses of scripture’ that would not only show how they related to one another but set forth the basis for why there was a particular number and order of senses – Isidore of Seville, for example, created an elaborate taxonomy31 – but no one ‘system’ commanded universal assent. Therefore, for any individual writer in the early middle ages we have to proceed solely on the basis of what they themselves describe as different senses. So when we meet the terminology of ‘senses’ –

28 On the many senses of the scriptures in Justin in the second century, see De Jonge (2003), 466-9 which well expresses the need to develop complex reading strategies for the scriptures. 29 See Jerome, Commentarii in Ezechielem 4,16; Augustine, De ciuitate Dei 17,10; Cassian, Conlatio 14,8 – and the commentary on these in O’Loughlin (1999a), 166-8. 30 See O’Loughlin (1999a), 172-80. 31 See O’Loughlin (1998b).

104

Gildas as Exegete

as we do in Gildas – we must seek to establish from the writer’s own use of the terms, relative to one another, what each meant to him.32 The most explicit case of Gildas employing ‘senses’ in his use of scripture comes in DEB LXXXIX which can be seen as a unit within the whole work dedicated to the witness of Malachi against unworthy priestly behaviour. Gildas gives six testimonia,33 but it is his use of Mal 2:5-10 (430T and 431T) that is most significant for our question. Gildas read Malachi as relaying an oracle which spoke of a holy priest (2:5-10). But, for Gildas, this oracle cannot be understood using just one sense. The beginning of the oracle is to be read ‘according to history’ (secundum historiam) and so it can be seen to be relating to the past and the time of Levi or Moses (i.e. in the time before the entry into Canaan whereas Malachi was believed to be living in the time kingdoms of Israel and Judah34) and addressing priests in that time. So speaking of time past, he says: (5) ‘My covenant with him was a covenant of life and peace, and I gave them to him, that he might fear; and he feared me, he stood in awe of my name. (6) True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. (7) For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

Now at this point the time-signature of the oracle shifts to Malachi’s present and so it is to be read as a change in sense (nunc item mutauit sensum) and the oracle continues: (8) But you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by your instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi, 32 Williams, 210, n. 1, represents the common position of his period: there was a systematic set of senses which represented a common teaching (‘From Origen the western church, especially through the writings of Jerome and Augustine, had come to recognise three senses in the words of Scripture: the literal, the historical, and the moral or spiritual.’); and, making that assumption he sought to locate Gildas as one following in the steps of those major figures. However, there never was such an organised system – a fact that is curiously reflected in Williams’s ambivalence of ‘moral or spiritual’ when one of the few points of relative agreement was that the ‘moral’ (relating to action by Christians) was distinct from the ‘spiritual’ which tended to be linked to doctrine and, in particular, to reading texts as speaking of Christ. See also Williams, 218, n. 2. 33 427T, 428T, 430T, 431T, 432T, and 433T. 34 Thus, for example, believed Augustine, see Appendix 2.

105

Gildas as Exegete

says the Lord of hosts, (9) and so I make you despised and abased before all the people, inasmuch as you have not kept my ways but have shown partiality in your instruction.’ (10) Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?

This case reveals quite an amount about how Gildas understands the ‘senses’. The most important aspect is related in just one word: loquebatur. Malachi spoke the first sentences in one sense, secundum historiam, and then the remaining sentences in another. The senses are, therefore, not interpretation strategies deployed by the Christian exegete by which he obtains a satisfactory interpretation; the senses that are necessary for correct understanding are ‘inside the text’ and it is the exegete who recognises them. Using the senses is perceived, therefore, an act of uncovering that which is already there and part of the ontological structure of the divine communication, rather than an act of creativity by the theologian. From this relationship between the sense and the text flows the need for the constant awareness of the reader, such as Gildas, that he is reading with the correct, the true, sense since, as we see in this example, that sense can change between two sentences in what was thought of as a single unitary divine utterance. In this text the shift is indicated by a change in the time to which the audience’s attention in directed: in verses 5-7 all the verbs are in a past tense (‘my covenant was … I gave … he feared’); followed in verse 8 with a shift to the present. So the senses are here related to the times within the text; and the past has been named ‘historical’ but we are not given a name for the sense relating to the present. When Gildas uses Mt 5:14-6 as ‘a single testimonium’ to make clergy ashamed of their behaviour, he offers another glimpse of his understanding of the ‘senses.’35 If the clergy of his own day were not blinded by ignorance they would understand this text and then, behaving visibly differently, men would see their good works and glorify the Father. Having made his point Gildas says that if he had time and ability he would give many other examples and these would be explained in the ‘historico uel morali sensu.’ It seems clear that uel is here to be explained as combining the alternates: parts would have to be explained ‘historically,’ parts ‘morally,’ and some, presumably, in both senses. However, while this examples shows that Gildas thought of these two senses as distinct, DEB XCIII (449T to 453T).

35

106

Gildas as Exegete

exactly how they relate to one another is not clear.36 From the text used in the testimonium it could be that the ‘historical’ sense is that which understands the image in its details, while the ‘moral’ relates to the clergy of his own day (sacerdotum huius temporis) knowing they must hold the lamp of ‘learning and good works.’ But we must acknowledge our ignorance here, all we can say with certainty is that the moral and the historical are distinct, while it appears clear that the moral refers to appropriate activity in the present – once again the distinguishing feature is time. That the ‘moral’ related to the present activity of his Christian audience, namely clergy, is also suggested by a comment in DEB LXX. As Joshua established Israel by his actions long ago (335E) so, according to ‘moral understanding’ (morali intelligentia) the clergy now must set up the spiritual Israel. That there is yet another sense, as we should expect, within Gildas’s approach to scripture is seen in DEB LXXXIII when he says that Joel 1:5; 9-12 (409T) must be understood, in its entirety, ‘spiritually’ (spiritaliter intellegenda) but what this means is anything but clear. It would appear that what Gildas has in mind is that while those ancient priests are warned of a famine of the produce of the fields, Gildas is concerned with a ‘famine of the word of God’ ( fame uerbi Dei). If that is the case, then ‘spiritaliter’ here means little more than that the passage be read allegorically: the priests who served the altar were not going to cry over actual ruined fields but over a breakdown in the relationship of the people with God. But this call to ‘interpret spiritually’ seems little more than stating that scripture uses material ‘signs’ for speaking about spiritual realities. However, there are a couple of instances in the course of the DEB which indicate that Gildas was aware of the notion that realities from the time of the Old Testament could have a distinct meaning within the new dispensation of the Christ’s advent. So we are told in DEB I that the city of Lam 1:1 (10C) is the church. Similarly, in DEB XCV Gildas is clear that Christians are to understand Noah’s ark as the church (464A), but this connection is already made in the allegorical reading of the flood in 1 Pet 3:20-1 (465A). The more explicit case that this ‘Christian’ sense is the ‘spiritual sense’ is found in DEB LXXXVII where we are told that Zephaniah’s references to Jerusalem (420A) are to be understood as referring to the church or the soul (spiritaliter ecclesia uel anima intellegitur). So the ‘spiritual’ appears to be the larger 36 Williams, 218, n. 2 thinks they are to be explained by Gildas following a tradition that goes back to Origen – but while that might be the meaning here, we cannot think of these arrangements of senses in such systematic terms.

107

Gildas as Exegete

meaning of the scriptures so that what once related to one reality, be it the ark or Jerusalem, can still in Gildas’s day have a direct meaning in Christian terms. The distinctions between the three senses for which we have names, ‘historical’, ‘moral,’ and ‘spiritual’ (and there may have been others such as the alternative to the ‘historical’ in DEB LXXXIX) seems to be that they can be distinguished in terms of time: the ‘historical’ is past; while both ‘moral’ and ‘spiritual’ relate to ‘the present’ in different ways. The ‘moral’ relates to actual chronological present, the moment ‘now’ – in which Gildas or one of those he addressed is actually acting: so it is every possible moment when a human action, subject to judgement, can take place. The ‘spiritual’ refers to the whole present age of the world: these texts from a previous age when Jerusalem was the focus, now still speak but in this age it is of the church and Christian realities that they speak. So this is not a momentary present but relates to quality of time after the incarnation. That this temporal understanding of the senses is part of Gildas’s understanding fits with two other aspects of his thought. Firstly, he thought of Israel, the Old Covenant and its books as being in a binary relationship with the Church, the New Covenant and its books. This can be seen in the way he relates the stories of the patriarchs in terms of the Letter to the Hebrews: the earlier time has come to its fulfilment in Jesus (DEB LXIX), and so the material Israel has been replaced by the spiritual Israel (335E).37 Secondly, in DEB XLIV Gildas speaks of the time of future judgement: the dies iudicii. In citing passages from Isaiah, Gildas says that the fear of the sinner for that day is ‘ineffable’ and this seems to suggest that of the past and ‘the whole present’ (all the moments that comprise the final aetas mundi) one can speak, but of that ‘future’ one cannot speak.38 This is the nearest we come to an awareness of an ‘anagogical’ or eschatological sense in Gildas. So Gildas was familiar with the terminology of the senses, but they do not constitute a very conscious nor a prominent element in his exegesis. As such, while we can discern the broad outlines of what he meant by inherited terms – and these seem to be best understood in terms of

Both examples have been examined earlier in this chapter. See comments in the database before 207T.

37

38

108

Gildas as Exegete

time – we should not seek too much precision because we do not have a sufficiently broad base of evidence.39

4. Conclusions Gildas does not follow to any noticeable extent an established pattern of exegesis – though his use of some standard exegetical moves such as seeing the New Testament as the fulfilment of the Old, and his acquaintance with the language of ‘the senses,’ show that he was familiar with the tradition of exegesis – that we find in the western church in the period after the time of Jerome and Augustine. This was due to the task confronting him being not one primarily of exegesis, but of preaching. His purpose is to use the information in the scriptures to explain what is happening and to promote what he believes will change the future of his people. It was that concern that was the driver of his method as an exegete, and it is that method – holding scripture as a mirror to human events – that is his distinguishing mark within the tradition of insular theology. While we have many examples of insular exegetes from the period after Gildas – one might think of Adomnán or Bede – these did not look back to him as an interpreter of scripture despite the vast quantity of passages he quotes in DEB but looked by on him as a teacher of the church,40 and so it is to that aspect of his work, Gildas as a theologian, that we now turn.

39 It is perhaps worth noting that for Gildas, and other early writers, the ‘historical’ is not equivalent to our notion of empirical history which we view in distinction to myth and narrative construction: the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) and the feeding miracles (e.g. Mk 8:1-10) both are fully ‘historical’ as events in the past. 40 See Sharpe (1984).

109

Chapter 5 A working theologian

In reality, the genre of the De excidio is the prophetic: its author had constantly in his mind the terrible imprecations of the Old Testament prophets against the Children of Israel. By the same token, the historical section of the text, which Grosjean considered incongruous, is there because of the same impulse – that of discerning in the historical life of a people the influence of Divine Providence that produced the first and greatest of all monuments of historiography: the Old Testament. 

O’Sullivan (1978), 29.

Until relatively recently among those now called ‘theologians,’ and still to some extent among other scholars, the notion that Gildas was ‘a theologian’ would have seemed ludicrous: theologians were specialist academics who taught in a formal manner the materials that would make up a course in divinity. From such a perspective Gildas was a religious writer, indeed a churchman with varied interests, but the title of ‘theologian’ would not be relevant. However, if we think of a theologian as someone who reflects on the problems, both in life and in believing, that a religion throws up to one who is an insider to that belief-system, and who does this in a deliberate way (and seeking to communicate with others in writing is an indication of such deliberation); then Gildas can be said to be engaging in theology. Moreover, as a reflective discipline on the interaction of a tradition with the questions of the time (whether those questions are thrown up by academic discourse – for example the need to explain a problematic text – or external situations – for example the need to explain human misfortune), it is best to see theology as a practice – one ‘does’ theology – and so not only can one study the theol-

111

A working theologian

ogy produced by someone, but one can observe the person’s practice of the endeavour.1 So any assessment of ‘a theology’ that was produced in the past must include an assessment both of the theological messages transmitted by theologians (i.e. that which is akin to the ‘content’ of a book) and the manner in which theology is done (i.e. that which is akin to the manner of producing those theological positions). Moreover, these should not be separated – though this is something that frequently happened in the past – for one cannot dissociate a piece of ‘scholastic theology’ from the method and conditions of medieval university and its ways of doing and communicating theology.2 Likewise, a monastery, a modern university, or a barrio de bajo in contemporary south America3 will, to the extent that the theologian is engaging with the reality of her/ his context, each produce a distinctive theology. For the historian of theology, theologia and the processus theologicus are inseparable; while the connection between them constitutes an important topic for a proper understanding of their literary products. However, for most early medieval writers, especially from the insular region, most of what we have is the theologia in the form of a text along with general background about the society in which he lived. Given that Gildas’s DEB is our principal source for the times in which he lived, his work is a case in point: it is from the DEB that we have to build our picture of the situation that produced the theological framework which we find in the text. So we know of the invaders of sub-Roman Britain as the major event in his life at the time of his writing, and we can extract other details from the work itself. For example, he shows no sign of a monastic context, but he did write as cleric, so we can assume that he saw himself as part of a bishop’s clergy. We must infer the processus by which the text emerged by internal criticism; a process that does not yield a high level of certainty. Approaching the DEB to examine its theology also brings into focus another aspect of the history of theology that rarely intrudes in stud1 The notion that theology is a form of ‘doing’ was one of the initial insights of the nineteenth-century scholars who engaged in the then new discipline of ‘historical theology’; see O’Loughlin (1995d). 2 The classic study of context and method influencing outcomes is Grabmann (1909). 3 Gutiérrez (1991) is a very good example of the interplay of societal context and theological reflection; moreover, he is an interesting modern counterpart to Gildas in that he deals with the problem of Christian suffering, using many of the same biblical texts (e.g. the Chronicler), but with a very different method, and reaching very different conclusions about the relationship of God and a society to those of Gildas.

112

A working theologian

ies of particular theological problems. We need to distinguish between the theological perspective of Gildas as he confronts his experience as a human being (i.e. the understanding of his world expressed in terms derived from his religious tradition) and his views, in so far as these can be extracted from his works, on his understanding of particular theological topics which were matters of dispute or concern within the practice of theology in his time. The first of these concerns is his ‘theological myth’: how does he imagine the interrelationship between God and the creation, and how does he see the connection between human actions (collectively or individually) and divine interventions in history. The other set of questions we might characterise as his ‘practical theology’: these would include such topics as how he viewed the church, the nature of the ecclesiastical ordo, the workings of grace, or the Eucharist, and any number of topics that were discussed among Christian theologians up to his time. We have already discussed, in the preceding chapters, several of these matters in so far as they relate to the scriptures, and many of them received detailed examination in the work of Williams (although for all Williams’ care, those discussions are now very dated). The list of practical topics on which Gildas could be summoned to give evidence in modern historical investigations is almost endless; consequently, this chapter will not attempt to provide a summary on ‘Gildas on this’ followed by ‘Gildas on that.’ Part of the rationale of this monograph is to provide material on Gildas and his most important source, the scriptures, which might facilitate his use by other scholars in their investigations of particular points by showing how he used and re-used familiar texts to make his point. So, for instance, there are sufficient references to the ministry of clergy, to altars, and to the liturgy in general in the DEB to formulate a rather clear picture of Gildas’s views on the Eucharist – some of the individual texts have even been commented upon learnedly by Williams from the perspective of the eucharistic controversies of his time – but such a study would be better located in a narrowly focused article or a longitudinal study of the Eucharist in the early middle ages. In this chapter, the emphasis will be upon the mythic dimension of Gildas’s theology, and its connection with his use of the scriptures.

1.  A baptised nation One of the distinctive features of the early medieval reading of the scriptures is that they read the scriptures as the books of a people, a gens.

113

A working theologian

While it is taken for granted – indeed not worthy of comment – that the Hebrew scriptures relate to an ethnos, the Jewish people, and form the story of that people which named itself ‘Israel,’ we tend to think of the scriptures as used by Christians, both Old and New Testaments, as the sacred books of a religion, Christianity, and so of the adherents of that religion: the Christians as individual readers or hearers of that collection of books. This distinction, and the failure to give due weight to the notion of the group whether thought of as ‘the church’ (as a single populus), or as a gens, tends to occlude the place of the collectivity, of which the baptised individuals were membra within a corpus, within their hermeneutic of the community’s sacred texts.4 The scriptures were the church’s book, not the sacred texts of the individuals who were known collectively as ‘the church.’ So from the time before Gildas, and for centuries after him, one of the aims of theology was to give expression to this collectivity, or to show that one’s own group was one of the gentes which the apostles had been told to go and baptise: euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos (Mt 28:19).5 We see this sense of the Christians being a single populus in Augustine (354-430) where it constitutes the anticipation of the ciuitas Dei, or in Salvian of Marseilles (midfifth century) when he, for example, contrasts the Christians with pagan tribes – both ‘church’ and ‘tribe’ are ontological existents.6 Likewise, many writers later than Gildas, such as Gregory of Tours, Muirchú, and Bede, sought to show that their gens not only had been baptised but now had an historia within the compass of Divine Providence.7 The appeal to Britain having ‘both rulers and bishops’ in the DEB, coupled with the analysis of the crimes of each, is indicative both that Gildas thinks of the British as a race, a nation, a gens, and indeed as his people, but also that he thinks of them as a gens sancta (cf. 1 Pet 2:9) whose crimes can be seen as sins. From this starting point, the older debates about Gildas’s nationality, and whether or not he thought in terms of a ‘national church’ [as distinct from a ‘universal church’], or the significance of his use of Latin as an indicator of his allegiances must be 4 Corporate identity as a feature of early medieval theology has been explored in O’Loughlin (1997) and van Bavel (1998). 5 Many theologians today point out that docete is a false translation of mathéteusate; however, it is with docete that Gildas would have known the text, and, in contrast to modernity, his emphasis would have fallen on gentes. For the debate surrounding this verse, see Hare and Harrington (1975); Meier (1977); and Howard (1988). 6 De gubernatione Dei 5,1. 7 The fullest treatment of the theme is in Jones (1969).

114

A working theologian

seen as founded on faulty premises.8 That Gildas criticises the rulers of Britain and sees them as sinful, and so bringing down divine punishment on the whole people, is the key for identifying the nation of which Gildas considers himself a member: for, in his view, God both elects nations, punishes them, and sends them prophets. So the British – to whom he addresses his words – constitute a nation which has been given a place in the allotment of the lands of the earth to the nations (cf. Gen 10). Moreover, this nation has been baptised – the simple evidence is that it not only has clergy like himself but bishops whom he criticises for their shortcomings – and so is a ‘genus electum regale sacerdotium gens sancta populus adquisitionis’ (1 Pet 2:9) with a history which has been grafted into greater history of the scriptures which are in Latin: and he can, therefore, claim Latin as nostra lingua.9 Latin is the language of his people in so far as they look to their identity within the covenant which is explained by history, and that history is recorded in the scriptures in Latin.10 As such, it is this gens as an ecclesia which is acting within the history of the world, and is the subject of divine favour and chastisement; and members who act for the gens, such as kings and bishops, are not only punished as individuals, but bring punishment on the group. Moreover, we need to note that there is nothing in the DEB which gives any hint as to how Gildas conceived the relationship of that ecclesia to the ‘catholic’ church. Gildas’s treatment of a single gens / ecclesia should not be read as him thinking in terms of later ‘national churches’; nor his use of Latin as his church’s language be construed as evidence of Catholicism: like other early medieval writers, he thought of his own baptised nation as a distinct reality in the divine plan, while simultaneously seeing it as part of the larger catholica whose books he read and whose saints he called upon, but we have no hint in the DEB as to how he integrated these perceptions of ‘the local’ and ‘the universal.’ The effect of being a baptised nation meant that Britain could be, in Gildas’s time, an actor within history just as Israel had been in its time. Just as Israel was chosen as God’s people: uos eritis mihi regnum sacerdotale et gens sancta (Ex 19:6), so now Britain through Christ’s baptism was a populus adquisitionis (the additional note of regarding a new covenant nation found in 1 Peter). Just as Israel was bound within a covenant, so too was Britain; and just as Israel suffered when it broke These debated are outlined in O’Sullivan (1978), 23-32. DEB XXIII. 10 See ch. 4,2 above. 8 9

115

A working theologian

that covenant, so too would Britain. Moreover, since invasions, depredations and enslavement by its neighbouring nations was the oft-occurring penalty suffered by Israel for the sins of its kings and religious leaders; so now if Britain was suffering from its neighbours, then it seemed little more than an appeal from effect to cause that it too, in the actions of its rulers, had broken its covenant. Seeing Britain as having a covenant meant that it was the people, as an entity, that was the primary religious actor – it would need to be loyal, holy, and repentant – and it would act through its leaders. So the call to repentance uttered by Gildas in the DEB is not that of a preacher proclaiming that suffering is a punishment for sins in the hope that many individuals would repent, but of a ‘court preacher’: it is the rulers and bishops – as public agents of the nation – who must hear his prophecy and then collectively repent and thus inherit the promises of the covenant.

2.  Observing times and events The spectacle of its own history was to Israel a moral affair of justice with both rewards and punishments. If God and the people were bound together in a covenant (see 412T for Gildas’s awareness of this), God’s protection was the counterpart to Israel’s faithfulness. If Israel was oppressed, then it must be the result of God’s withdrawal, to say the least, of his protection, and that could only be the result of Israel placing its trust for protection elsewhere; and such an act, trusting in themselves or princes or foreign alliances could be viewed as idolatry, apostasy, or some other form of sinful unfaithfulness. When faithful, by contrast, the people could ‘live in the land’11 and be secure, enjoy peace, and be free from invaders / punishment. Indeed, so linked were the acts of the king / nation and his/national survival that any break down in the certainty of unfaithfulness incurring divine wrath had to be explained. Perhaps the best example of this is the case of Manasseh, who is both wicked and not-so-wicked. The story of this wicked king is recounted in 2 Kgs 21. This tells of all the king’s idolatry and unfaithfulness, and this provokes the response: “ … … … therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, I am bringing upon Jerusalem and Judah such evil that the ears of everyone who 11

See Dt 12:10; 31:13; 1 Kgs 8:40; or 2 Chr 6:31.

116

A working theologian

hears of it will tingle. I will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line for Samaria, and the plummet for the house of Ahab; I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. I will cast off the remnant of my heritage, and give them into the hand of their enemies; they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies, because they have done what is evil in my sight and have provoked me to anger, since the day their ancestors came out of Egypt, even to this day” (2 Kgs 21:12-5).

However, there was a problem. First, Manasseh reigned for fifty-five years in Jerusalem (2 Kgs 21:1) and there was no record of the promised destruction of Jerusalem, indeed, the story concludes with the peaceful note that ‘Manasseh slept with his ancestors, and was buried in the garden of his house, in the garden of Uzza’ (v. 18). So, all in all, this was not a bad ending after a very long reign! This would seem to challenge the covenantal pattern, and imply that God did not carry out his threat. The problem was addressed by the Chronicler in 2 Chronicles 33: if Jerusalem was spared and the king lived so long, then having listed all the crimes as he found them in 2 Kings, something else must have happened – and so he produced a story of Manasseh in distress, in the midst of his punishment in Babylon, entreating the Lord. This cry of humble repentance led to him being restored by God to Jerusalem, where, a changed man, he removed the offending idols, restored the altar and offered sacrifices, and then he died and could sleep with his fathers (2 Chr 33:1020). However, while this is the locus classicus for presenting the moral universe that hangs on the notion of the ‘covenant,’ it presents us, studying Gildas with a problem: given that Gildas makes conscious use of the Chronicler as distinct from Kings,12 why did he not make use of the example of the repentant Manasseh to demonstrate his own call to repentance as the way to avoid the penalties for breaking the covenant: his only reference to Manasseh (111A) is as a sinful king with whom Vortipor is compared. So, in effect, we see Gildas adopting the theology of the Chronicler without making use of this perfectly formed exemplum. With the links between divine protection, faithfulness, invasions by foreigners, and the status of being a God-chosen nation so clearly linked, it is not surprising that a cleric viewing the events of sub-Roman Britain, with invaders on two fronts, saw this in terms of the invasions of the earlier Israel. Such a reading would not only have removed the theological question – why is God letting this happen – but have given, See ch. 3,3 above.

12

117

A working theologian

in what must have been a chaotic situation, the appearance that it ‘all made sense.’ While it is tempting to ask which came first: the chaos of the invasions giving rise to a particular way of reading the scriptures, or a manner of reading the scriptures which then meant that invasions were construed as divine punishment; that question probably cannot be answered because in every period there have been Christians who believe that time is legible to the extent that all events can be seen to proceed directly from God. A more useful approach is one which treats both the book and the events the book narrates together with the aim of seeing how the narrative was constructed, in the hope of ascertaining the extent to which the author imagined God’s justice being played out in history. While there are many Christian theologians who have rejected the notion of a moral universe – Augustine being the most significant example in late antiquity – there have been many others who have adopted it as a way of viewing history as being an arena for divine action – Eusebius of Caesarea being an obvious example.13 Moreover, anyone who adopts this approach finds much in the scriptures – not only in the Old Testament but in many instances in the New such as the story of Ananias and Sapphira14 (used in 29E) – which embody this view. Once it is adopted, it then forms the structure by which all those elements in experience which fit the pattern are noted, while those which clash with the pattern are passed over un-noticed; as such the theory becomes its own proof, and probably debilitates its adherents in that they become so convinced of the divine hand at work that they cannot imagine otherwise. The urgent appeal with which Gildas writes suggest that he has succumbed to this: there is only one way that history can go, and it is obvious to all who accept it, or if it is not obvious this is because, in Gildas’s terms, people have been blinded to it by their sins. But surely it does not take a great deal of circumspection to see the falsehood of arguing from effect to cause; or in logical terms to see that ‘affirming the consequent’ in order to posit the antecedent is a fallacious move? This, however, does not take account of the two dimensions of covenant: God will both protect and punish; and the condition for this was faithfulness by the people. So there is a sufficient and necessary connection between the historical state of the people and their faithfulness. If they are secure, then they have been faithful; and when faithful they See O’Loughlin (2009d). Acts 5:1-11

13 14

118

A working theologian

are secure; if they are being punished, then they have been unfaithful, and when they are unfaithful they are punished. Gildas, assuming the moral universe of the Kings / Chronicles / prophets, has merely to affirm the fact of invasions, which equal punishment, and then he has proof of existing infidelity. Now certain of infidelity, he goes and searches for the evidence and then, in one form or another, he finds it. Gildas looking at his nation from east and northwest can pursue unfaithfulness with the doggedness of the detective in a crime story who ‘knows’ with certainty, from his instinct, that someone is guilty but also knows that it will take long and painful work to prove it! Gildas, like many before and since, became a victim of his own theology of history, and what we have is not a creative theologian or even a profound commentator on the Britain of his day. What we have is an intellectually gifted cleric with skill in handling the biblical texts as sententiae which can be assembled and reassembled to form a case from authorities which demonstrate, establish, and then prove his initial judgement about his situation.

3.  Repentance, redemption, and freewill If his Christian people are involved in this relationship with God whereby they are punished, empirically in this world, for their sins, what role is there for redemption, human freedom, and grace within Gildas’s theology? The path to salvation is, for Gildas, through belonging to a people of the covenant; and freedom has been exercised in that its leaders (appointed by providence) have sinned. Sin is the primary demonstration of freedom and the punishment is the result of culpability. But there is for Gildas, as for the Chronicler and Ezekiel, the forgiveness of God (48C; 95C; and 544E). There is the freedom to chose repentance, and those who repent avert the punishment of God, and live. So the goodness of God is presented primarily in that: ‘Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?’ (Ez 18:23). This is what makes sense in Gildas not only analysing the problems of his people, but in his making a case – the DEB – to show that they are guilty of the crimes, so that they can repent. This need for peoples and individuals to repent is then seen as the fundamental message of the gospel (432T). So what does this do for his understanding of Jesus as a saviour? In the light of Gildas’s larger theological vision, there is nothing effected directly by the Christ as a saviour. Salvation is with God for anyone who

119

A working theologian

keeps his covenant, and redemption for anyone who breaks the covenant, and then recognising their crimes: repents. The role of the Christ is that he offers the possibility of that relationship which was with one people, Israel, to be extended now to every people ‘out to the ends of the earth’ (e.g. Acts 1:8). Given that it is the action of doing penance which gives life after a breach of the covenant, we can see that there is within Gildas’s vision no need for grace in the Augustinian sense. The people need to repent, and then obey the covenant, and then they shall have security and life. God’s ‘grace,’ in so far as Gildas would understand the term, would consist in that while God does not have to offer a ‘second chance’ to sinners, does actually do so. Grace is equivalent to mercy: God out of his free goodness –offers sinful Christians the possibility of conversion and repentance. It is the making of this possibility available that answers, for Gildas, to an affirmation that God is gracious. This position, that the Christ is the one who extends what was originally offered to Israel, and preaches repentance, is not unique to Gildas in Christian history. But it would be wrong to identify it using any of the technical vocabulary of either the patristic controversies about grace (in which case it might become some variant of ‘Pelagianism’) or the even later language of controversies over ‘actual grace’ (in which case it might be linked with some variation on ‘Molinism’). There are many reasons for avoiding such designations, but these are the most important. First, much of that language – and indeed the rhetoric of condemnation as in venom of Prosper of Aquitaine’s attack on John Cassian – was already well established by Gildas’s time. Yet, here is his greatest silence: he never once adopts or shows any awareness of that technical jargon. Since Gildas did not use this language, pressing his work into such frameworks is little more than acting as a doctrinal judge of his orthodoxy (by whatever standard) and does not advance our understanding. Second, even to align him with the various positions that emerged in the fifth century is less than useful: these were positions that were developed in the heat of argument, and the interminable debates over ‘Pelagianism’ in later writers is little more than a failure to recognise that no one in the world of late antiquity or the early middle ages approached these issues with the systematic sense that generated the interest in those problems. Third, Gildas does not think of himself in the DEB as either a teacher of theology nor as a theorist on the Christian life, rather he is a prophet who must show the people that they are held by God convicted of their sins, and so he must preach to them repentance. Anyone preaching such repentance, and consequent reform of behaviour, must forego all the

120

A working theologian

subtleties of the grace debate, as the old adage has it: ‘anyone stepping into a pulpit to preach hellfire is at least a semi-Pelagian.’ If it is useless therefore to categorise Gildas against some ‘doctrinal standard,’ it is equally useless to ask questions about how he viewed his nation in relation to the original Israel. Gildas saw a consistency in message running through both testaments, and the only difference between them that is certain is that while the old covenant was limited to one people, now through Christ and baptism a covenant is offered to many peoples. His theology is, therefore, best described as that of the Chronicler universalised. So what is the place of Israel? Was Gildas a ‘supersessionist’? Not only have we no basis for an answer, but we have no evidence that he even thought in such terms. He does consider the New Covenant preferable to the Old (DEB LXXIII), but this could simply be that this is the covenant by which he and his people have access to God’s forgiveness. So can we say anything else about his theology? One important point is the similarity between the understanding of the nature of covenant and forgiveness we find in the DEB and that which underpins the penitentials. In the penitentials, the sin is taken as a fact and a medicine is applied which restores the health of the body. In the case of the penitentials, God is offering a ‘second chance’ to an individual which is then accessed by ‘doing penance.’15 Not only is this the same structure of reconciliation as in the DEB, but in the DEB the language of penitential medicine is used (333E) and the notion of sin needing a physician (223T) is part of Gildas’s appeal for repentance. So we could say that the theology of reconciliation that is found in DEB as the level of Gildas’s people, the British, is the same as that which is found at the individual level in his penitential. If this is accepted, then it is likely that it was the actual practice of using the penitential system (which seems to have emerged out of a monastic context) which may have provided Gildas with his theological structure (and, perhaps, his entire religious hermeneutic), which he then filled out by repeated searches in the scriptures. However, the study of the DEB within the history of the development of penance, and the penitentials in particular, is best left to another study, rather than appended here to a study of Gildas and the scriptures.

15

See O’Loughlin (2000a).

121

A working theologian

4. Conclusion In 1984 Michael Lapidge made the convincing case that Gildas had to be taken from the monastic milieu that was the ideal of his hagiographers and placed firmly in the world of late antique rhetorical education: … the marks of the traditional Roman education were indelible: from the grammaticus, a command of correct Latinity and fluent familiarity with the best Latin authors, particularly Vergil; and from the rhetor, a knowledge of how to plead a case and a familiarity with the techniques for doing so. By contrast, we should not expect to find such features in the Latin of an author trained in a monastery or an Episcopal school.16

Lapidge then went on to show just those features as the characteristics of Gildas. As I come to the end of this study of Gildas and the scriptures, this statement about Gildas being, in effect, a lawyer in his basic intellectual outlook seems to hold good also for his work as a theologian. He is the cleric who has taken to pleading a case, a lawyer turned preacher, and builds his evidence by testimonies of the law – his testimonia – and precedent – his exempla – in order to make his case: you have sinned, recognise this and repent. So long as he achieves this end, any collateral price he has to pay in terms of a larger theological vision he seems prepared to pay. But that said, Gildas does not show any awareness of those ramifications. Indeed, while he is a working theologian, he does not manifest any great reflective skills: he looks at his immediate situation and sees it as another instance of the infidelity of a chosen people, and then prescribes a remedy. There is no discussion about how he knows this, whether or not it is an appropriate way to view life, or any kind of doubt in his treatment. It could be, of course, that he did engage in such reflections but kept them from his audience whom he thought of as needing direction rather than discussion, but somehow I suspect that Gildas did not engage in a reflective process in the production of the DEB. My reason for believing this lies in the fact that there is not a hint of awareness of any discussion of the matter in the work, not that his position might not square too well with other aspects of Christian belief (and he would have become aware of this in reading other theologians), nor any evidence – apart from one work by Jerome: his De uiris illustribus – of his use of biblical commentary materials or previous selections. Lapidge (1984), 33; this opinion of Gildas’s education had recently been reasserted by Breeze (2010). 16

122

A working theologian

Gildas was his own man, he went directly to the scriptures, and adopted what he saw there, combined with a model of repentance which he knew in actual pastoral practice, that of the penitentials, and produced his prophesy to his people. As such, with a lawyer’s training, in his major work he was a uir unius libri – and, theologically, he paid the price!

123

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Structure Each use of Scripture is set out sequentially under the traditional chapter divisions as found in the editions of DEB. Those which are new can be located in relationship to those already found in the margins of Williams’ and Mommsen’s editions – and in most cases the text of DEB is given. Sigla T E C A

=  Testimonium =  Exemplum = Citation (a quotation in the text but not one intended as a testimonium) = Allusion / Biblical Phrase (this is a broad category when none of the previous three categories is appropriate)

Abbreviations Iuxta Hebr. = the Vg Psalter in the iuxta Hebraicum version. Iuxta LXX = the Vg Psalter in the iuxta Septuagintam version LXX = the Old Greek [‘Septuagint’] version. Mommsen = Mommsen’s edition of DEB as found in MGH, AA 13. MT = the Masoretic text. NRSV = the New Revised Standard Version. Vg = the Vg version. Vg = the manual edition of the critical edition of the Vg (i.e. Biblia Sacra Vulgata prepared by R. Gryson (Stuttgart 1994)).

125

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

VLD VL Williams W&W

= the Vetus Latina Database. = one of the Vetus Latina versions. = H. Williams, Gildae De Excidio Britanniae [Cymmrodorion Record Series III-IV] (London 18991901). = J. Wordsworth, H.J. White, and H.D.F. Sparks, Nouum Testamentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi latine secundum editionem S. Hieronymi (Oxford 1889-1954).

Numeration All biblical references follow the Vg numeration (unless noted otherwise). Where relevant, the two Vg psalters will be distinguished by (Iuxta LXX) or (Iuxta Hebr.) respectively. Roman Numerals indicate the textual division into chapters found in editions of Gildas. Arabic Numerals form a continuous sequence identifying individual uses of scripture. Standard Versions Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations in Latin are from the Vg. Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations in English, except when they render a particular word or phrase cited in Latin, are taken from the NRSV. The use of the Vg in this database Through this database the readings found in Gildas are compared with the Vg, even when it is clear, at a glance, that the form used in DEB is VL. So why compare Gildas in those cases with the Vg? The rationale is based on an important observation of Bonifatius Fischer: the only unifying characteristic of the VL is its dissimarity to the Vg.1 Therefore, comparaison with the Vg is intended to show the nature of the dissimilarity of Gildas, not to suggest that the Vg is an ‘authorised text’ in some way or other: the Vg is accorded the same status here that it is accorded in the printed volumes of VL as published by the Vetus Latina Institut. See Fischer (1972), 4; and note that Houghton (2009), 1, n. 1 makes the same point. 1

126

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB I 1A. Is 65:14 and Gen 6:6 Silui, fateor, cum immenso cordis dolore uses the expression dolore cordis found in Is 65:14 and Gen 6:6. 2A. Wis 1:6 The phrase ut mihi renum scrutator testis est Dominus alludes to Wis 1:6: benignus est enim spiritus sapientiae et non liberabit maledictum a labiis suis quoniam renum illius testis est Deus et cordis eius scrutator est uerus et linguae illius auditor. 3E. Num 20:8 … ob unius uerbi dubitationem terram desiderabilem non introiisse was identified by Mommsen as a reference to Num 20:12 (where Moses is told ‘Because you did not trust in me, to show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them’). However, Gildas makes clear that this judgement was the result of ‘single word of doubt.’ This seems unclear as Moses’s doubt was expressed in his striking the rock twice, rather than once, with his rod. Gildas’s identification of the second strike as a ‘word’ is based on Num 20:8 where Moses is told to take his rod and ‘speak to the rock’: tolle uirgam et congrega populum tu et Aaron frater tuus et loquimini ad petram coram eis. Moses is presented as the great legislator, admirandum legislatorem, who nonetheless, nihilominus, is punished for his disobedience. In this, Gildas sees a pattern: some who have received divine favour become, subsequently, disobedient to God’s commands; therefore, they have to be punished for this action in a special way for ingratious disobedience. Gildas seems to invoke the notion of more having been given, so more is expected (cf. Lk 12:48). This becomes the common theme in the following exempla. 4E. Lev 10:1-2 … filios sacerdotis alienum … ignem … periisse was identified by Mommsen as Lev 10:1-2. The phrase ignem alienum is used in Lev 10:1. These sons, Nadab and Abihu, have been blessed in being priests, but are punished as they had ‘offerentes coram Domino ignem alienum quod eis praeceptum non erat’ (10:1). 5E. Ex 14:22; 16:15; 17:11; Num 11:1; 14:43; 21:6; 26:51; 26:65; Dt 32:10; Jn 6:31-2; and Rom 2:25 This exemplum of how a whole beloved people can be punished by God is made up of many scriptural verses. Gildas gives the number of the people as 600,000 whereas it is 601,730 in Num 26:51; that the only two men who escaped, Caleb and Joshua, is based on Num 26:65; that they went dry shod

127

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

through the sea is based on Ex 14:22; that they were fed with manna is based on Ex 16:15; however, Mommsen did not note that Gildas refers to caelestis panis which invokes Jn 6:31-2: Moses dedit uobis panem de caelo (the reference to Ex 16:17 in Mommsen is a false reference); that while Moses held up his hands, Israel prevailed is based on Ex 17:11 (the reference to Ex 6:11 in Mommsen is a false reference); that the people were killed by beasts, iron and fire refers to Num 21:6 – snakes, Num 14:43 – the sword, and Num 11:1 – fire respectively; that they died in the desert refers to Dt 32:10; and that the desert can be identified as Arabia may depend on 1 Kgs 10:15 (i.e. one does not need to posit Gildas having access to a geographical handbook for this point). This exemplum begins with a recall of God’s acts of deliverance and ends with his punishing disobedience. Williams (2, n. 2) correctly pointed out that the use of praeuaricatorem in Gildas takes its meaning from Rom 2:25; however, there is no need to invoke any reference to the VL at this point, for while this would explain the use of the word praeuaricator in the Vg of Rom, it is the fact of the use of the word in Rom that is important for our understanding of Gildas. 6E. Jos 3:4; 3:16; 6:1; 6:20; 7:1; 7:10-26 This exemplum is made up of scenes relating to the entry of Israel into the land God gave them, and the punishment meted out them for disobedience in the aftermath of divine assistance given to his people. Mommsen cited the act of crossing the Jordan, Jos 3:16, 2 but did not follow up the point that this was at an unknown point which is a reference to Jos 3:4. The reference to the city, Jericho, is based on Jos 6:1 and that to the trumpets on Jos 6:20. After these acts of divine favour the act of disobedience is the sin of Achan: Jos 7:1 and 10-26 (the base of the crime is presented in 7:1 – filii autem Israhel praeuaricati sunt mandatum et usurpauerunt de anathemate nam Achan filius Charmi filii Zabdi filii Zare de tribu Iuda tulit aliquid de anathemate iratusque est Dominus contra filios Israhel – I have placed the echoes in Gildas in bold type (and see 7:11-12) – after which the story is interrupted in Jos and it picked up again at 7:10-26). This entire story must be seen as the reference for Gildas’s point only makes sense by noting that not only did Achan die but his whole family and everything, animals and possessions, connected with him; therefore, Mommsen’s resticted references, 7:23-24, are deceptive. The reference to the actual retrieved goods is Jos 7:21; and Gildas uses palliolum for the red garment that was taken by Achan mentioned in that verse. These is no recorded use in the VLD for this diminutive: the Vg reads pallium, and we must see this diminutive as the result of Gildas’s rhetorical style; however, since the VL reading was uesta, this usage indicates that Gildas’s normal text for Jos was the Vg.

See 52A below.

2

128

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

7E. Jos 9:3-20 and 2 Sam 21:1-9 The final exemplum in this series is somewhat different from the previous ones in that the punishments that God inflicts are not for disobedience to a divine command but for breaking an oath which has been sworn while invoking the divine name. In Jos 9:3-20 we have the story of the Gibeonites who trick (see vv. 4 and 22 which make this explicit) Joshua into giving them a treaty which he then refuses to break because he has sworn by the Lord … iurauimus illis in nomine Domini Dei Israhel … (v. 19). Later (2 Sam 21:10-9), David when confronted with a three-year famine enquires why the Lord is punishing Israel and is told it is because of Saul’s guilt for breaking the treaty with the Gibeonites (v. 1). This is expiated by them being given seven of Saul’s sons whom they crucify on a mountain in the presence of God: qui crucifixerunt illos in monte coram Domino (v. 9). Immediately, it is the time of the barely harvest … et ceciderunt hii septem simul occisi in diebus messis primis incipiente messione hordei (v. 9), so presumably the famine is now past. However, there is a sequel about the burial of the bodies which runs from v. 10 to v. 14; and it is the longer passage of 14 verses that Gildas probably thought of as a section of text. In Gildas’s eyes both the famine in the land and that ‘some’ people died is part of the punishment for a ruler breaking an historic covenant with God; the sin of Saul (and so of the British) consists in that they have broken faith (broken an oath given in God’s name), rather than in the fact that Saul murdered Gibeonites. Moreover, because the ruler has sinned, therefore the people are in a state of sin; and, hence, are punished by famine. This situation is remedied by the death of the seven sons. Presumably the death of these people, by crucifixion on a mountain in the presence of God, is to be seen in sacrificial terms by parallel with the crucifixion of Jesus: these died to expiate the sins of the wicked ruler, and, consequently, the people are delivered; in like manner the death of some Britons at the hands of their enemies may have been viewed by Gildas as redemptive. Gildas’s use of calliditate following the Vg’s callide (Jos 9:4) and foedus (see Jos 9:7) indicate that his normal reading text was the Vg as these are rendered by uersute and testamentum in the VL. 8A. Wis 11:24 The phrase peccata hominum should be read in the context of the occurrence of the phrase in Wis 11:24 which is a prayer that God overlook men’s sins so that they have a chance to repent. 9C. The quotation from Jerome’s Prologus in libro Hieremiae (Vg, 1166) not only indicates the presence of a Vg text of Jer with Gildas, but also that he thinks of the Vg as a normal text of the Scriptures. This can be asserted because the four ‘alphabetic’ laments (Lam 1:1-22; 2:1-22; 3:1-66; and 4:1-22) are only presented with a letter from the Hebrew alphabet before the appropriate verses

129

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

in the Vg. There is no evidence for the presence of these alphabets in the VL, and in all likelihood they were not present (just as they are not present in the LXX) 10C. Lam 1:1 Gildas’s text departs from the Vg: Gildas

Vg

Solam sedisse urbem uiduam, antea populis plenam, gentium dominam, principem prouinciarum, sub tributo fuisse factam

ALEPH quomodo sedit sola ciuitas plena populo facta est quasi uidua domina gentium princeps prouinciarum facta est sub tributo

Gildas text is clearly the VL. In the VLD there is no other case of an author using urbs for ciuitas. 11C. Lam 4:1 Gildas’s text departs from the Vg: Gildas

Vg

Obscuratum aurum coloremque optimum mutatum

ALEPH quomodo obscuratum est aurum mutatus est color optimus

The text is VL. In the VLD there is no case of a text closer to Gildas than the Vg. 12C. Lam 4:2 and 5 Gildas’s text departs from the Vg: Gildas

Vg

Filios Sion … inclitos et amictos auro primo, amplexatos fuisse stercora.

filii Sion incliti et amicti auro primo … amplexati sunt stercora

The text is VL. In the VLD there is no case of a text closer to Gildas than the Vg. 13C. Lam 4:7 The text is identical with the Vg, except that Gildas has omitted one comparison: candidiores nazarei eius niue nitidiores lacte rubicundiores ebore antiquo sapphyro pulchriores. However, whether the VL and the Vg differ at this point is unknown, so this citation does not contribute to our knowledge of the text used by Gildas.

130

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

14A. Lk 1:79 Gildas’s description of how his understanding of Scripture, and so of his own situation, increased as he read the New Testament contains an allusion to the process of enlightenment with the coming of the new covenant in Lk 1:79. The next nine citations, 15C to 23C, form a unit. They are all taken from the words of Jesus in the gospels and they are set up as a set of contraries. It is clear, on the one hand that the Christ wants to call people to salvation; but Gildas wants to show that that salvific will is not incompatible with Jesus the judge who condemns. The ‘salvific texts are set out first, then following et e contrario by the ‘condemnatory’ texts. Here are the oppositions Gildas set out in the three couplets: Salvific texts

Condemnatory texts

Mt 25:24

Mt 8:12 with Mt 15:26 with Mt 23:13 Mt 7:23 Mt 25:10-12 with Mk 16:16

Mt 8:11 Lk 23:29

There does not appear to be any single author, Gildas apart, who combines these texts or even brings the two poles of any one couplet into opposition. In default of such a source, this can be seen as an original element in Gildas’s exegesis. 15C. Mt 15:24 Gildas’s text departs from the Vg: Gildas

Vg

non ueni nisi ad oues perditas domus Israhel

non sum missus nisi ad oues quae perierunt domus Israhel

While codices that are generally considered VL resemble the Vg for this verse, the presence of this exact form in a wide variety of authors (in Ambrose – on several occasions, Jerome – on several occasions, the Rule of the Master, and later Isidore, among others) suggest that this was one of the VL forms of the verse. The use of non ueni for non sum missus may have been influenced by Mt 5:17; 10:34; Lk 5:32; or Jn 7:28; however, the consistent use of the phrase ad oues perditas domus Israhel points to it being known as a quotation as such.

131

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

16C. Mt 8:12 The addition of huius is indicative of the VL; but we should note that W&W point out that the addition of huius is found in codices DEØLQR 17C. Mt 15:26 Gildas’s text departs from the Vg: Gildas

Vg

non est bonum tollere panem filiorum et mittere canibus

non est bonum sumere panem filiorum et mittere canibus

The use of tollere rather than sumere does not necessarily point to VL for the majority of the extant codices have non licet accipere. However, one codex, ‘c’, has tollere at Mk 7:27. More significantly, many writers, notably Augustine, have the quotation in the same form as Gildas, while Jerome has tollere but with dare instead of mittere. So, the balance of the evidence points to Gildas using a VL text of Matthew’s gospel. In Mommsen’s apparatus he notes that the Avranches manuscript has sumere instead of tollere; however, tollere is to be preferred as the lectio difficilior while sumere is a harmonization to the Vg. 18C. Mt 23:13 Gildas has Vae uobis rather than Vae autem uobis and this omission is found in some strands of the VL.3 This verse is also used, with an omission of scribae et Pharisaei at 469T, and when these are read together it is clear that Gildas is using a VL version. 19C. Mt 8:11 The Vg reads Abraham et Isaac; Mommsen edition omits the et, but it is found in manuscripts A and P. 20C. Mt 7:23 Gildas

Vg

et tunc dicam eis [quia non noui uos] discedite a me operarii iniquitatis

et tunc confitebor illis quia numquam noui uos discedite a me qui operamini iniquitatem

Gildas’s text departs from the Vg, but we should note that reading of the Avranches manuscript is closer to a complete quotation. In its fuller form it

W&W note that the autem is omitted in Vg codices ER.

3

132

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

is very close to the text of the VL as found in codex ‘h’ which has illis where Gildas has eis. Mommsen noted the ‘influence’ of Lk 13:27 (et dicet uobis nescio uos unde sitis discedite a me omnes operarii iniquitatis) but this is neither necessary nor helpful given the addition of quia non noui uos and the recognition that this is VL. There is no obvious source who uses this verse in exactly the form of Gildas and codex ‘h’. Gildas uses this verse again towards the end of DEB in c. CIX (see 538T below) and his text at that point is identical. Moreover, in the later case it is clear that Gildas is using the VL, rather than being influenced by Lk 13:27, and so we can conclude that here he is also following the VL. 21C. Lk 23:29 The Vg (and at this point the VL and Vg are identical) reads: beatae steriles et uentres qui non genuerunt et ubera quae non lactauerunt. The words in bold are omitted by Gildas. The only other author in the VLD who omits the phrase is Cassian (Conlationes 21,32) who also used the verse within a mosaic of quotations, but there is no indication that Cassian was the source for Gildas. Lk 23:29 is unique to Luke; it is 316/10 in the Eusebian Apparatus. 22C. Mt 25:10-12 Gildas’s text departs from the Vg: Gildas

Vg

quae paratae erant intrauerunt cum eo ad nuptias

quae paratae erant intrauerunt cum eo ad nuptias et clausa est ianua nouissime ueniunt et reliquae uirgines dicentes domine domine aperi nobis at ille respondens ait amen dico uobis nescio uos

postea uenerunt et reliquae uirgines dicentes domine domine aperi nobis quibus responsum fuerit non noui uos

Gildas’s text is VL. In the Codex Brixianus (‘f ’) printed in full at the foot of W&W, 147, we have: quae paratae erant intrauerunt cum eo ad nuptias et clausa est ianua. postea autem uenerunt et reliquae uirgines dicentes domine domine aperi nobis quibus respondens dixit amen dico uobis non noui uos. 23C. Mk 16:16 Gildas followed the Vg except he replaced uero with autem: this exchange of words is found in a few authors, but never consistently, and not in any codex of the VL.

133

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

24A. Rom 11:17-22 The sentence Legebam apostoli … … … excidendum is based on a single metaphor in Rom 11:17-22 which is the correct reference; however, Mommsen identified vv. 11, 20, and 22 as these are words common to Gildas and these verses. 25A. Ps 32:5; Rom 2:2; 2:6; Eph 1:6 and 12 The sentence Sciebam misericordiam … … … uerebar is made up of two pairs of adversatives, each based on a scriptural text. Ps 32:5 (LXX) on the mercy and justice of God (Gildas was surely aware that these two notions (misericordia and iustitia) often occur together: e.g. Ps 32:5; Prov 21:3; Jer 9:24; or Jas 2:13) which is why he can use this pairing to sharpen his prose. The second element of knowing and fearing the Lord’s justice is based on Rom 2:2. The notion of praising God’s grace is based on Eph 1:6 and 12. The notion of rendering to each according to the deeds of each contains a verbal echo of Rom 2:6: reddet unicuique secundum opera eius while Gildas has redditionem unicuique secundum opera sua … . 26A. Apoc 2:1-7; Jn 10:16; Jn 21:15-7; Mt 16:16; Mt 26:14-6; Jn 12:4-6; Acts 6:5; Acts 7:2-60; Apoc 7:9; Apoc 7:14; Apoc 2:14-5 The next sentence, Oues unius ouilis … haereseos notam, is Gildas’s attempt to link the situation of unfaithfulness in his church with his own duty to write his book, and he appears to take the warning letter to the church in Ephesus, Apoc 2:1-7, as his example: Ephesus is a church that has had false ‘apostles’ (Apoc 2:2) but has removed them, has fallen from its former state and is suffering punishment, and so is told that it must now repent. Just as Ephesus had that letter, so Gildas’s church needs a similar letter. That Gildas has Apoc 2:1-7 in mind is certain because he builds his sentence around the contrast of a false apostle and bishop,4 Judas (compared with the paradigm: Peter) alongside a corrupt deacon, Nicolaus (compared with Stephen) – and the Ephesus letter in Apoc 2:1-7 contains a reference to a false apostles and to Nicolaus. However, if Apoc 2:1-7 provides a framework to Gildas, his writing depends on a wider range of biblical images and assumptions. The notion of there being just ‘one fold’ is based on Jn 10:16. This is then linked with Peter because he is the one who was appointed the carer of that fold: Jn 21:15-7 – a task he was given because of his ‘full confession’ (integram confessionem) of Christ which is based on Mt 16:16 (which constitutes Peter as head of the church, see Mt 16:18, as envisaged in Jn 21:15-7). The widely accepted position that Judas was not only a renegate apostle but a renegate bishop (which makes him an even better comparator with Peter in Gildas’s arguments here and elsewhere when he uses the quartet of Peter/Judas; Stephen / Nicolaus) is based on Acts 1:20 in all the Latin versions (see O’Loughlin (2012d)). 4

134

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Peter who confesses is then contrasted with Judas the betrayer (cf. Mt 26:14-6) who was covetous (based on Jn 12:4-6). Stephen the deacon (Acts 6:5) is the model martyr (Acts 7:54-60) because he courageously preaches the truth (Acts 7:2-53) to a ‘stiff-necked people’ (7:51) who do not want to welcome his message. That Stephen has ‘the martyr’s palm’ employs an image that is taken from Apoc 7:9 where there is ‘a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands’ who have ‘come out of the great ordeal; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb’ (Apoc 7:14).5 The final reference to ‘the unclean heresy of Nicolaus’ is based on a conflation of two distinct items from the New Testament. In Apoc 2:6 we have a reference to a hated group within the church known as ‘the Nicolaitans’ (odisti facta Nicolaitarum quae et ego odi) about whom we otherwise know nothing. However, in Apoc 2:14-5 they are declared to be false teachers and involved in fornication – this statement lies behind Gildas’s remark about ‘unclean heresy.’ However, in Acts 6:5 there is reference to one of the seven ‘deacons’6 being named Nicolaus; and Gildas, along with many other early Christian authors, identify this deacon with the man after whom the Nicolaitans of Apoc are named.7 There may be a greater significance to this group of four biblical names. Jerome, Epistula 14,8 contrasts Peter and Stephen on the one hand, with Judas and Nicolaus on the other, and Gildas again used the quartet in DEB LXVII while he used the contrast of Peter and Judas in DEB LXVI. Why this group is important to him may lie in his personal identification with Stephen as the servant of the apostle Peter, while a renegade cleric, the deacon Nicolaus, belongs with the renegade apostle Judas. In DEB LXV he writes about the wicked deeds of bishops and of other sacerdotes (i.e. presbyters) and of clerics of his own order which can only mean that Gildas was a cleric in deacons’ orders.8 So he identified his work in preaching to a stiff-necked people with the work of the ideal deacon-martyr, Stephen, while should he fail to carry out his task, and so condone by not-writing, he would become like the archetypal apostate deacon: Nicolaus. See 54A below. Note that this group are not named ‘deacons’ in Acts, but the identification of that group as deacons was a stable part of the tradition by Gildas’s time; on this identification, see O’Loughlin (2010a). 7 See Cobb (1918) for a list of early writers, from the time of Irenaeus (Aduersus haereses 1,23,3 and 3,11,1), who identify Nicolaus the deacon with the founder of the Nicolaitans. 8 The same conclusion, but using a wholly distinct argument, was reached by Chadwick (1954); see DEB LXV and CVI below. 5 6

135

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

The question remains whether this linking of the four can be seen as indicating his use of a source. The comparisons are not detailed enough to be a definite indication that Gildas had used Jerome’s Epistula 14. However, Williams,9 exercised by what he saw as a fictitious exegesis of scripture in the identification of Nicolaus with the founder of the Nicolaitans sought a source for ‘the baseless fiction’ in Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica and so places a reference to Rufinus in the margin of his edition. While undoubtedly Gildas may have read that text, the overlap of information is not conclusive evidence for his having seen it. Since the identification was a common one, all we can say is that anyone who read either Acts 6 or Apoc 2 would have assumed that these were references to the same person. 27C. Acts 4:32 Gildas’s text does not differ from the Vg. 28C. Acts 5:9 This quotation departs slightly from the Vg. Gildas has quare where the Vg has utique; Gildas has spiritum Dei where the Vg has spiritum Domini. However, there is no other writer who combines Acts 4:32 with 5:9; nor any who exhibit the change from Domini to Dei except Gildas. 29E. Dt 7:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Ex 4:22; Jer 2:26; Jn 12:6; Jn 13:29; Acts 5:1-11; Is 1:4 This exemplum consists in Gildas communicating his belief that divine election would not prevent those chosen, be it a nation or individuals, from being punished for ‘deviation from the right path.’ It begins by noting the election of Israel with a series of echoes and quotations. Gildas’s peculiari ex omnibus nationibus populo echoes Dt 7:6: quia populus sanctus es Domino Deo tuo te elegit Dominus Deus tuus ut sis ei populus peculiaris de cunctis populis qui sunt super terram.10 Gildas’s use of ex omnibus nationibus may reflect the VL because the Codex Lugdunensis has omnes gentes rather than de cunctis populis. To this is added a New Testament perspective with semini regali gentique sanctae echoing 1 Pet 2:9 uos autem genus electum regale sacerdotium gens sancta populus adquisitionis ut uirtutes adnuntietis eius qui de tenebris uos uocauit in admirabile lumen suum. And that nation is Israel: primogenitus meus Israhel quoting Ex 4:22 (Vg). Now Gildas must recall that such a nation can be punished and his first example is that the ‘priests, prophets and kings’ have suffered; this list is found in four places in Jer (2:26; 8:1; 13:13; 32:32) and once in Neh (9:32). 170, n. 2. This verse is virtually identical with Dt 14:2: quoniam populus sanctus es Domino Deo tuo et te elegit ut sis ei in populum peculiarem de cunctis gentibus quae sunt super terram. 9

10

136

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

The notion that God did not spare ‘his minister, the apostle’ would appear to be a reference to Paul who in Rom 15:16 says of himself as ‘ut sim minister Christi Iesu.’ However, this cannot be the case for there is no reference to a punishment for deviation being given him and it would be exceptional for any writer in the patristic period to suggest that St Paul was one who failed in his ministry. This leaves but one possibility that this is another reference to Judas and the reference to ‘minister’ points to his role as keeper of the purse (cf. Jn 12:6 and 13:29). Gildas’s failure to point out the exact punishment may be his hesitation as to which death was suffered by Judas (suicide: Mt 27:5; or his ‘falling headlong [when] he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out’: Acts 1:18).11 The punishment suffered by the primitive church for deviation from the right path is, almost certainly, a reference to the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. The notion that the sins of Gildas’s own nation constitute an addition to the general sinfulness within the world invokes a notion from Is 1:4: uae genti peccatrici populo graui iniquitate semini nequam filiis sceleratis dereliquerunt Dominum (and see Is 53:12 and 1 Tim 1:9). 30A. Apoc 3:13 and 17; 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Cor 12:12-27 Gildas says of himself that he is a wretched one (miser) and in saying this to  himself he shows that he does not make the error of the foolish. By this device he affirms that he has himself ‘an ear for what the Spirit is saying to the chur­ches’ (Apoc 3:13) for the foolish are warned in Apoc 3:17: quia dicis quod diues sum et locupletatus et nullius egeo et nescis quia tu es miser et miserabilis et pauper et caecus et nudus. Gildas now further develops the image of himself as a teacher; one who knows how to behave like an apostle. There has been a depositum entrusted to his keeping (serues) and about which he must not be silent. This invokes the memory of the instruction to Timothy in 1 Tim 6:20: o Timothee depositum custodi [= serues in Gildas] deuitans profanas uocum nouitates [= taceas in Gildas]. Gildas’s language is influenced by the similar instruction in 2 Tim 1:12: depositum meum seruare in illum diem.12 Having accepted the task of guarding the depositum, Gildas is aware that this demands appropriate actions on his part; and this is expressed using the image of each bodily part doing its correct task: an image taken from 1 Cor 12:12-27 with precise echoes of 15-16.

11 There were, of course, other explanations of Judas’s death (see Metzger (1987), 53, n. 23; and Zeichmann (2010)) which may have been known to Gildas, but this possibility is irrelevant to this study. 12 This allusion was noted by Winterbottom (1976), 132.

137

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

31A. 1 Tim 6:20 Mommsen (but not Williams) cites the influence of 1 Tim 6:20 on Gildas. Gildas, like Timothy, guards the deposit intrusted to him: o Timothee depositum custodi deuitans profanas uocum nouitates et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae. 32A. Job 13:5 The notion that ‘keeping silence is wisdom’ is a commonplace: Job 13:5; Prov 17:28; or Amos 5:13. 33A. 1 Cor 12:15-6 Williams (but not Mommsen) points out the influence of Paul’s body metaphor on Gildas correctly citing 1 Cor 12:15-16 in the margin. However, Williams places speculare and fare in italics as if these words are derived from Paul, but they are from Gildas as he adapts the Pauline metaphor. 34C. Qo 3:7 Gildas’s text, Tempus esse loquendi et tacendi, is not identical with the Vg, tempus tacendi et tempus loquendi, however, there is no VL evidence to suggest that he is not using the Vg as his basic text. 35A. Mt 7:13-4 The phrase … ac si angusta timoris porticu … echoes Mt 7:13-4. 36A. Heb 2:7 Williams (6, n. 4) finds in the phrase … rationalis secundae a nuntiis deriuationis creaturas … an echo of Heb 2:7 which reads: minuisti eum paulo minus ab angelis gloria et honore coronasti eum. While he is undoubtedly correct in suggesting that this verse is the inspiration for Gildas’s comment; he then speculates that the use of nuntius rather than angelus is due to Gildas being familiar with the text ‘in the older version’; and he corroborates this with some other patristic uses of the word nuntius (though not other uses of this verse from Heb). However, this interchange of words is not found in any of the citations in VL edition of Heb (Frede 1983-1991), 1128-31). The word angelus is found in both VL and Vg versions; therefore, this should be seen as Gildas’s own variation, and it does not provide evidence for his version of Heb. 37E. Num 22:21-33 Gildas has a long exemplum based on the Num 22:21-33, the story of Balaam’s ass. Williams noted that this version that Gildas knew appears to be the Vg because its reading, et adtriuit, is used in DEB.13 This would appear to be Williams, 8, n. 1.

13

138

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

the case in the VLD though the matter is not certain. Further investigation where Gildas uses words different from the Vg (e.g. ensis14 where the Vg uses gladium at 22:23) does not provide any basis for suspecting that the VL was an influence on Gildas; so the balance of probabilities is that Gildas did use the Vg.15 38A. Ps 68:10 In zelo igitur domus Domini echoes Ps 68:10/Jn 2:17. 39A. 2 Tim 2:3 … egregiis Christi tironibus is based upon 2 Tim 2:3: labora sicut bonus miles Christi Iesu.16

DEB II –

DEB III 40A. Ps 64:6; Acts 1:8 The reference to in extremo ferme orbis invokes a common biblical image, used forty-eight times in the scriptures, of the fines terrae which are simultaneously an area of divine concern (e.g. Ps 64:6: terribilis in iustitia exaudi nos Deus saluator noster confidentia omnium finium terrae et maris longinqui) and the destination towards which the gospel must be spread (e.g. Acts 1:8: et eritis mihi testes in Hierusalem et in omni Iudaea et Samaria et usque ad ultimum terrae). 41A. Is 40:12 The image of the divine statera which weighs the whole earth is based on Is 40:12 (which is echoed in 2 Mac 9:8). 14 Gildas uses this word for sword in DEB XVIII and XXX; and see 71A and 104C below. 15 Williams illicitly processes his major premise when he argues, in that footnote, that since Gildas used the Vg for Numbers, then ‘this suggests that Gildas in the Pentatecuh is familiar with the Vulgate version only.’ 16 See 56A below.

139

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

42A. Is 61:10; Apoc 21:2 The image of Britain as ueluti sponsa monilibus diuersis ornata is based on Is 61:10: gaudens gaudebo in Domino et exultabit anima mea in Deo meo quia induit me uestimentis salutis et indumento iustitiae circumdedit me quasi sponsum decoratum corona et quasi sponsam ornatam monilibus suis. This image is of the land which is favoured by God, but the image of the ‘sponsa ornata’ is also that of the New Jerusalem in Apoc 21:2. 43A. Jer 2:13 That Britain is irrigated by torrents of ‘living water’ adopted an image from Jer 2:13 (see also Song 4:15) which identifies the land as a place blessed by God for his people. This chapter is as much a declaration that Britain is the blessed land, a divine gift, much as the land described in the Book of Joshua is, as it is a geographical description.

DEB IV 44A. Dt 4:34; Mk 13:22 The image of the many diabolical portents is complex in that it is not, as Williams’ translation implies, that these are more numerous than the diabolical portents found in Egypt. Rather, Egypt was seen as the place where there were a great number of divine portents (Dt 4:34; 7:19; Neh 9:10; Ps 134:9 and Jer 32:20). Now, in Britain there are not only more than then, but these new portents are diabolical. Gildas reading Mk 13:22 would have found a prophecy that there would come a time of deceptive portents that would lead Christians astray.

DEB V 45A. Is 65:14 … cordis dolore … is a quality of those who are not the Lord’s servants in Is 65:14.

DEB VI –

140

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB VII 46A. Mt 22:19-21 The reference to the coinage stamped with the image of Caesar has echoes of Mt 22:19-21.

DEB VIII –

DEB IX 47A. Apoc 14:12 The phrase sanctorum patientia is derived from Apoc 14:12: hic patientia sanctorum est qui custodiunt mandata Dei et fidem Iesu (and see Apoc 13:10: patientia et fides sanctorum). The phrase is the same in both the VL and the Vg, therefore this allusion is of no help in determining which version Gildas used (see Gryson (2000), 535).

DEB X 48C. 1 Tim 2:4 1 Tim 2:4: qui omnes homines uult saluos fieri et ad agnitionem ueritatis uenire. The use of this text fits well with a major theme in Gildas that God wishes the repentance, not the death of the sinner. See 95C, below, for a discussion of this text as part of a larger mosaic of quotations in Gildas, and the implications of this verse for his theology of redemption. 49A. Mt 9:13 … uocans non minus peccatores quam eos, qui se putant iustos is based on Mt 9:13 (the earlier reference to misericordia makes Mt a closer link than Mk 2:17 or Lk 5:32).

141

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB XI 50A. 1 Cor 11:1 … imitans et in hoc Christum … alludes to 1 Cor 11:1. 51C. Jn 10:15 The biblical text reads: et animam meam pono pro ouibus; the changes in word order and verb in Gildas do not, however, indicate a different gospel text but simply the move from direct to indirect speech. 52A. Jos 3:1-17 The miracle belonging to the dossier of St Alban is based on the miraculous crossing of the people across the Jordan as found in Jos 3:1-17. The whole narrative is needed to appreciate the various references in DEB; therefore, Mommsen’s citation of Jos 3:17 (i.e. dry ground under their feet) is inadequate.17 53A. Is 11:6 and 65:25 The transition of wolf to lamb invokes the image used in Is 11:6 and 65:25. 54A. Apoc 7:9 and 7:14 The image of the martyrii palma is based on Apoc 7:9 and 7:14.18 55A. Apoc 22:14 The image of the martyrs being within the gates of Jersualem is based on Apoc 22:14 (and it recalls reading Ps 121:2 eschatologically).

DEB XII 56A. 2 Tim 2:3 … omnes Christi tirones … echoes 2 Tim 2:3.19 57A. Song 2:11 … post hiemalem … noctem … may allude to Song 2:11.

See 6E above. See 26A above. 19 See 39A above. 17

18

142

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

58A. 4 Esdr 1:36 … omnes exultant filii … may echo 4 Esdr 1:36:20 testor populi uenientis gratiam cuius paruuli exultant cum laetitia. 59A. Eph 4:15-16 The image of the Church as Christ the head with the members is based on Eph 4:15-16.

DEB XIII –

DEB XIV –

DEB XV –

DEB XVI –

DEB XVII –

20

This is verse 1:37 in Vg.

143

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB XVIII –

DEB XIX –

DEB XX 60A. 2 Cor 1:9 … non fidentes in homine, sed in Deo … echoes 2 Cor 1:9: sed ipsi in nobis ipsis responsum mortis habuimus ut non simus fidentes in nobis sed in Deo qui suscitat mortuos.

DEB XXI 61C. 1 Cor 5:1 The Vg reads: omnino auditur inter uos fornicatio et talis fornicatio qualis nec inter gentes; while Gildas’s text departs form this (omnino talis auditur fornicatio qualis nec inter gentes) this appears to be the result of citation from memory. There is no other author with this exact format, and there is nothing to suggest interference from another text. 62A. 2 Cor 11:14 … exceptio Satanae pro angelo lucis … is an allusion to 2 Cor 11:14: et non mirum ipse enim Satanas transfigurat se in angelum lucis. The change from in angelum to pro angelo is a matter of Gildas’s style rather than the influence of another version. 63A. 1 Sam 15:17 The image of ‘anointed kings’ is dependent upon the Old Testament notion of the king as ‘the Lord’s anointed’; see, for example, 1 Sam 15:17.

144

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

64T. Is 1:4-6 Gildas

Vg

Filii sine lege dereliquistis Deum et ad iracundiam prouocastis sanctum Israel. Quid adhuc percutiemini apponentes iniquitatem?

… filiis sceleratis dereliquerunt Dominum blasphemauerunt sanctum Israhel abalienati sunt retrorsum super quo percutiam uos ultra addentes praeuaricationem omne caput languidum et omne cor maerens a planta pedis usque ad uerticem non est in eo sanitas …

Omne caput languidum et omne cor maerens a planta pedis usque ad uerticem non est in eo sanitas.

Williams (50, n. 1) noted how Gildas’s text followed the LXX and that ‘we have here a piece of the Old Latin’; and that judgement is confirmed by the edition of the VL for Is (see Gryson (1987-93), 48). Gildas is adapting a VL text of Isaiah. Williams also noted that the same version is found in Lucifer of Cagliari, however, Lucifer only uses verse 4; and in a very different context in De Athanasio 1,39. This footnote in Williams seems to be the origin of the shadowy presence of Lucifer in studies of Gildas. The conclusion of ch 3,6 of this work is that this shadowy presence is without any basis in evidence and should be completely removed. Note the way the whole tenor of the passage is altered in the change to direct speech. 65A. Heb 5:14 … indiscreto boni malique iudicio … alludes to Heb 5:14: perfectorum autem est solidus cibus eorum qui pro consuetudine exercitatos habent sensus ad discretionem boni ac mali. In losing this ability to judge between good and evil they have become infantile and weak, a point Gildas makes earlier in the sentence. 66C. Ps 106:40 Gildas’s text does not agree with any known translation or citation of this verse in Latin. However, this comparison may explain what is occurring: 21 Vg LXX

VL21

Gildas

Effusa est Effusa est Effundi contemptio contemptio contemptio super principes super principes super principes eorum

VL

Vg Heb.

Effusa est Et effundet contemptio despectionem super principes super principes eorum

These two examples of witnesses to the VL are taken as typical, and demonstrate the substrate interference we can detect in Gildas’s text. 21

145

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Vg LXX

VL21

Gildas

VL

Vg Heb.

et errare fecit eos

et seduxit eos

seduci uanis eorum et errore

et seduxerunt eos uana ipsorum et eduxit eos in inuio et non in uia

et errare eos faciet

in inuio et non in inuio et in uia non in uia

in inuio et non in uia

in solitudine deuia

Gildas appears to have the psalterium iuxta LXX text as his base, but to have cited from memory in such a way that his reading of the psalterium iuxta Hebraicum affected his memory (effundi could be the influence of et effundet), but where VL readings also influenced his memory as in his seduci uanis eorum in place of et errare fecis eos, yet which is itself represented by et errore.

DEB XXII 67A. Ps 31:9 Gildas’s ‘citation’ is loose, and is as close to the Vg as to any other witness to the verse. The Vg reads: nolite fieri sicut equus et mulus quibus non est intellegentia in camo et freno maxillas eorum constringe qui non accedunt ad te. 68A. Mt 7:13-4 These verses in Mt’s gospel form the base of Gildas’s statement: per latum … … … discurrebant uiam. 69C. Prov 29:19 This citation, identified by Mommsen, and the next, not identified in the editions, are both from Proverbs, and, significantly for Gildas’s view of the authorship of books within the canon, this book is identified as having Solomon as its author: Dum ergo, ut Salomon ait … . The first text is Prov 29:19 and Gildas is not quoting the Vg: Gildas

Vg

Seruus durus non emandatur uerbis

seruus uerbis non potest erudiri quia quod dicis intellegit et respondere contemnit

However, Gildas’s text does not correspond exactly with any VL witness. The commonest form is Verbis non emendabitur seruus durus which is found on six occasions in the writings of Augustine (e.g. Epistula 93, 17). The only wit-

146

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

ness that is closer to Gildas’s form is Cassian, Conlationes 14,17,2 which reads: Seruus durus non emendabitur uerbis and is part of a long passage made up of quotations from Proverbs, attributed to Solomon by name, on the difficulties of overcoming human stupidity. However, it may be too simple to see Cassian as the source of Gildas’s quotation at this point as we shall see now in the case of 70C. 70C. Prov 17:10 Gildas continues: flagellatur stultus et non sentit which is a quotation from Prov 17:10. Since both this and 69C come from the same book and have an author’s name, we should read the text thus: Dum ergo, ut Salomon ait: Seruus durus non emandatur uerbis, flagellatur stultus et non sentit Pestifera namque … Gildas’s text is not that of the Vg: Gildas

Vg

flagellatur stultus et non sentit

plus proficit correptio apud prudentem quam centum plagae apud stultum

No author in the VLD has the verse in the form we find it in Gildas, 22 nor in any other author is this verse found in combination with Prov 29:19. Therefore, it would appear that this combination of wisdom sayings from Solomon is Gildas’s own although Cassian may have put him in mind of the sentiment and, consequently, that he was familiar with a VL version of the Book of Proverbs which he cited from memory. 71A. Ps 78:3; and Jer 14:16 One of the consequences of the people’s foolishness was that there was no one to bury the dead; and this state – that the dead remain unburied – is seen in the Scriptures as a particular curse and we know that this sentiment was shared by insular writers after Gildas’s time, 23 and so it is likely that he is reflecting that same attitude. The key text is Ps 78:3: effuderunt sanguinem eorum quasi aquam in circuitu Hierusalem et non erat qui sepeliret. This judgement was also reported in prophecy in Jer 14:16 which said that a sinful people were punished by pestilence, famine and sword, and there was no one to bury the dead: et populi quibus prophetant erunt proiecti in uiis Hierusalem prae fame et 22 The nearest are Ps-Augustine, Liber de diuinis scripturis [PS-AU spe] 88: stultus autem flagellatur et non sensit; and Orosius, Historiarum aduersus paganos 7,26,10: impius enim flagellatur et non sensit. 23 See O’Loughlin (1992a) and (2001).

147

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

gladio et non erit qui sepeliat eos ipsi et uxores eorum filii et filiae eorum et effundam super eos malum suum. Gildas would have known many other passages in the prophets, 24 especially Jeremiah, 25 which would have portrayed lack of burial as one of the consequences of sin and infidelity by Israel: a foolish people who end without a proper place of rest; and that lack of burial was also the consequence/punishment faced by a sinful individual. 26 It is against this biblical background, especially Jer 14:16, that we can gauge the full horror of Gildas’s statement that they were punished by pestilence remoto mucrone27 to such an extent that the dead were left without graves. 72T. Is 22:12-3 Gildas’s text differs from the Vg thus: Gildas

Vg

et uocavit Deus

et uocavit Dominus Deus exercituum in die illa ad fletum et ad planctum ad caluitium et ad cingulum sacci et ecce gaudium et laetitia occidere uitulos et iugulare arietes comedere carnes et bibere uinum comedamus et bibamus cras enim moriemur

ad planctum ad caluitium et ad cingulum sacci ecce uitulos occidere et iugulare arietes ecce comedere et bibere et dicere manducemus et bibamus cras enim moriamur

However, while it is not identical with the Vg, its differences must be seen as variations within the Vg tradition; more precisely, it is not the VL nor does it show evidence of interference from the VL: see Gryson (1987-93), 484-76. The change from comedamus to manducemus may be explained by harmonization with 1 Cor 15:32: si mortui non resurgunt manducemus et bibamus cras enim moriemur. 73A. Gen 15:16 (and Ps 134:11 and Ps 135:19) The fate of the British is compared to that of the Amorites. This allusion does not depend on any single text in the Scriptures but in appreciating the overall image that this name – and the uses are not consistent in the Scriptures – would convey to someone who had read it in many places in the Scriptures Is 14:20 and Ez 29:5. Jer 7:32; 8:2; 16:4; 16:6; 19:11; 25:33; and 43:9. 26 Qo 6:3. 27 In DEB I and XVIII Gildas uses the word ensis for sword, here again he uses a rare word rather than gladius. 24 25

148

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

and who would have heard reference to it regularly in the psalter. The Amorites are, if it needs to be grasped in a instant, the people who are dispossessed from their land by God’s chosen people: they are the losers. Gen 15:16 suggests that they are a people of iniquity and so will be driven out when Israel returns to its God-given land as promised to Abram (Gen 15). Then we hear frequent mention of them being defeated and dispossessed (e.g. Num 21 and Jos 10), and of Moses defeats Sihon, king of the Amorites, in battle (many references, e.g. Deut 1:4) and this is seen a glorious event in Ps 134:11 and Ps 135:19. Within that general perception of the Amorites, it is Gen 15:16 that seems to find the an echo in the text of Gildas: Gildas

Gen 15:16 – Vg

Appropinquabat siquidem tempus, quo eius iniquitates, ut olim Amorrhaeorum, complerentur.

necdum enim conpletae sunt iniquitates Amorreorum usque ad praesens tempus

There is not sufficient evidence to decide which version Gildas was using. For neither the British (in Gildas’s time), nor the Amorites (in the period of the old covenant) has the run of time (during which they commit iniquities) come to its moment of ‘full’ judgement.

DEB XXIII 74C. Is 19:11 Gildas invokes the memory of this verse, 28 but his text, despite the presence of ‘ut dictum est,’ varies from the Vg: Gildas

Vg

stulti principes Taneos

stulti principes Taneos sapientes consiliarii Pharao dederunt consilium insipiens quomodo dicetis Pharaoni filius sapientium ego filius regum antiquorum … … …

dantes Pharaoni consilium insipiens.

However, we do not know the form of the VL at this point in Isaiah, and so no certain decision can be made (see Gryson (1987-93), 453-4) as to which version Gildas has in mind. The variation would appear to be a paraphrase with Gildas remembering the verse as an activity rather than as an event. Gildas does not invoke Is 19:13 as suggested in Mommsens’s apparatus.

28

149

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

The image as used by Gildas is a complex one. Isaiah is understood to be giving an oracle against Egypt (19:1), and these princes will seek to give the pharaoh advice on the basis of being wise men and the descendants of ancient kings, but they have become foolish and Egypt will be overturned. 75A. Heb 12:15 The phrase radix amaritudinis echoes Heb 12:15: contemplantes ne quis desit gratiae Dei ne qua radix amaritudinis sursum germinans inpediat et per illam inquinentur multi.

DEB XXIV 76A. 2 Kgs 18:15-6 When Gildas referred to the attack of Assyria on ‘Iudaea’ (see below) he was thinking of the events that took place ‘In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, King Sennacherib of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them’ (2 Kgs 18:13); and its memory in the tradition is a conflation of the three scriptural accounts of it: 2 Kgs 18-19; Is 36-37; and 2 Chr 32 (see 2 Chr 32:32 for a reference to the two other accounts). This is a complex allusion because King Hezekiah is portrayed as the one who is most faithful of kings, and on account of his faithfulness, the attack of Sennacherib (who had captured Israel/Samaria: 2 Kgs 18:10) was unsuccessful. The one moment that Gildas appears to recall (in view of 77T and 78T) is that of Sennacherib outside Jerusalem demanding money from Hezekiah as recompense for rebellion and ‘Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king’s house. At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from the doorposts that King Hezekiah of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria’ (2 Kgs 18:15-6). Gildas uses Iudaea as the name of the kingdom/region attacked by Sennacherib, although the Vg (and VL) use Iuda in all texts dealing with this event. However, this is not significant in this case as a guide to versions or other intervening texts. While modern translations invariably use ‘Judah’ as the name of the kingdom/region when translating Hebrew and ‘Judea’ when translating Greek, the Vg is not so consistent; so where we would expect Iuda, we often find Iudaea (e.g. 1 Sam 23:3 or 2 Chr 2:7). What we can say about Gildas’s use of Iudaea, where the text he is alluding to has Iuda, is that it demonstrates his deep familiarity with the biblical narrative so that he can remember these place-names interchangeably.

150

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

77T. Ps 73:7 Gildas cites Ps 73:7 iuxta LXX exactly: incenderunt igni sanctuarium tuum in terra polluerunt tabernaculum nominis tui. This destruction is more credibly linked to the destruction at the hands of the Babylonians (see Jer 25:11-2) than that by the Assyrians. Gildas seems to be conflating events and, thereby, confusing the details. 78T. Ps 78:1 Gildas’s text differs from the Vg in just one word: where the Vg has polluerunt, Gildas has coinquinarunt. Williams identified this as coming from Jerome’s Psalterium Romanum, and on the basis of this, and two other other quotations from the Psalter in DEB XXX and CIV held that ‘we have … indications that Gildas used an old Psalter, probably older than either revision of the old Latin made by Jerome.’29 However, we should note that both inquinauerunt and coinquinauerunt are found in several liturgical books and several authors. Cassiodorus, for example, who is roughly contemporary with Gildas has coinquinauerunt in his Expositio psalmorum. In Mommsen’s apparatus polluerunt is cited as the reading in AX instead of coinquinauerunt (the reading of D); Mommsen’s choice is based on D having the lectio difficilior. 79A. Lk 16:22 The image of the holy souls of the dead being carried to heaven by angels may be a reminiscence of Lk 16:22; but, more probably, is a general liturgical reminicence from the actual practice of the cult of the dead. 80A. Is 24:13 with Mic 7:1 Is 24:13 reads in the Vg: quia haec erunt in medio terrae in medio populorum quomodo si paucae oliuae quae remanserunt excutiantur ex olea et racemi cum fuerit finita uindemia and this is the prophetical utterance that fits the context of Gildas at this point – and, hence, Williams’ marginal reference. However, in DEB LXIV and LXXXVI Gildas cites Mic 7:1-3, in the VL version, as a prophetical utterance bringing up the theme of injustice as its own punishment, and the phrase post tergum uindemiatorum aut messorum racemus indicate that this text is also influencing Gildas at this point.30

Williams, 56, n.2. See the comments on the use of Mic 7:1-3 in DEB LXIV (290C) and LXXXVI (419T), below, for further information. 29

30

151

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB XXV 81A. Jer 23:3 Gildas refers to his people as the miserable reliquiae (… nonnulli miserarum reliquiarum …) and Williams rightly translated this using the word ‘remnant’ which is the biblical notion of a group that is left after the land is invaded and captured. This group is referred to by several names in Latin such as residuum or reliquiae, but the latter is the most common form, and in using the expression Gildas expects that its biblical connotations will be in the minds of his audience. Here is one such use: et ego congregabo reliquias gregis mei de omnibus terris ad quas eiecero eos illuc et conuertam eos ad rura sua et crescent et multiplicabuntur (Jer 23:3). 82C. Ps 43:12 The form dedisti nos tamquam oues escarum et in gentibus dispersisti nos is the Vg iuxta LXX.

DEB XXVI 83A. Jds 2:22 The notion of Britain as the present Israel is central to Gildas’s biblical understanding of his world; however, here we are concerned with a more precise matter: that Israel is tested as to whether or not it loves God. In this, Gildas echoes Jds 2:22: ut in ipsis experiar Israhel utrum custodiant uiam Domini et ambulent in ea sicut custodierunt patres eorum an non.31 84A. Ez 36:35-8 … ciuitates … desertae … may be a simple description of the state of the country at the time Gildas wrote,32 but he would also have been aware, and fitting with his larger notion of the people being punished for their sinfulness, that this is the exact condition of a punished people as presented in the prophets: date florem Moab quia floriens egredietur et ciuitates eius desertae erunt et inhabitabiles (Jer 48:9); dicent terra illa inculta facta est ut hortus uoluptatis et ciuitates desertae et destitutae atque suffossae munitae sederunt (Ez 36:35); and ut gregem sanctum ut gregem Hierusalem in sollemnitatibus eius sic erunt ciuitates desertae plenaeque gregibus hominum et scient quia ego Dominus (Ez 36:38). 31 The theme of testing Israel is also found in Jds 3:1: hae sunt gentes quas Dominus dereliquit ut erudiret in eis Israhelem et omnes qui non nouerant bella Chananeorum. 32 For this reading, see, for example, Williams, 63, n.2.

152

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

85A. Jos 17:14 with 2 Pet 2:4 … tantae multitudinis … ad tartara … echoes two biblical verses: locutique sunt filii Ioseph ad Iosue atque dixerunt quare dedisti mihi possessionem sortis et funiculi unius cum sim tantae multitudinis et benedixerit mihi Dominus (Jos 17:14) and si enim Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercit sed rudentibus inferni detractos in tartarum tradidit in iudicium cruciatos reseruari (2 Pet 2:4). Whether or not Gildas thought of these verses as he wrote is less important than noting that Gildas would have believed his basic explanation of Britain’s situation found expression – and thereby was verified – in the scriptures. Gildas’s use of ad tartara echoes the distinctively Vg form of 2 Peter (the VL reads inferi), and, therefore, this is an indicator of the version he was using (see Thiele (1956-69), 207). 86A. Rom 9:5 … sed diabolo potius quam Christo qui est benedictus in saecula Deus echoes Rom 9:5: quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula.33

DEB XXVII 87A. Acts 10:2 … eleemosynas largiter dantes … may echo Acts 10:2: religiosus et timens Deum cum omni domo sua faciens elemosynas multas plebi et deprecans Deum semper. It certainly would set the note for Gildas for the place of alms in the life of a ‘genuinely’ religious person, whereas in DEB the logic of the argument is that they gave alms, but acted in a way not consistent with such pious activity.

DEB XXVIII 88A. Mt 10:15; Apoc 22:14; and Heb 6:12 … sed Deo altarique protenta in die iudicii ad tuae ciuitatis portas, Christe, ueneranda patientiae ac fidei suae uexilla suspendent … uses several biblical images: (1) in die iudicii is used in Mt 10:15; (2) the gates of Christ’s city draws on the image of the new Jerusalem, which was seen as the city of the Christ, and in particular on Apoc 22:14: beati qui This use of biblical language was noted by Williams, but mistakenly referenced as: ‘Rom ix.15.’ 33

153

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

lauant stolas suas ut sit potestas eorum in ligno uitae et portis intrent in ciuitatem; where those who enter are those righteous who have suffered, while outside are ‘the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood’ (Apoc 22:15); and (3) patience and justice as the Christian virtues which characterise the elect echoes Heb 6:12: ut non segnes efficiamini uerum imitatores eorum qui fide et patientia hereditabunt promissiones. 89A. 2 Tim 1:11 … contra … magistrique gentium interdictum … echoes 2 Tim 1:11: in quo positus sum ego praedicator et apostolus et magister gentium. 90T. Mt 19:6 The text of the VL and the Vg coincide at this point; and Gildas’s text (itaque iam non sunt duo sed una caro quod ergo Deus coniunxit homo non separet) is identical with the gospel text. Williams also gave the reference to Mk 10:9 (quod ergo Deus iunxit homo non separet) which not only does not add anything to the Mt reference, but is not the text that Gildas cited.34 91T. Col 3:19 Gildas’s text, Uiri diligite uxores uestras, coincides with the Vg; however, while Vg omits uestras, it is well represented in the transmission of the Vg. However, the phrase as we find it in Gildas is identical with the VL (see Frede (1966-71), 496-7) and so we cannot determine which version Gildas was using from this quotation. 92C. Dt 32:32 Dt 32:32 in the Vg reads: de uinea Sodomorum uinea eorum et de suburbanis Gomorrae uua eorum uua fellis et botri amarissimi, while Gildas has uite for which there are two witnesses in the VL.35 This is most simply explained as contamination from memory. 93A. Mt 13:1-9 / Mk 4:3-8 / Lk 8:5-8 The imagery of good seed falling into unfruitful soil, and springing forth quickly, is based on the Parable of the Sower: Mt 13:1-9 / Mk 4:3-8 / Lk 8:5-8. However, we should note that the image of it ‘springing up’ is only found in Matthew and Mark, and not in Luke. This, therefore, suggests that the standard form of the parable for Gildas was that found in Matthew (since Mark was thought of as abbreviator of Matthew); this is reflected in the Eusebian Apparatus where this is Mt 131/ Mk 36 / and Lk 76 in Canon 2 ‘in quo tres.’ Mommsen cited Mk 16:9 which is a simple misprint. See 124A below.

34 35

154

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB XXIX 94C. Mt 11:28 Mt 11:28 reads in the Vg: uenite ad me omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis et ego reficiam uos. The variation laboratis / laboras is not significant as the change is necessary for the sense; however, the variation reficiam uos / requiescere faciam (with the change in person required by Gildas’s sentence: faciet) represents a common variant found in the tradition. When Gildas cites this verse again in DEB XXXVI (see 149C below) he uses requiescere faciam and then Williams notes that this is found the Codex Brixianus but points out that it is probably a result of Gildas citing from memory,36 however, it is more probably a result of Gildas having a VL text of this gospel. 95C. Ez 33:11 Gildas’s text reads: [Christ] qui non uult peccatoris mortem, sed ut conuertatur et uiuat and this is assigned to Ez 33:11 by Mommsen, and this is the verse that inspires Gildas (but it would be an overstatement to say that this was the text he had in mind). Ez 33:11 was a much used verse within the tradition and the form in which it is most commonly used – as here in Gildas – is not its exact form in the biblical text. Furthermore, it was linked with other verses and they were read as making a single point about penance and forgiveness. These verses were the following (all given here in the Vg): (1) Ez 18:23: numquid uoluntatis meae est mors impii dicit Dominus Deus et non ut conuertatur a uiis suis et uiuat; (2) Ez 18:32: quia nolo mortem morientis dicit Dominus Deus reuertimini et uiuite; (3) Ez 33:11: dic ad eos uiuo ego dicit Dominus Deus nolo mortem impii sed ut reuertatur impius a uia sua et uiuat conuertimini a uiis uestris pessimis et quare moriemini domus Israhel; (4) 2 Sam 14:14: omnes morimur et quasi aquae delabimur in terram quae non reuertuntur nec uult perire Deus animam sed retractat cogitans ne penitus pereat qui abiectus est; (5) Wis 1:13: quoniam Deus mortem non fecit nec laetatur in perditione uiuorum; (6) 1 Tim 2:4: qui omnes homines uult saluos fieri et ad agnitionem ueritatis uenire (used at 48C above); and (7) 2 Pet 3:9: non tardat Dominus promissi sed patienter agit propter uos nolens aliquos perire sed omnes ad paenitentiam reuerti. While Gildas’s text is clearly derived from the VL of Ez 33:11 (ego nolo mortem peccatoris, sed ut conuertatur et uiuat – Gildas uses it in exactly this form 36

Williams, 84, n. 1.

155

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

in DEB CX (544E)), it is also clear that we are dealing with a stock phrase in Christian discourse on penance, as well as a theme that was particularly significant to Gildas. What we actually have is a conflation of readings (18:23 with 33:11) from Ezek, which became an independent theological adage that was then diffused through its widespread use in monastic regulae.37 Therefore, what we read in Gildas is not evidence for the use of the VL of Ezek, but for a theological aphorism lying deep within Gildas’s memory. This use here is not the result of consulting a text of Ezek, but of bringing up a text upon which Gildas had, no doubt, preached many times. This citation must be read in conjunction with DEB L (228A), LXI (272T), and CX (544E). It should be noted that the form of the text (with the addition of in aeternum at the end) as we find it in Gildas can be found in the Collectio canonum hibernensis 27,13,2 and that it is found in exactly this form in Adomnán, De locis sanctis 3,4,9.38 96C. Is 52:2 Is 52:2 reads in the Vg: solue uincula colli tui captiua filia Sion. Gildas’s text differs in having dissolue for solue; and in having fili Sion for filia. While the first variant may be explained by memory (in the VL this usage is unique: see Gryson (1993), 1244-5), the shift to ‘the son of Zion’ from ‘the daughter of Zion’ (a title that occurs approximately thirty times in the scriptures) must be seen as a definite adaptation of the text by Gildas to his partiular purpose and audience (in the VL this usage is unique, and is explained as a case of ‘textus accomodatus’: see Gryson (1993), 1245).39 The ‘Daughter of Zion’ is a poetic name for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and this ‘daughter’ is normally seen as the subject of divine favour.40 However, in Gildas the ‘son of Zion’ is the one in need of repentance, and this view of the text may have been suggested to him by Lam 2:13: Cui conparabo te uel cui adsimilabo te filia Hierusalem cui exaequabo te et consolabor te uirgo filia Sion magna enim uelut mare contritio tua quis medebitur tui. In this text, which belongs to a section of Lam that was important to Gildas,41 and in Is 52:2 the Daughter of Zion fits with his theme of a people in need of a route back to their former status before God. This text is used again, integrated with a different set of biblical quotations, in DEB XXX (106A). These are listed under this verse in the VLD. When I examined the VL readings in the De locis sanctis (see O’Loughlin (1994) and (2007), 68-73), I failed to notice that this quotation (in the edition ascribed as ‘cf ’ Ez 18:23) is non-Vg. 39 It is interesting that in Mommsen’s apparatus criticus there is no evidence of a copyist ‘correcting’ the text by the addition of a single ‘a’; while in other places we do have evidence of a copyists harmonising to the Vg. 40 See Follis (1992). 41 See 9C above. 37

38

156

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

The three preceding texts (94C, 95C, 96C) are treated by Gildas as a single, complex appeal to conversion (Ezek) to those bound (Is) and burdened (Mt) by sins, and, as such, the unit is more than the sum of its parts in setting out Gildas’s theology of reconciliation. However, if this combination of texts suggests a particular theological approach to the question of sins after baptism, it is noteworthy that nowhere else in the VLD do we find this combination of texts, nor indeed of any two of them. 97E. Lk 15:11-32 Having made the challenge to convert from their sins to his audience, Gildas now provides an exemplum of how those who become aware of the foolishness and ‘return’ will be treated; and for this he opts for the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32), although he only draws its first part (15:11-23) into his argument. Gildas picks out these points: (1) the ‘son of Zion’ is invited to return from the ‘far off places of sinners’ (e longinquis licet peccatorum recessibus) which echoes 15:13: filius peregre profectus est in regionem longinquam et ibi dissipauit substantiam suam uiuendo luxuriose. (2) ad piissimum patrem echoes 15:18: surgam et ibo ad patrem meum. (3) The references to the pigs’ food and the fear of famine echo 15:14-16. (4) et reuertenti sibi echoes 15:17: in se autem reuersus. Although in Williams these words are placed in italics, there is no version that corresponds with Gildas’s wording; the VL readings are in se autem conuersus and conuersus autem ad se. (5) the father’s joy expressed in killing a calf and offering the finest garment and a ring echoes 15:22-3: dixit autem pater ad seruos suos cito proferte stolam primam et induite illum et date anulum in manum eius et calciamenta in pedes et adducite uitulum saginatum et occidite. The additional detail that the ring given by the father is ‘the royal ring’ (regium anulum) is not part of Luke’s story but may draw on biblical images of the king’s ring imparting the king’s favour and authority in texts such as Est 3:10; 8:2; Dan 6:17; 14:11; and 14:14. (6) The story ends with a feast echoing 15:23: et manducemus et epulemur. Gildas while clearly using the parable as his exemplum, is quite free in the way he alters the sequence of the story to draw out his point. 98C. Ps 33:9 Ps 33:9 Iuxta LXX: gustate et uidete quoniam suauis est Dominus beatus uir qui sperat in eo. The words in bold are those cited by Gildas, and the use of suauis rather than bonus indicates that it is the Iuxta LXX that he is recalling. While 94C, 95C, 96C are linked in the text of DEB by an internal theological logic; 95C, 96C, 97E, and 98C are linked by a chain of images. The sinner be-

157

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

ing called to conversion (95C) is the one who is bound (96C), and so in need of unbinding, and this bound one is identified with the ‘son of Zion.’ The ‘son of Zion’ is then identified with the ‘Prodigal son’ (97E) whose return ends in the great feast, this feast is then identified with the escatological banquet, and the psalm quotation (98C) is presented as describing that banquet. In order to appreciate the link between 95C and 96C we have to appreciate the imagery of binding and loosing from sins which is based on Mt 16:19 and Jn 11:44;42 while to appreciate the link between 97E and 98C we need to recall the imagery of Lk 15:7.

DEB XXX 99A. Gen 49:8-9 By using this designation, the specific characteristic of Judah (Jacob’s son), Gildas may be suggesting that Aurelius Caninus shared in the prophecy about Judah in Gen 49:8: Iuda, te laudabunt fratres tui, manus tua in ceruicibus inimicorum tuorum, adorabunt te filii patris tui.43 Gildas’s reference to the author of Genesis as a ‘prophet’ (ut propheta ait) should not be taken as indicating that Gildas was mistaken about the source of this expression, Moses was commonly viewed as the prophet par excellence on the basis of Dt 34:10.44 100A. Mt 15:19 The list of crimes is inspired by Mt 15:19 except that homicides of Mt has been changed to parricides.45 101A. Mk 16:18 The allusion to the mortiferum ceu serpentem is derived from Mk 16:18: serpentes tollent et si mortiferum quid biberint non eos nocebit super aegrotos manus inponent et bene habebunt. Its use here may indicate an aspect of Gildas’s theology of sin: Aurelius behaves as if he were an up-right Christian, but since he is not, then he runs the normal dangers of those picking up deadly serpents. 102A. Ez 17:24 The image of the dry tree in the field is derived from Ez 17:24 (and could be linked in Gildas’s imagination with Ez 20:47 and Is 56:3). 44 45 42 43

See 119A below. See 126A below where the same image is used with reference to Maglocunus. See 105C below. See 110A below.

158

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

103A. Gen 5:27 The reference to the great age of Methuselah based on Gen 5:27 was already a commonplace by Gildas’s times. Alas, he does not give an exact age in years for if he had it would show his preference for or against the Vg as this is a case where the VL and the Vg are explicitly at odds.46 104C. Ps 7:1347 Gildas

Vg

… nisi citius … conuersus fueris … ensem in te uibrabit in breui suum

nisi conuersi fueritis gladium suum uibrabit

Gildas’s text differs from the Vg Iuxta LXX. However, when Gildas is compared with the VL versions of this psalm (where conuersi is rendered conuertimini or conuertamini, and where the only alternative to gladius is framea) it becomes clear that although Gildas formally announces it as a quotation, ut psalmista ait, he is freely adapting the text both verbally and to the circumstances; and note that once again Gildas has opted for ensis in place of gladius.48 105C. Dt 32:39 This is exactly as in the Vg: ego occidam et ego uiuere faciam, percutiam et ego sanabo, et non est qui de manu mea possit eruere. Since the VL is markedly different at this point, this is positive evidence for Gildas using the Vg for Deuteronomy. Again,49 Moses is referred to as ‘the prophet’ through whom ‘the Lord’ (i.e. in this case, the Christ) spoke. This incidental comment is important for an understanding of Gildas’s christology and his view of the relationship of the Christ to the scriptures. 106A. Is 52:2 The Vg reads: excutere de puluere which Gildas expands to: excutere de faetido puluere tuo. This verse has already been used in DEB XXIX (96C); and comparison with other witnesses in the VL shows that the expansion is unique to Gildas (Gryson (1993), 1244).

See O’Loughlin (1995). In the margin of the translation in Williams’ edition, 71, the number ‘Psalm viii,13’ is given: this is erroneous as there is no disparity here between the Hebrew and Greek numbering of the psalms. 48 See 37E and 71A above. 49 See 99A above. 46 47

159

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

107A. Joel 2:12 The phrase et conuertere ad eum cum toto corde echoes Joel 2:12: nunc ergo dicit Dominus conuertimini ad me in toto corde uestro. 108C. Ps 2:1350 Gildas’s text is at variance with the Vg Iuxta LXX, but is derived from it. Gildas

Vg: Ps 2:13

cum exarserit in breui ira eius, beatus sis spernans in eum

cum exarserit in breui ira eius, beati omnes qui confidunt in eo

The variation not only does not correspond with any text in the VLD (the closest being: beati omnes spernantes in eum) or the Iuxta Hebr. which reads: beati omnes qui spernant in eum, but is is in the singular. As such, Gildas is probably conflating it with the phrase beatus uir qui sperat in eo from Ps 33:9,51 while adapting it in memory to the situation where he is addressing the single person, Aurelius.

DEB XXXI 109A. Ps 9:28 The phrase in throno dolis pleno which echoes Ps 9:28: cuius maledictione os plenum est et amaritudine et dolo sub lingua eius labor et dolor, but note also the text of Iuxta Hebr. which reads: maledictione os eius plenum est et dolis et avaritia sub lingua eius dolor et iniquitas. 110A. Mt 15:19 The reference to parricides and adulteries is based on Mt 15:19.52 111A.2 Kgs 21:1-17; Jer 15:4 Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, was condemned as Judah’s most evil king – and became a by-word for royal wickedness, see Jer 15:4 – and this view of him is found in 2 Kgs 21:1-17 (this is the key summary of his wicked biography); 23:2627; and 24:3-4. But note the very different view of him that is found in 2 Chr 33:1-20 where, troubled by his long reing and peaceful death as recounted in In the margin of the translation in Williams’ edition, 73, the number ‘Psalm iii,13’ is given: this is erroneous as there is no disparity here between the Hebrew and Greek numbering of the psalms. 51 Note the similar expression in Ps 83:13: beatus uir qui sperat in te. 52 See 100A above. 50

160

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

2Kgs, Manasseh is declared guilty of all the crimes, but then shown as repentant and, therefore, restored: it was this version of the king that generated the later prayer, the Oratio Manasse which Gildas may have known (but there is no positive evidence that he did know it). However, given that Gildas elsewhere consciously uses the Chronicler in prefernce to books of the Kings, it is surprising that he has not made more of the image of Manasseh from Chronicles on this occasion: it would have fitted his message to condemn the king by comparison with Manassh, and also to encourage him to further follow him in repentance.53 In the way this reference is used by Gildas, he could be taking his cue from Jer 15:4: et dabo eos in feruorem uniuersis regnis terrae propter Manassem filium Ezechiae regis Iuda super omnibus quae fecit in Hierusalem. 112A. 2 Cor 6:2 Gildas uses, but without formally quoting, 2 Cor 6:2: ecce nunc tempus acceptabile ecce nunc dies salutis; which he adapts as: nunc tempus acceptabile et dies salutis. 113A. Mt 24:20 Gildas adapts Mt 24:20 (orate autem ut non fiat fuga uestra hieme uel sabbato) to the singular. 114C. Ps 33:15-18 An explicit quotation from the psalms, Ps 33:15-18, but the text does not correspond to the Vg: Gildas

Vg

diuerte a malo et fac bonum, inquire pacem bonam et sequere eam, quia oculi Domini super te bona agentem et aures eius erunt in preces tuas,

[15] deuerte a malo et fac bonum, inquire pacem et persequere eam, [16] oculi Domini super iustos

et non perdet de terra uiuentium memoriam tuam. Clamabis et exaudiet te Et ex omnibus tribulationibus tuis eruet te.

et aures eius in precem eorum, [17] facies Domini super facientes mala ut perdat de terra memoriam eorum. [18] Clamauerunt iusti et Dominus exaudiuit et ex omnibus tribulationibus eorum liberauit eos.

A psalm text (given its frequency of recitation in the liturgy) that does not follow the Vg Iuxta LXX immediately suggests that the text is some form of the See ch. 5,2 above.

53

161

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

VL. However, checking each verse in the VLD does not throw much light on this quotation: (1) v. 15: the addition of bonam is not found in any other author nor in any liturgical text. (2) v. 15: the use of sequere, in place of persequere, is VL, and it is very widely found in authors. (3) v. 16: the addition of quia is found in a couple of authors, but these are different from those using sequere. (4) v. 16: the addition of bona agentem is not found elsewhere. (5) v. 16: while the critical edition of the Vg has precem, the majority of the manuscripts (and authors) have preces which agrees with Gildas. (6) v. 17: once the phrase facies Domini super facientes mala had been omitted, it became necessary for the sense that the whole meaning be changed so that the memory of the just should not be lost; but there is no evidence of any other author omitting the first phrase and then obverting the latter phrase. (7) v. 17: the addition of uiuentium is not found in any other citation of this verse. (8) v. 18: the contraction of Clamauerunt iusti et Dominus exaudiuit to Clamabis et exaudiet te is not found in any other author. (9) v. 18: the use of eruet – in any part of the verb – may represent a form of the VL, but it is only found in a small number of cases. Moreover, there is no pattern of authors using this, and sequere and quia: hence we can conclude that this is not VL but an adaptation of the Vg. That said, it is worth noting the following: (1) The changes in person, from plural to singular, and changes in the forms of verbs can be explained by this quotation being addressed by Gildas to an individual in his own time: Vortipor. (2) There is a deliberate change in the force of the quotation from it being a tandem rejoicing in the salvation of the just and the oblivion of the wicked, to a single message that God looks on good actions and this is the way to ensure one is remembered. (3) These verses of Ps 33 influenced 1 Pet 3:11-12: declinet autem a malo et faciat bonum inquirat pacem et persequatur eam quia oculi Domini super iustos et aures eius in preces eorum uultus autem Domini super facientes mala An echo of this text may have resulted in the use of quia. (4) The phrase terra uiuentium is used fifteen times in the Vg (e.g. Ps 141:6: clamaui ad te Domine dixi tu es spes mea portio mea in terra uiuentium) and this may explain the addition here. This text can, therefore, be seen as Gildas quoting freely from memory and adapting the text to the situation of his preaching.

162

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

115A. Ps 50:19 Cor siquidem contritum … spernit echoes Ps 50:19 Iuxta LXX: sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernet. Here God, the agent in the psalm, is identified with the Christ who is offering reconciliation. 116A. Mk 9:43/45/47 The final sentence adapts Mk 9:43/45/47: ubi uermis [Gildas adds: tortionis] eorum [Gildas: tuae] non moritur et ignis [Gildas adds: ustionis tuae] non extinguitur. Gildas’s use of extinguetur for extinguitur corresponds to some Vg readings. This is Eusebian Section 101/10 in Mk: it is not found in any of the other gospels.54

DEB XXXII 117A. 1 Cor 6:9 The allusion is most probably to Paul’s injunction in 1 Cor 6:9: an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis seruientes neque adulteri. Both Mommsen and Williams cite Gal 5:19, which is certainly an error, but they probably had in mind Gal 5:21: inuidiae, homicidia, ebrietates, comesationes, et his similia, quae praedico uobis sicut praedixi quoniam qui talia agunt regnum Dei non consequentur; however, in the list in Gal adultery is not mentioned. The designation of Paul as ‘the apostle’ in contra interdictum apostoli is a commonplace, Paul invariably refers to himself as an apostle in the greeting in his letters: e.g. Rom 1:1. 118A. Ps 36:8 Ps 36:8 (desine ab ira et derelinque furorem) is referred to, ut propheta ait, and expanded by Gildas to make a point closely tied to his larger argument. That the author of the Psalms, generally taken to have been David, could be considered a prophet is a commonplace in Christian writing, cf. Acts 1:16. 119A. Mt 16:19 and Jn 11:44 The imagery of binding and loosing from sins is based on a combination of Mt 16:19 and Jn 11:44.55 54 In Williams this reference is given in error as Mk ix, 48. The sentence is found in three places in Mk 9, but not in v. 48. 55 See 98C above.

163

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

120C. 1 Tim 6:17-9 Gildas incorporates into his argument phrases from ‘the apostle’ from 1 Tim 6:17-956 which reads in the Vg: non sublime sapere neque sperare in incerto diuitiarum sed in Deo qui praestat nobis omnia abunde [ad fruendum, bene agere diuites fieri in operibus bonis facile tribuere communicare,] thesaurizare sibi fundamentum bonum in futurum. (The words in [] are not used by Gildas.) Gildas departs from the Vg on three occasions: (1) he has noli superbe for non sublime; (2) uel for neque; and (3) thesaurizes tibi for thesaurizare sibi. Of these variations, only the use of superbe for sublime has significance with reference to the version of 1 Tim being used, and superbe is a VL reading, but abunde is proper to the Vg; so we can conclude that Gildas is using a Vg text with some VL contamination; see Frede (1975-82), 642. 121A. 1 Jn 5:20 et habeas ueram uitam, perennem perfecto, non deciduam may echo 1 Jn 5:20: et scimus quoniam Filius Dei uenit et dedit nobis sensum ut cognoscamus uerum Deum et simus in uero Filio eius hic est uerus Deus et uita aeterna. 122A. Eph 1:21 The construction in hoc seculo … … … et in futuro is derived from Eph 1:21 (it is also found as a binary opposition, just as in Gildas, in Mt 12:32; Mk 10:30; and Lk 18:30. 123C. Jer 2:19 While not acknowledging it as a citation, Gildas uses Jer 2:19 ([uide quia] malum et amarum est reliquisse te Dominum Deum tuum et non esse timorem mei apud te) to develop his argument using uidebis/uide as the catchword. The text cited is Vg.

DEB XXXIII 124A. Jer 23:9; and Dt 32:32 Mommsen gave a marginal reference to Jer 23:9 (ad prophetas contritum est cor meum in medio mei contremuerunt omnia ossa mea factus sum quasi uir ebrius et quasi homo madidus a uino a facie Domini et a facie uerborum sanctorum The text from 1 Tim used here is longer than the reference given in either Mommsen or Williams. 56

164

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

eius) and to no other text; while Williams ignored Mommsen referring instead to Dt 32:32 (de uinea Sodomorum uinea eorum et de suburbanis Gomorrae uua eorum uua fellis et botri amarissimi) noting that Gildas had used the image already in DEB XXVIII.57 In fact, we need both references for Gildas echoes Jer 23:9 in describing Maglocunus as a [uir] madidus uino which then allows him to extend the image that he is drunk on the bitter vine of Sodom – his principal image – from Dt 32:32. As on the previous occasion Gildas use uite instead of uinea which may indicate VL influence in Deuteronomy. 125A. 1 Tim 6:15 The reference to God as ‘the King of Kings’ in the phrase Quid te non ei regum omnium Regi is derived from 1 Tim 6:15: quem suis temporibus ostendet beatus et solus potens rex regum et Dominus dominantium.58 126A. Gen 49:9 The image of young lions in the phrase non catulorum leonis is derived from Gen 49:9.59 127C. Ps 54:24 Ps 54:24: tu uero Deus deduces eos in puteum interitus uiri sanguinum et doli non dimidiabunt dies suos ego autem sperabo in te Domine. The text is Iuxta LXX and the words used by Gildas are in bold. Note that Gildas quotes an exact colon, which may indicate the way the psalms were laid out in the codices with which he was familiar. The text is cited as a prophecy. 128A. 2 Tim 4:8 The image of God as the righteous judge who punishes sins with retribution is based on 2 Tim 4:8: in reliquo reposita est mihi iustitiae corona quam reddet mihi Dominus in illa die iustus iudex non solum autem mihi sed et his qui diligunt aduentum eius.60

59 60 die). 57

58

See 92C above. The same titles for God can be found in Apoc 17:14 and 19:16. See 99A above where the image is used with reference to Aurelius Caninus. The image is also found in Ps 7:11 (Deus iudex iustus et fortis comminans tota

165

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

129C. Is 33:1 Gildas cites Is 33:1 in a form differing from the Vg:61 Gildas

Vg

Uae tibi, qui praedaris nonne et ipse praedaberis, et qui occidis, none et ipse occideris,

Uae, qui praedaris nonne et ipse praedaberis, et qui spernis nonne et ipse sperneris, cum consummaueris depraedationem depraedaberis, cum fatigatus desiueris contemnere contemneris

et cum desiueris praedari tunc cades.

Gryson (1987-93), 676-7 considers Gildas a unique variant on the Vg text; Gildas is clearly closer to the Vg than to the VL.

DEB XXXIV 130A. Jer 9:1 The image of the consciousness of sin being before the sinner by day and by night is probably an allusion to Jer 9:1 which is used later by Gildas,62 and the notion of tearfulness as a central element in penance.63 131A. Lk 12:8-9 The image of an action happening before God, angels and men is based on Lk 12:8-9. 132A. Mt 3:10 and 7:17-9 The notion of the good life being like producing good fruit (ad bonam frugem conuersio) is from Mt 3:10 and 7:17-9 with parallels in Lk 3:9 and 6:43. 133A. 2 Pet 2:22 / Prov 26:11 The image of the sinner returning to old ways being like a dog returning to its vomit is based on 2 Pet 2:22 (contigit enim eis illud ueri prouerbii canis reuersus ad suum uomitum et sus lota in uolutabro luti) and the prouerbium uerum is found in Prov 26:11 (sicut canis qui reuertitur ad uomitum suum sic inprudens qui iterat stultitiam suam). This departure was noted by Williams, 78, n.1. See 137C below. 63 See O’Loughlin and Conrad-O’Briain (1993); and see 223T below. 61

62

166

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

134C. Rom 6:13 Although not flagged as a quotation from Paul by Gildas, Rom 6:13 forms the basis of his argument: Gildas

Vg

Qua peccata exhibentur membra arma iniquitatis peccato ac diabolo, quae oportuerat saluo sensu auide exhibere arma iustitiae Deo

sed neque exhibeatis membra uestra arma iniquitatis peccato sed exhibete uos Deo tamquam ex mortuis uiuentes et membra uestra arma iustitiae Deo

The common words are in bold; it is clear that Gildas’s text is identical with the Vg and that he has freely adapted the verse to his immediate purpose. 135A. 2 Pet 2:4 The image of what was made for heaven being cast at the judgement into the depths of hell is based on 2 Pet 2:4: si enim Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercit sed rudentibus inferni detractos in tartarum tradidit in iudicium cruciatos reseruari.

DEB XXXV 136A. Neh 9:16-7 The image of a ‘hard neck’ (ob quod dura ceruix illa) as linked with unrepentance is taken from Neh 9:16-7. 137C. Jer 9:1 Gildas cites Jer 9:164 exactly as in the Vg with the exception that he omits filiae. Gildas has the prophet pray for those killed ‘from my people,’ not those killed ‘from the daughter of my people.’ Gildas uses the same text of 9:1 in 223T below where the variation is set out in parallel columns. 137Cbis. Sir 41:11-3 Gildas cites Sir 41:11-3.65 He departs from the Vg in just one word: in Sir 41:13 the Vg reads omnia quae de terra sunt in terram conuertentur sic impii a maledicto in perditionem where Gildas has ibunt for conuertentur. This does not appear to be a VL reading, but may be so indirectly in that Gildas (or a See 130A above. Neither Mommsen nor Williams give the verse range.

64 65

167

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

scribe in the codex which he has) has remembered it incorrectly by analogy with Gen 3:19 where in sudore uultus tui uesceris pane donec reuertaris in terram de qua sumptus es quia puluis es et in pulverem reuerteris which was frequently shortened, e.g. in Augustine, to terra es, et in terram ibis. 138A. Hos 5:4 Gildas immediately provides an exegesis of Sir 41:13 with these words: subauditur, si non reuertantus ad Deus exaudita saltim tali admonitione. This statement is not a quotation from Scripture, however it echoes verbally Hos 5:4 (non dabunt cogitationes suas ut reuertantur ad Dominum suum quia spiritus fornicationis in medio eorum et Dominum non cognouerunt) and conceptually Amos 4:6-10 and Hag 2:17. While the notion that ‘return to the Lord’ is the action to which the sinner is called – thereby avoiding being lost – is a commonplace within the prophetic literature: 2 Chr 30:6-9; Is 19:22; 55:7; Jer 3:14; 3:22; 4:1; Hos 12:6; 14:1-2; Joel 2:12-3; and Zech 1:3-4. 139C. Sir 21:1 Gildas cites Sir 21:1: fili peccasti non adicias iterum sed et de pristinis deprecare ut tibi remittatur. Gildas’s use of ultra rather than iterum is a unique variant on the Vg text (see Thiele (1987), 582); indeed, it may be explained by a desire not to repeat ‘iterum’ within this citation and then again at its end when he used it as a pointer (‘et iterum’) to the next citation. 140C. Sir 5:8-9 Gildas cites Sir 5:8-966 which reads in the Vg: non tardes conuerti ad Deum et ne differas de die in diem, subito enim uenit ira illius. Gildas departs from the Vg in having Dominum for Deum; neque for et ne; and eius for illius. However, while these variants (especially Dominum for Deum) echo the VL, this was such an oft-cited verse, these variations do not amount to evidence of Gildas using a non-Vg text, but merely substrate interference with the Vg (see Thiele (1987), 276-8). 141C. Prov 29:12 Gildas cites Prov 29:12 but his text is very different from the Vg. Gildas

Vg

Nimirum rex iustus suscitat regionem

Rex iustus erigit terram

However, Gildas is the only witness to this form in the VLD.

66

Neither Mommsen nor Williams give the verse range.

168

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

142C. Prov 29:4 Gildas cites Prov 29:4 but his text is very different from the Vg.67 Gildas

Vg

Rege audiente uerbum iniquum, omnes qui sub illo sunt, scelesti sunt

Princeps qui libenter audit uerba mendacii, omnes ministros habebit impios

However, Gildas is the only witness to this form in the VLD.68 The author of Prov, taken by Gildas (as was customary) to be King Solomon, is here described by him as a ‘prophet’ (ut propheta dixit), however, a source for this description has not been found. That Solomon was the author of Proverbs was a commonplace,69 and sometimes linked to 1 Kgs 4:32.

DEB XXXVI 143C. Sir 22:8-9 While Gildas’s text does not follow the critical edition of the Vg, it is found as a variant in the apparatus.70 Gildas has sic qui enarrat stulto sapientiam, while the Vg has only qui enumerat stulto, but there is a variant qui enarrat stulto sapientiam. Gildas has in fine enim narrationis dicet: quid primum dixeras while the Vg has et in fine dicit quis est hic, but a variant has in fine enim narrationis dicit: quid primum dixeras. However, these variants, which parallel Gildas so closely, do not come from a single codex. So we can conclude that Gildas had access to a copy of Sir that is related to a particular branch of the Vg tradition, although it is not identical with any extant codex. Gildas’s use of excitat dormientem de graui somno in v. 8 is a clear indicator that his text is Vg, because the VL reads: suscitans dormientem de profundo somno (see Thiele (1987), 609-10) On the question of the authorship of Sirach, Gildas explicitly claims the book for Solomon.71

This quotation is noted by Mommsen, but not by Williams. See 152C below. 69 See O’Loughlin (1995e). 70 These verses of Sirach, while present without doubt in the Vg, are problematic, see Skehan and Di Lella (1987), 308; this problem, but understood as a problem with the Vg text, is noted by Williams, 83, n. 2. 71 See 153C below. 67

68

169

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

144C. Jer 4:14 Gildas’s citation of Jer 4:14 differs from the Vg: Gildas

Vg

laua a malitia cor tuum Hierusalem ut saluus sis

laua a malitia cor tuum Hierusalem ut salua fias

The change to the masculine, saluus, may be explained in that Gildas is addressing the text not to Jerusalem but to a man in Britain. There is no other example of this variant in the VLD, nor is there evidence of VL substrate interference as that text probably read: ut salueris. 145C. Jer 18:7 Gildas’s citation of Jer 18:7 differs from the Vg: Gildas

Vg

repente loquar ad gentem et ad regnum ut euellam et dissipem et destruam et disperdam

repente loquar aduersum gentem et aduersum regnum ut eradicem et destruam et disperdam illud

There is no example in the VLD of an author with this text in the form we find it in Gildas; however, both Cassian and Faustus of Riez have ut euellam in place of ut eradicem. This suggests a VL influence. 146C. Jer 18:8 Gildas’s citation of part of Jer 18:8, which he intended to be read distinctly from the previous verse (145C), differs from the Vg: Gildas

Vg

Et si paenitentiam egerit gens illa a peccato suo,

si paenitentiam egerit gens illa a malo suo quod locutus sum aduersum eam agam et ego paenitentiam super malo quod cogitaui ut facerem ei

paenitentiam et ego agam super malo quod locutus sum, ut facerem ei

While there is no author whose citation of this verse is identical with that of Gildas, those of Cassian and Faustus are remarkably similar. However, the similarities are not such as to suggest that Gildas is using either author as a source. However, it confirms that Gildas had access to a VL text at this point. Jer 18:7-8 form a unity whereby the punishment of God is announced in 18:7 and contrasted with the mercy to the penitent in 18:8. By dividing them,

170

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas alters the meaning of 18:7 to that of a merciful God calling the wicked from their sins (a peccatis impios prouocantis), which is then complemented by 18:8 which is then taken as an exhortation to penitence (peccatorem … ad paenitientiam hortatur). By careful division Gildas has supplied an exegesis of this text, and simultaneously given us a detailed insight into both his theology of penance and his soteriology. 147C. Jer 32:39 and Ps 127:5 Gildas appears to want to cite Jer 32:39; however, (a) his text differs widely from the Vg; (b) there is no author with a similar text in the VLD; and (c) he conflates his citation with common biblical expression on ‘keeping my commandments’ and a phrase from Ps 127:5: Gildas

Vg

Quis dabit eis tale cor ut audiant me et custodiant precepta mea et bene sis eis omnibus diebus uitae suae

et dabo eis cor unum et uiam unam ut timeant me uniuersis diebus et bene sit eis et filiis eorum post eos

Assuming that Gildas changes the statement from the first person to the inde­ finite third person,72 then his change from fearing to hearing may result from his citing from memory or his desire to present a forgiving God who is seeking out sinners, and this led him to use the stock-phrase ‘that they may keep my commandments’ (used in Ex 20:6; Lev 19:37; 20:8; 22:9; Dt 5:10; 1 Kgs 3:14; 11:34; 11:38; 2 Kgs 17:13; Prov 3:1; 4:4; 7:1; Ez 18:19 and 21). The probability that Gildas was citing from memory is made more probable by his exchanging uniuersis diebus for omnibus diebus which then acts as a catch-phrase for omnibus diebus uitae tuae from Ps 127. So, despite differing from the Vg, this citation does not constitute counterevidence that his standard text of Jer was Vg. 148C. Dt 32:28-32 This citation is identical with the Vg (which is markedly different from the VL in these verses) except that where Gildas has populus absque consilio et prudentia, the Vg reads gens absque consilio et sine prudentia. These three verses from part of the section of Dt known as ‘the canticle of Moses’ (32:1-43); a name which is derived from Dt 31:22 (scripsit ergo Moses canticum) while the remainder of Dt 31 (i.e. vv. 23-30) is a ritual description in That this is a deliberate change to suit Gildas’s context can be seen in that he recognised the consequent need to change sit to sis. 72

171

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

troducing the canticle.73 Gildas has thus identified these verses’ context when he introduced them: itemque in cantico Deuteronomii. The four citations from Jer and Dt (144C – 148C) appear to form a unit within Gildas’s argument, and at the very least he holds them to complement one another in meaning, yet there is no evidence that any writer apart from Gildas linked these verses as he does.74 149C. Mt 11:28-9 Gildas cites Mt 11:28-9 with a similar minor variation to that found when he previously used Mt 11:28 in DEB XXIX (see 94C above). We can see how closely Gildas follows the Vg: Gildas

Vg

uenite ad me omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis et ego requiescere faciam, tollite iugum meum super uos et discite a me quia mitis sum et humilis corde et inuenietis requiem animabus uestris

uenite ad me omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis et ego reficiam uos, tollite iugum meum super uos et discite a me quia mitis sum et humilis corde et inuenietis requiem animabus uestris

The variation, found in many authors,75 is also found in some VL codices (although in most codices the VL and Vg do not differ at this point. So while in 94C we could not say which version Gildas used, in this case we can say that his text represents the VL 150A. Ps 113:14 and 134:17 The image of ‘deaf ears,’ such that the voice of God is not heard by someone to whom it is addressed is a common one in the scriptures. The basic texts, because of the frequency of their liturgical use, are Ps 113:14 and 134:17. However, it is found in a wide range of texts similar to those used by Gildas in his indictment: Is 42:20; 43:8; Jer 5:21; 34:14; Ez 12:2; Mic 7:16; Zech 7:11; Mk 8:18; Mt 13:15; Acts 28:27; and Rom 11:18. See Gildas’s use of this theme again in DEB LXXXVI (416A) and CVII (510A).

See Mackenzie (1951), 272. See also 161A, below. 75 Contrast Williams’ note 2 on p. 84 where he considered it a significant and unusual variant. 73 74

172

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

151C. Mic 3:8; Is 56:10; and 58:1 It is Gildas’s intention to quote a ‘prophetical’ oracle to show that if his audience does not hear his message, then they ignore the prophets, the Christ himself, and fail to understand this text: Si non ego impleuero fortitudinem in spiritu et uirtute Domini, ut enuntiem domui Iacob peccata eorum et domui Israhel scelera eorum, ne simus canes muti non ualentes latrare. It would appear that the text Gildas has in mind is Mic 3:8, but that verse has been combined in his memory with other verses from the prophets. However, before looking at the citation in detail, we should note that he also uses Mic 3:8 as part of a much longer testimonium, in DEB LXXXVI in this form:76 Si non ego impleuero fortitudinem in spiritu Domini et iudicium et potestate, ut annuntiem domui Iacob impietates suas et Israel peccata sua. In order to assess how Gildas has come to this form we need to proceed through a series of steps: First, the last words of the citation in DEB XXXVI, ne simus … latrare, are an addition: after ne simus we have a phrase from Is 56:10: speculatores eius caeci omnes nescierunt uniuersi canes muti non ualentes latrare uidentes uana dormientes et amantes somnia. Second, there is a silent conflation within Gildas’s memory, which is repeated in DEB LXXXVI, of this oracle of Micah and Is 58:1: clama ne cesses quasi tuba exalta uocem tuam et adnuntia populo meo scelera eorum et domui Iacob peccata eorum. We find this conflation affecting the text in this case and suggesting that Micah’s announcement was like the sounding of a tuba in DEB LXXXVI; see 417A where it is examined in more detail. Third, we can proceed phrase by phrase through the text: 1. Si non impleuero is the VL opening of this verse, the Vg: uerumtamen ego repletus sum.77 2. fortitudinem resembles the Vg fortitudine rather than the VL uirtutem, so there is a Vg interference within this citation.78 3. in spiritu et uirtute Domini is a contraction of the VL form of this verse which reads in spiritu meo sancto et iudicio et potestate, ut … . But there is also a Vg influence from spiritus Domini iudicio et virtute ut … . 4. ut enuntiem domui Iacob peccata eorum et domui Israhel scelera eorum which conflated the VL and Vg forms of the verse with a similar verse in Isaiah:

See 418T below. On this formula, see Williams, 205, n.8. 78 This was recognised by Williams, 93, when he held that the citation in DEB XXXVI was closer to the Vg than that in DEB LXXXVI. 76

77

173

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

VL: Mic 3:8

Vg: Mic 3:8

Vg: Is 58:1

ut renuntiem (but the actual text seen by Gildas probably had annuntiem) huic Iacob iniquitates et huic Israel peccata sua

ut annunciem

et adnuntia

Iacob scelus suum et Israel peccatum suum

populo meo scelera eorum et domui Iacob peccata eorum

152C. Prov 24:24-5 Citation of Prov 24:24-5, not just 24:24 as indicated in Mommsen and Williams, following the VL. This is one of the cases proving that some of the biblical books used by Gildas were VL because the Vg of this verse is distinctly different: qui dicit impio iustus es maledicent ei populi et detestabuntur eum tribus, qui arguunt laudabuntur … . As in the case of 142C, the Solomon is named as the author of Proverbs. 153C. Sir 4:27-8 Citation of Sir 4:27 and 28, not just v. 27 as stated in Mommsen and Williams; following the Vg (see Thiele (1987), 261-2). Having identified Solomon as the author of 152C, Gildas’s use of et iterum here appears to imply that Solomon is the author of Sir also; as he does in 143C. 154C. Prov 24:11 Gildas cites Prov 24:11 following the VL. The only other citation of this verse in the exact form we find in Gildas is in Cassian, Conlationes 17,6. 155C. Prov 11:4 and 11:31 As a comment expanding on Prov 24:11, Gildas combines two further verses from Proverbs: 11:4 (non proderunt diuitiae in die irae, iustitia a morte liberat) and 11:31 (si iustus quidem uix slauus sit, impius et peccator ubi parebit).79 Both quotations follow the VL. Gildas intended these to be read as single citation; and, as in 142C, he deems Solomon to be a prophet: ut idem propheta ait.

In Mommsen’s apparatus three verses are identified: Prov 11:4; 11:31; and 1 Pet 4:18; while Williams only identifies two: Prov 11:4 and 1 Pet 4:18. This difference is due to the fact that 1 Peter 4:18 is itself a quotation of Prov 11:31. However, since Gildas intended to cite both verses as coming from the same source, i.e. the book by the prophet Solomon, the reference 1 Pet 4:18 is redundant and misleading. Moreover, the form of the text as found in 1 Pet in the Vg does not appear to have influenced Gildas, while the VL form of 1 Pet does not add anything to what is found in citations of Prov 11:31. 79

174

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

156A. 2 Pet 2:4 As with earlier images relating to hell (see 135A, for example), Gildas draws on 2 Pet 2:4. 157A. 2 Cor 6:2 Gildas’s phrase a quo in hoc tempore accepto et die salutis ad rectum uitae iter differtur conuersio is based on 2 Cor 6:2: tempore accepto exaudiui te et in die salutis adiuuaui te ecce nunc tempus acceptabile ecce nunc dies salutis.80

DEB XXXVII 158A. Col 3:13 Williams81 saw in the opening lines of this chapter an allusion to Col 3:13: subportantes inuicem et donantes uobis ipsis si quis aduersus aliquem habet querellam sicut et Dominus donauit uobis ita et uos. Gildas’s tearful quarrel (… flebilis haec querulaque …) would appear to have been processed in the Pauline manner. 159C. Is 5:20 Gildas cites Is 5:20 but changes the Vg text slightly, thus: Gildas

Vg

Vae qui dicit bonum malum et malum bonum ponentes tenebras in lucem et lucem in tenebras amarum in dulce et dulce in amarum

Vae qui dicitis malum bonum et bonum malum ponentes tenebras lucem et lucem tenebras ponentes amarum in dulce et dulce in amarum

Which is itself a citation, after a fashion, of Is 49:8. However, by a misprint Williams, 86, n. 1, has Col. iv 13 when it should have read Col. iii 13. 80 81

175

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

160C. Mt 13:13-5 Gildas abbreviates and paraphrases Mt 13:13-5, thus: Gildas qui uidentes non uident et audientes non audiunt

quorum cor crassa obtegitur quadam uitiorum nube

Vg ideo in parabolis loquor eis quia uidentes non uident et audientes non audiunt neque intellegunt et adimpletur eis prophetia Esaiae dicens auditu audietis et non intellegetis et uidentes uidebitis et non uidebitis incrassatum est enim cor populi huius et auribus grauiter audierunt et oculos suos cluserunt nequando oculis uideant et auribus audiant et corde intellegant et conuertantur et sanem eos

There is no parallel to this paraphrase in the VLD. Gildas’s addition of a rationale for their hardness of heart – their sight has been blinded by being covered by a cloud of vices – constitutes an exegesis of this difficult passage in Matthew, and represents a view derived from Paul in Rom 1:18-31 where those who fail to recognise God’s laws are presented as those who have practiced a range of vices. 161A. Ex 14:23 and 15:19 Mommsen saw Gildas’s reference to ‘the five mad horses of Pharaoh’ as an allusion to the five horses mentioned in 2 Kgs 7:13 (‘One of his servants said, “Let some men take five of the remaining horses, since those left here will suffer the fate of the whole multitude of Israel that have perished already; let us send and find out”’), but, as Williams noted,82 this incident would not fit with the situation Gildas has in mind. Clearly, Gildas’s interest is in the horses of Pharaoh which were destroyed in the Red Sea, and the number of them, five, is incidental and relates to the number of British princes to whom he has sounded a warning. As such the allusion is to Ex 14:23 and 15:19 (the latter text may have been especially familiar to Gildas through its use as ‘the Song of Moses’ in the liturgy – to which Gildas refers incidentally in 148C). 162A. Eph 3:5; Mt 4:4; and 1 Cor 2:8 The statement that (1) the holy prophets (sancti uates) acting as the instruments of the Spirit who, (2) as the mouth of God, (3) issue warnings to the Williams, 86-7, n. 2.

82

176

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

princes of this age combines several passages from the New Testament to form one complex image. The first element is based on Eph 3:5; the second on Mt 4:4; and the third element on 1 Cor 2:8 (quam nemo principum huius saeculi cognouit si enim cognouissent numquam Dominum gloriae crucifixissent). 163C. Gildas cites Heb 10:28-9 in a form that differs from the Vg: Gildas

Vg

legem quis transgrediens duobus mediis uel tribus testibus moritur; quanto putatis deteriora mereri supplicia qui Filium Dei conculcauerit

irritam quis faciens legem Mosi sine ulla miseratione duobus uel tribus testibus moritur; quanto magis putatis deteriora mereri supplicia qui Filium Dei conculcauerit

Williams thought a pre-Vg text infected the Vg text used by Gildas at this point, but there is no evidence for such interference; it would appear that this is Gildas’s own variation (see Frede (1983-91), 1479).

DEB XXXVIII83 Gildas begins his testimonia with a selection from 1 Sam. However, his indebtedness to 1 Sam is much deeper than might be suggested by the four citations treated as testimonia. His introduction to Samuel the prophet in Israel, and then the activity of Samuel during the reign of Saul, is, in effect, a summary of 1 Sam 1-15. The manner in which Gildas uses the four testimonia also parallels the central theme of this section of 1 Sam. In 1 Sam 12:6-18 we have Samuel’s ‘theology of history’: Israel is God’s chosen people and as such there is no higher duty on Israel than to obey the Lord’s commands. But the people have forgotten the law, and, consequently, their enemies attack them, are victorious, and now are oppressing them. Israel must now, (and this is then presented as Samuel’s fundamental message) acknowledge their sins, repent, and then they will be delivered. Gildas reads 1 Sam 12:6-18 as the divine paradigm for what is happening to his own people, a new Israel, and from that perspective makes both his comments about Samuel’s life and message, and then selects testimonia. The common capitulation of DEB is here an accurate expression of the author’s intention for the biblical material in this chapter forms a unit not based on origin in one part of the Scriptures, but in being a case for the conviction based on what happened to a single disobedient king: Saul. 83

177

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

164A. 1 Sam 8:4-21 Gildas begins his introduction to Samuel by stating that he set up a ‘lawful kingdom’ at God’s command. However, the setting up of Israel as a kingdom, and the anointing of Saul as its first king, is not narrated just once in 1 Sam, but something that is noted on several occasions: 1 Sam 8:4-21; 9:15-17; 10:1-8; 10:17-25; 11:14-5; and 15:1.84 165A. 1 Sam 1:11 The statement that Samuel was ‘dedicated [by Hannah] before his birth’ refers to his mother’s action as described in 1 Sam 1:11.85 166A. 1 Sam 3:20 On Samuel’s status as a prophet, Gildas echoes 1 Sam 3:20: Gildas

Vg

a Dan usque Bersabee omni populo Israhel ueridicus propheta

et cognouit uniuersus Israhel a Dan usque Bersabee quod fidelis Samuhel propheta esset Domini

However, there is no item in the VLD which is closer to the text of Gildas than the Vg, and therefore we must conclude that Gildas is paraphrasing. 167A. 1 Sam 7:9-10; and 12:16-8 There are only two ‘signs’ associated with Samuel: the first is found at 1 Sam 7:9-10; and the second, most important ‘sign’ is found at 1 Sam 12:16-8. 168A. 1 Sam 13:13-4; and 15:17-9 Samuel’s denunciations of Saul for not fulfilling the Lord’s commands are found at 1 Sam 13:13-4 (which is then quoted: 169T) and at 1 Sam 15:17-9 which provides a context for the three linked testimonia from 1 Sam 15 (170T; 171T; and 172T). The four testimonia that follow provide a composite description of the prophet Samuel; and are seen as sharing a context: Gildas’s own prophetic activity is parallel to that of Samuel. 84 While we see these repetitions as evidence of the redaction processes that resulted in the canonical text, Gildas would have had to reconcile these accounts of the establishment of the kingdom as deliberate, and hence significant, repetitions. 85 While the events surrounding Hannah’s prayers and her dedication may seem a remote section of the Scriptures for Gildas to know so well, we should bear in mind that this was then (as distinct from what it is for modern readers of the Scriptures) an important Christological passage as it was seen as pre-figuring, as an antetype, the birth of Jesus.

178

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

169T. 1 Sam 13:13-4 Gildas

Vg

stulte egisti nec custodisti mandata Domini Dei tui quae praecepit tibi quod si non fecisses iam nunc pararet Deus regnum tuum super Israhel in sempiternum; sed nequaquam regnum tuum ultra consurget

stulte egisti nec custodisti mandata Domini Dei tui quae praecepit tibi quod si non fecisses iam nunc praeparasset Dominus regnum tuum super Israhel in sempiternum; sed nequaquam regnum tuum ultra consurget

The variation of pararet Deus from the Vg does not appear significant. The VL variants are parasset and parauerat but always with Dominus; while MS A has prepararet Dominus Deus. It would appear that this is a slip in memory, which MS A has noticed and hyper-corrected in having Dominus Deus. The full significance of this testimonium is then drawn out by Gildas: Saul is deprived of his royal status for a very minor violation of the Lord’s commands, indeed for a partial change of the command: sed iussionis ex parte mutationem. Which, as Gildas declares, was not acknowledged as a sin, but simply a transgressio mandati. The rhetorical climax of his argument is thus, if a properly, prophetically established king, and his lineage, is deprived of his kingdom for such a small transgression, then how much more will the kings in Britain whom he has addressed share Saul’s fate when they have committed serious sins such as murder and adultery. However, a closer examination of this transgression may indicate why such a minor detail was significant within Gildas’s theological milieu that he could cite a colleague’s opinion on its meaning. In 1 Sam 10:8 Saul is told by Samuel: ‘And you shall go down to Gilgal ahead of me; then I will come down to you to present burnt offerings and offer sacrifices of well-being. Seven days you shall wait, until I come to you and show you what you shall do.’ This is not presented as anything more than the instructions of the prophet (i.e. not an oracle or a divine command). Then in 13:8 we are told that Saul ‘waited seven days, the time appointed by Samuel; but Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and the people began to slip away from Saul.’ Then having waited the commanded amount of time, he chose to take his own decision and offered a sacrifice. His transgression is therefore hard to see: he had waited the right time and Samuel had not shown up, so was he not now free to decide or should he have just waited and done nothing until he heard from Samuel? In any case, the action of doing anything, even offering a sacrifice to God, was enough for him to be deprived of his household’s royal inheritance! So what was the crime: it could be that the king was not listening to the prophets who knew the mind of God – here was the real transgression. The interest in this scene, which we see in the DEB, arose therefore from the

179

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

fact that the clergy – whom Gildas steadily links with the role of prophecy in his society – were not being listened to by the kings. As Saul did not listen to and wait on instructions from the prophet even in minor matters and so was rejected by God; so too the British kings will be rejected for their sins, and for not obeying their clergy. It would appear from this whole passage that the rejection of Saul was a topic of exegetical interest in Gildas’s Britain as it provided a biblical context for their discussion of the problems of their society. 170T. 1 Sam 15:20 This is presented by Gildas as Saul’s reply to the accusation that he had transgressed the Lord’s commands in 1 Sam 13 which has just been cited. However, the transgressions for which Saul is making reply here are those in 1 Sam 15; perhaps Gildas is treating all of Saul’s acts of disobedience collectively. Gildas’s texts is identical with that of the Vg, however, we should note that there are no variants for this sentence in the VLD. Gildas also comments, in the spirit of the exegetical discussion that he was party to about the rejection of Saul, that Saul would appear to have some justice in his claim – but such an opinion is merely lawyerly sagacity for the next testimonium is the prophet’s reply to Saul’s claim. 171T. 1 Sam 15:22-3 Gildas

Vg

Numquid uult Dominus holocausta aut uictimas et non potius, ut oboediatur uoci Domini? Melior est enim oboedientia quam uictimae et audire magis quam offerre adipem arietum quoniam sicut peccatum ariolandi est repugnare et quasi scelus idolatriae nolle adquiescere pro eo ergo quod abiecisti sermonem Domini abiecit et te ne sis rex

Numquid uult Dominus holocausta aut uictimas et non potius, ut oboediatur uoci Domini? Melior est enim oboedientia quam uictimae et auscultare magis quam offerre adipem arietum quoniam quasi peccatum ariolandi est repugnare et quasi scelus idolatriae nolle adquiescere pro eo ergo quod abiecisti sermonem Domini abiecit te ne sis rex

The first two variations from the Vg (audire for auscultare; sicut for quasi) must be simply alterations from memory (the VL form of these verses is notably different from the Vg, and one other author, Ambrosiaster, in paraphrasing these verses uses audire rather than auscultare. The third variation, inserting et between the verb and its object is meaningless and must be seen as simply a transcription error. We should note that in MS A the et is not present.

180

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

These verses are found frequently within the tradition as an instance of the theme of obedientia (or misericordia) super sacrificium; and as such were often read within a mosaic of citations including: Hos 6:6; Prov 21:3; Ps 39:7-9; Qo 4:17 [= Qo 5:1 in modern translations]; Mt 9:13 and 12:7. 172T. 1 Sam 15:28-9 Gildas

Vg

scidit Deus regnum Israhel a te hodie et dedit illud proximo tuo meliori te; porro triumphator in Israhel non parcet et paenitudine non flectetur neque enim homo est ut agat paenitentiam

scidit Dominus regnum Israhel a te hodie et tradidit illud proximo tuo meliori te; porro triumphator in Israhel non parcet et paenitudine non flectetur neque enim homo est ut agat paenitentiam

The two variations from the Vg (Deus for Dominus; dedit for tradidit) are not significant. As in 169T, the interchange by Gildas of Deus for Dominus is, in effect, simply a word substitution – quite apart from any question of it being a transcription error of the nomina sacra. The change from tradidit to dedit is probably to be explained as a slip in memory; the VL has dabit consistently. Williams noted that the final words of the quotation involve a version of the ‘classic phrase’: agat penitentiam.86 This phrase, found over seventy times in the Scriptures, in the form paenitentiam agite (Mt 3:2 and elsewhere) (translated in the active voice: ‘do penance’) where it is rendered metanoiete (translated in the passive voice: ‘be converted’) became a litmus test of where people stood on the question of ‘works’ and justification during the Reformation – and, as such, it was important both directly to Williams and to the question of the theological position of the ‘primitive British church’ with the presence of the phrase without comment telling, from Williams’ perspective, against Gildas. However, we should recognise that there is no evidence that this was a phrase that was in any way controversial for Gildas. 173C. 1 Sam 15:23 Given the significance he has attached to obedience, it is not surprising that he repeats the message of 171T quoting again 1 Sam 15:23: scelus idolatriae nolle Deo adquiescere. 174A. Dt 6:14, 29:18; and 2 Kgs 18:33 Given that disobedience is now identical with idolatry, those to whom Gildas preaches must not think they are free from this crime simply because

86

Williams, 100, n. 2.

181

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

they do not offer sacrifices to the gentium diis. This notion is found in Dt 6:14, 29:18; and 2 Kgs 18:33. 175A. Mt 7:6 The actions of those whom Gildas reproaches are, as idolaters, equivalent to letting the pigs trample over the pearls that have been cast before them. In this image Gildas is drawing upon Mt 7:6: nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas uestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conuersi disrumpant uos.

DEB XXXIX 176A. 1 Sam 24:1-10 A reference to David’s census. The description of the census is given in order to set context for the next testimonium, the oracle of Gad (who is introduced in 1 Sam 24:11). Gildas mentions the census, and its punishment, as if it was described in a perfectly clear text yet it is not clear that David knew the census would offend God nor why, having taken it, he had to be punished for it. The absence of any exegetical comment probably indicates that Gildas assumed that it is sufficient that as an exemplum it is in the biblical text, irrespective of whether it is clear or not (incomprehension being a problem in the reader rather than the text). 177T/E. 2 Sam 24:12-7; and Jn 15:13 Gildas then draws on Gad’s oracle and David’s response in a series of steps. (a) Gad’s oracle is given by quoting, while abbreviating, 2 Sam 24:12-3: Gildas

Vg

haec dicit Dominus trium tibi optio datur elige unum quod uolueris ex his ut faciam tibi

haec dicit Dominus trium tibi datur optio elige unum quod uolueris ex his ut faciam tibi cumque uenisset Gad ad David nuntiauit ei dicens aut septem annis ueniet tibi fames in terra tua aut tribus mensibus fugies aduersarios tuos et illi persequentur aut certe tribus diebus erit pestilentia in terra tua

aut septem annis ueniet tibi fames aut tribus mensibus fugies aduersarios tuos et illi persequentur aut certe tribus diebus erit pestilentia in terra tua

182

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

The text is Vg (and in both verses the VL is very different from what we read in Gildas – so we can be certain that he is using the Vg here); the inversion of datur optio is due to Gildas. Gildas reads this as setting out three fundamental forms of divine punishment on kings and kingdoms: as once Israel was punished, so the same instruments are now being applied to the New Israel, the Christians in Britain. (b) Gildas paraphrases David in 2 Sam 24:14: dixit autem Dauid ad Gad: ‘Artor nimis sed melius est ut incidam in manu Domini multae enim misericordiae eius sunt quam in manu hominis.’ (c) Gildas then records the pestilence that killed seventy thousand people (2 Sam 24:15: inmisitque Dominus pestilentiam in Israhel de mane usque ad tempus constitutum et mortui sunt ex populo a Dan usque Bersabee septuaginta milia uirorum) as having the effect of humbling David. While in the biblical text the recorded number is seventy thousand men from the people (others, women and children, were not counted), Gildas has a total death toll of seventy thousand. This is probably a slip of memory. (d) At this point there seems, on first reading, to be a break in the logic of Gildas’s case for as the DEB presents it, David chooses the pestilence (2 Sam 24:14) and then wants to die to spare his people. This discrepancy is resolved by (1) noting that the plot of 2 Sam 24 is itself confused, and (2) that Gildas presumes our knowledge of 2 Sam. 24:16: ‘But when the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented concerning the evil, and said to the angel who was bringing destruction among the people, “It is enough; now stay your hand.” The angel of the Lord was then by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.’ It is at this point, when the Lord has stopped the pestilence at the edge of Jerusalem, that David has a change of heart. (e) Gildas then quotes 2 Sam 24:17: Gildas

Vg

ego sum qui peccaui ego inique egi isti qui oues sunt quid peccarunt uertatur obsecro manus tua contra me et contra domum patris mei

ego sum qui peccaui ego inique egi isti qui oues sunt quid fecerunt uertatur obsecro manus tua contra me et contra domum patris mei

The one variation is peccarunt for fecerunt; a variation which is not found elsewhere in the VLD; and note that MSS AD2P have fecerunt. However, Gildas, rather than impute any impure motive to David – and that David was a self-seeking king is the import of 2 Sam 24, sees this change of heart as coming from ‘apostolic love’ which is an allusion to Jn 15:13: maiorem hac dilectionem nemo habet ut animam suam quis ponat pro amicis suis; and which was repeated in 1 Jn 3:16.

183

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

David is identified by Gildas, at the end of this exemplum, as a Christ-like king; and so presumably a model for other kings. 178A. Heb 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2 and 4:10 The notion that Gildas sees David as one who becomes a Christ-like king is confirmed in his final comment on the exemplum: inconsideratam cordis elationem propria morte piaret. In order that the people be saved, he will pay/ make expiation for his silly hautiness of heart with his death. This assumes our knowledge of the role of the royal high priest in the New Testament as expressed in Heb 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2 and 4:10. 179T. 1 Kgs 11:6 and 11 Lest anyone think that David – who as Gildas declared in the liturgy was ‘the root’ from which the Christ sprang87 – was not righteous, Gildas now inserts two quotations which contrast David with his son Solomon to the effect of showing that David did follow the way of the Lord. Therefore, 179T should not be seen as part of Gildas’s overall argument towards the British kings, but as glosses on 177T/E with 178A lest they give rise to misunderstanding about David. The contrast is made by quoting 1 Kgs 11:6 and 11 as if they were continuous sentences: Gildas

Vg

fecit Salomon quod non placuerat coram Domino et non adimpleuit ut sequeretur Dominum sicut pater eius

fecitque Salomon quod non placuerat coram Domino et non adimpleuit ut sequeretur Dominum sicut pater eius tunc aedificauit Salomon fanum Chamos idolo Moab in monte qui est contra Hierusalem et Moloch idolo filiorum Ammon atque in hunc modum fecit uniuersis uxoribus suis alienigenis quae adolebant tura et immolabant diis suis igitur iratus est Dominus Salomoni quod auersa esset mens eius a Domino Deo Israhel qui apparuerat ei secundo et praeceperat de uerbo hoc ne sequeretur deos alienos et non custodiuit quae mandauit ei Dominus

See Is 10:11 and Rom 15:12; it is a key theme of the Advent liturgy; and the association may be due to such a liturgical influence. 87

184

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg

dixit Dominus ad eum quia habuisti hoc apud te et non custodisti pactum meum et praecepta mea quae mandaui tibi disrumpens scindam regnum tuum et dabo illud seruo tuo

dixit itaque Dominus Salomoni quia habuisti hoc apud te et non custodisti pactum meum et praecepta mea quae mandaui tibi disrumpens scindam regnum tuum et dabo illud seruo tuo

The omission of -que in v. 6 and the substitution of ad eum for Solomon in v. 11 are variations due to the structure of these verses as a single quotation. These two verses so coupled are not found in any other author in the VLD. Gildas passes over the crimes of Solomon, his purpose at this point is to defend David, not search for other kingly misdemeanours which provoked divine punishment. Williams notes that Gildas refers to ‘Scripture’ (scriptura) in the singular adding that this usage is ‘not uncommon’; he and his readers invariably used the plural when they did not refer to ‘the Bible.’88 But we should note that, while Williams cites Cyprian as an example of the use of the singular, the usage is itself scriptural: see Jn 7:38 … dixit scriptura … and there are twenty other examples in the books of the New Testament alone.

DEB XL 180T/E. 1 Kgs 16:2-4 Gildas treats Jeroboam and Baasha, kings of Israel in the divided mon­ archy, together because in 1 Kings their sins and fate are treated together (1 Kgs 15:34; 16:2-3; and 16:6). In order to understand the testimonium, we are expected to know why they were sacrilegious. Jeroboam, though made king over Israel to punish Solomon for his deeds (1 Kgs 11:26-40 sets the background), was anxious that the king in Jerusalem should not take his people away from him, therefore he set up golden calves in Bethel and Dan offering them to Israel as their god (1 Kgs 12:26-30); then he built temples with non-Levite priests, namely those who were not the priests of the true God (1 Kgs 12:31); and he created his own calendar and offered sacrifices at Bethel (1 Kgs 12:32-3) – all these sins are summarised in 1 Kgs 13:33-4. This leads to a prophecy of his destruction: ‘Anyone belonging to Jeroboam who dies in the city, the dogs shall eat; and anyone who dies in the open country, the birds of the air shall eat; for the Lord has spoken’ (1 Kgs 14:11). The narrative of 1 Kgs continues then about 88

Williams, 102, n.1

185

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

a later king, Baasha, but whose crimes are described simply as being similar to those of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 15:34). Hence Jehu prophesied against him: Gildas

Vg: 1 Kgs 16:2-4

propter quod magnificaui te

pro eo quod exaltaui te de puluere et posui ducem super populum meum Israhel tu autem ambulasti in uia Hieroboam et peccare fecisti populum meum Israhel ut me inritares in peccatis eorum ecce ego demetam posteriora Baasa et posteriora domus eius et faciam domum tuam sicut domum Hieroboam filii Nabath qui mortuus fuerit de Baasa in ciuitate comedent eum canes et qui mortuus fuerit ex eo in regione comedent eum uolucres caeli

principem super Israhel

quia exacerbauerunt me in uanis eorum ecce ego suscito post Baasam et post domus eius et tradam domum eius sicut domum Ieroboae Nabath qui mortuus fuerit de suis in ciuitate comedent eum canes et mortuum corpus illius in campo comedent uolatilia caeli

The words placed in bold, along with some other variants,89 show that Gildas’s text of 1 Kings is a variant of the VL. However, that conclusion raises a problem: in 179T we have the Vg, and now in the very next testimonium we have the VL. Burkitt (1934, 207) noted this problem and suggested that Gildas’s sources was Lucifer of Cagliari’s De regibus apostaticis 6, and that while our text of that work does not contain these verses (due, he imagined, to an otherwise unsuspected lacuna in our texts), Gildas’s text did contain them. Burkitt continued: ‘This at least is easier than to imagine that in these obscure verses Gildas had direct knowledge of the Old Latin, while elsewhere quoting from the Vulgate in these books.’ However, Burkitt’s fundamental position was that the Vg was the standard text one should expect in Gildas, he did not know of the extent of Gildas’s familiarity with the VL, and since there are no shortage of parallel cases of ‘obscure verses’ in Gildas, there is no reason to suspect a lacuna in Lucifer. When this supposed dependence on Lucifer is examined in detail, the likelihood of dependence is reduced to zero.90 These are:

89

Gildas

VL

Vg

uanis suscito Baasam tradam

superuacuis suscitabo Basai dabo

peccatis demetam Baasa faciam

See ch. 3, section 6, case 13.

90

186

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

A simpler solution is that Gildas had a text that was heavily contaminated by the VL. It is interesting to note by way of comparison that Patrick (Confessio 59) makes use of 1 Kgs 16:4 but, unlike Gildas, is influenced by the Vg when he writes uolucres caeli comederunt.91 181T/E. 1 Kgs 21 The next scriptural witness is derived from 1 Kgs 21 and Gildas assumes knowledge of the whole story of Naboth’s vineyard and his encounter with the wicked King Ahab. It is made up of (a) an exemplum, (b) a testimonium, and (c) a proof. (a) The exemplum of Ahab covers the whole of 1 Kgs 21. The king is compared to Jeroboam and Baasha in wickedness, as the one who colludes with his wife Jezebel (vv. 15-6), a woman full of guile (vv. 5-14), and to satisfy whose desires Naboth was put to death. This exemplum follows from 180T/E in that Elijah tells Ahab that he, and his wife, will suffer the same curse that was put on Jeroboam and Baasha, and the same malediction cited in 180T/E is repeated in 1 Kgs 21:23-4: canes comedent Hiezabel in agro Hiezrahe; si mortuus fuerit Ahab in ciuitate comedent eum canes si autem mortuus fuerit in agro comedent eum uolucres caeli. (b) The testimonium comes from 1 Kgs 21:19: Gildas

Vg

occidisti insuper et possedisti et post haec addes haec dicit Dominus in loco hoc in quo linxerunt canes sanguinem Naboth lambent quoque tuum sanguinem

occidisti insuper et possedisti et post haec addes haec dicit Dominus in loco hoc in quo linxerunt canes sanguinem Naboth lambent tuum quoque sanguinem

While Gildas’s text and the Vg are identical (apart from the inversion in word order of quoque tuum) we cannot draw any conclusion from this fact because the VL and the Vg are identical in this verse. (c) Gildas adds a statement that there is a certain proof that these events have taken place. This is a reference to 2 Kgs 9:21-37 where there is a story repeating the malediction of Ahab and Jezebel, and how that curse was fulfilled in the time of Ahab’s son Joram. 182A. 2 Kgs 9:21-37 Since 2 Kgs 9:21-37 is distinct from the story of Naboth, it is catalogued here with a separate reference number. From the use of 2 Kgs 9:21-37 here we See O’Loughlin (2005a), 170.

91

187

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

can observe that the repetition of stories in the scriptures was seen by Gildas as offering support to one another: repetition was a mark of veracity. 183T. 1 Kgs 22:19-23 Gildas continues to comment on Ahab (the scene for the testimonium is set in 1 Kgs 22:20-21) and recalls 1 Kgs 22:22: Gildas

Vg

spiritus mendax loquens uana in ore prophetarum uestrorum

spiritus mendax in ore omnium prophetarum eius

In this verse the VL and the Vg coincide, hence Gildas’s variations (for which we have no other witness) must be seen as a paraphrase. Gildas then continues recalling the incident by noting that the oracles are from Micah (introduced in 1 Kgs 22:19) and then cites 1 Kgs 22:23: Gildas

Vg

ecce permisit Deus spiritum mendacii in ore omnium prophetarum tuorum qui hic sunt et Dominus locutus est contra te malum

ecce dedit Dominus spiritum mendacii in ore omnium prophetarum tuorum qui hic sunt et Dominus locutus est contra te malum

The two variants (not otherwise attested) are probably due to Gildas. His use of permisit fulfils his purpose here better than dedit – and indeed may represent a theological sophistication, in an augustinian mould, whereby an evil, such as a deceptive prophesy, can be permitted (the so-called “permissive will”) but not actually caused (the “active will”) by God. The interchange of Dominus and Deus occurs elsewhere and could have resulted from a misreading of the nomina sacra. 184A. 1 Kgs 22:21; Ps 54:22; Jer 6:14 and 8:11; Is 48:22 Gildas concludes these testimonia against Jeroboam, Baasha, and Ahab by noting that just as Ahab was led astray by false prophesies, this is continuing in his own day with those clergy who were, by parallel, leading the kings to their due punishment (see 1 Kgs 22:20). This is done with a mosaic of scriptural allusions. (a) The image of teachers of a ‘contrary spirit’ is an allusion to the preceding incident: 1 Kgs 22:21. (b) Gildas then paraphrases Ps 54:22 Iuxta LXX: Gildas

Vg

quorum uerba super oleum molliuntur et ipsa sunt iacula

molliti sunt sermones eius super oleum et ipsi sunt iacula

188

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas’s variations from the Vg are not otherwise attested in the VLD, nor do they show any influence from the VL; it is apparently a free paraphase. (c) And these words they speak are in the form of an adapted quotation from Jer 6:14 / 8:11:92 Gildas

Vg Jer 6:14

dicentes pax pax cum non erit in peccatis permanentibus pax

dicentes pax pax cum non erat pax Jer 8:11 … non esset …

This verse is also used in DEB 80 (399T); in both citations Gildas has non erit.93 (d) Gildas continues the theme citing Is 48:22:94 Gildas

Vg

non est gaudere inpiis dicit Dominus

non est pax dicit Dominus impiis

The use of gaudere rather than pax is characteristic of the VL (see Gryson (1993), 1154-5). The combination of biblical verses that make up this mosaic is not otherwise attested.

DEB XLI 185T/E. 2 Chr 14; and 15:1-2 In order to appreciate the next testimonium Gildas assumes that his audience is familiar with the life and events of Asa, son of Abijah, king of Judah and one of the ‘ideal’ biblical kings: he has no truck with foreign gods, commands the keeping of God’s law, and so enjoys peace, prosperity and the Lord’s protection from his enemies.95 Gildas looks on Asa not only as an ideal, but the 92 This verse is also used in DEB 80; both Mommsen and Williams note that Jer 6:14 = Jer 8:11. 93 See 399T for comment, where this phrase is used as part of larger testimonium. 94 Both Mommsen and Williams note that Is 48:22 = Is 57:21 (Williams’ edition has the misprint: Is 57:27). 95 For many people Asa would seem to be one of the more obscure biblical figures, and thus it might seem surprising that Gildas assumes awareness of him. However, remembering that ‘the past is a foreign country,’ we should also bear in mind that in a theological culture that placed high value on genealogies (see O’Loughlin (1995)), Asa was one of the progenitores Christi: see Mt 1:7-8.

189

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

antitype to the actual kings he meets in Britain, and to recall Asa is to preach an exemplum to kings. To hear the story in its most developed form – and the testimonium in quoting 2 Chr 15 implies that we will recall Asa in that form – requires knowing the whole of 2 Chr 14. There Asa is presented as having done what was right in the Lord’s sight (14:2), abolished foreign cults and so fled idolatry, and imposed the Law on the people. His actions brought ten years of peace (14:1 and 7) during which he build fortified cities and a fine army: 300,000 with shields and spears and 280,000 archers with shields (14:8). Then against Asa came Zerah the Ethiopian (Zara Aethiops) with no fewer than a million men and three hundred chariots (14:9)! The Vg records the number as decies centena milia which Gildas alters to decies centenum milium (and that variation is not otherwise attested). Believing that God would support the weak against the strong, Asa invoked God’s help. The Ethiopian army fled, was pursued by Asa’s army, and not one Ethiopian was left alive (14:13): this is the slaughter referred to by Gildas whose phrase ‘de caede’ echoes 14:13 (… quia Domino caedente contriti sunt …). Asa then returned home with much spoil to enjoy another 31 years of kingship (his entire reign, we learn from 2 Chr 16:13 / 1 Kgs 15:10, was forty-one years). We can now understand the testimonium from 2 Chr 15:1-2: 96 Gildas

Vg

Azarias quoque filius Obed [contextual comment]

Azarias autem filius Oded facto in se spiritu Dei egressus est in occursum Asa et dixit ei audite me Asa et omnis Iuda et Beniamin Dominus uobiscum quia fuistis cum eo si quaesieritis eum inuenietis si autem dereliqueritis eum,96 derelinquet uos

Dominus uobiscum est dum estis cum ipso et si exquisieritis eum inuenietur a uobis et si dereliqueritis eum, derelinquet uos

The variations in Gildas’s text from the Vg point towards his recalling the verse in a form of the VL. The closest parallel to Gildas comes from Cyprian’s collection of testimonia, 3:27, however, since Cyprian does not cite the entire verse (omitting inuenietis / inuenietur a uobis), we cannot assert that Gildas is drawing directly from Cyprian.

96

In the manual edition of the Vg, eum is omitted.

190

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Williams notes that Gildas has Obed (one manuscript has Obez) rather than Oded and concludes, and I believe correctly, that this is a ‘slight lapse of memory on the part of Gildas.’97 The fact that we have these clear cases of lapses of memory (and we shall see others in this chapter of DEB) show that it is credible not to assume that departures from the Vg indicate that Gildas had a non-Vg text. This use of 2 Chr 14 – 15 does, however, bring several more important aspects of Gildas’s understanding of the Scriptures into view. Firstly, it would seem a remarkable jump from the wicked kings Jeroboam, Baasha, and Ahab (whose histories have been cited by Gildas from 1 Kgs) to the royal paragon of Asa (cited by Gildas from 2 Chr). This ‘jump’ is explicable by noting that the first account of Asa met in the Scriptures is in 1 Kgs 15:9-24 where he is seen as the successor, but one (another wicked king: Abijam, Asa’s father, intervening), of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 15:1-9). So the sequence of exemplary persons appearing in DEB is derived from 1 Kgs, but the information about them (as in the case of Asa) is based on concordance of what is found in the Samuel-Kings cycle and what is found in the later work of the Chronicler;98 and in the case of Asa, the account from 2 Chr completely replaces that from 1 Kgs. This points to a sophisticated training in forming historical parallels across several parts of the Old Testament – a process we take for granted among Christian writers in their use of the gospels, but one which, apart from specific antikeimena, we do not suspect for the historical books of the Old Testament. So while reading 1 Kgs, Gildas was invoking parallel awareness of 2 Chr. Secondly, while the sequence of testimonia in DEB roughly follows the sequence of the books of the canon of the Scriptures,99 this use of the information from 2 Chr shows that we should not imagine that Gildas saw himself as ‘trawling through the Scriptures’ for exempla. Rather, as this use of material from 2 Chr for Asa makes plain, he saw himself trawling through the history of the People of God for exempla [and sometimes this historical sequence would be identical, as in 1 Kgs, with the textual sequence], and the information for his memoria of the People was to be found in the Scriptures located in various books. 186T/E. 2 Chr 18 – 19:2 The next exemplum concerns Asa’s son, Jehoshaphat who was a good pious king (2 Chr 17) but who then made an alliance with the wicked Ahab of Israel in order to attack Ramoth Gilead (2 Chr 18 – 19:1). It is this alliance with a wicked king that is Gildas’s concern and which provoked the warning from the prophet Jehu as found in 19:2: Williams, 104, n. 1. See Evans (1992). 99 See O’Loughlin (2009a). 97 98

191

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg

Si peccatorem tu adiuuas aut quem Dominus odit tu diligis, propterea ira Dei est super te

impio praebes auxilium et his qui oderunt Dominum amicitia iungeris et idcirco iram quidem Domini merebaris

Here is a case where the VL text, as represented by Gildas, and the Vg clearly diverge; and on this basis we can state that Gildas used a VL version of 2 Chr. However, the text as found in Gildas is not found in that exact form in any other writer in the VLD.100 Williams noted that Ieu Annaniae filio was probably a slip of memory for Jehu filius Hanani, but noted some variants.101 The modern edition of the Vg has Hieu filius Anani at both 1 Kgs 16:1 and 2 Chr 19:2; which makes a slip of memory that confused Anani with Ananias (a name found on ten occasions in Acts) far easier to make.102 As in the case of 185T/E we see Gildas following the historical sequence as found in 1 Kgs (15:24 reports Jehoshaphat succeeding Asa; 22:1-50 is the account of his reign and his alliance with Ahab); but taking his text – and his theological interpretation – from the Chronicler. 187C. Prov 5:22 Gildas then draws a further lesson from Jehu’s prophecy by asking if there is not a greater punishment for those who become ensnared with evil from their own activities rather than through alliances. To make this point Gildas quotes Prov 5:22: Gildas

Vg

qui propriis scelerum suorum criniculis compediuntur

iniquitates suae capiunt impium et funibus peccatorum suorum constringitur

The VL form of this verse is crinculis/crinibus/uinculis enim peccatorum suorum unusquisque constringitur which is cited by Gildas in DEB CIX.103 Hence at this point what we have is a paraphrase of Prov 5:22, but one inspired by the VL form of the text.

100 Williams, 104, n.2 came to the same conclusion on a much smaller sample of the evidence. 101 Williams, 104, n.2. 102 In the VLD there is one other example of these two names being confused. 103 Noted by Williams, 104-5, n.3; see DEB CIX (540C) below.

192

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

188C. Ps 96:10 Gildas concludes the argument by citing Ps 96:10: qui diligitis Dominum odite malum.104 189T/E. 2 Chr 21; with 2 Kgs 2:12 Gildas presumes our knowledge of the reign of Joram (Jehoram) for his next lesson on kingship; but his introduction to the testimonium is complex. (a) Joram is the son of Jehoshaphat. The history of this Joram (there are several kings of this name) is found in 2 Kgs 2:16-24 and 2 Chr 21; but as in the previous kings of the Davidic line, Gildas draws on the Chronicler. (b) Joram is a parricide. In both accounts, and in Mt 1:8, Joram succeeds on the death of his father but there is no hint that his father’s death is any of his doing. The source that led Gildas to describe him as a parricide has not been found. (c) Joram murdered his brothers. In 2 Chr 21:2-4 we have: He [Joram] had brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat: Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Azariah, Michael, and Shephatiah; all these were the sons of King Jehoshaphat of Judah. Their father gave them many gifts, of silver, gold, and valuable possessions, together with fortified cities in Judah; but he gave the kingdom to [Joram], because he was the firstborn. When Jehoram had ascended the throne of his father and was established, he put all his brothers to the sword, and also some of the officials of Israel. This is Joram’s great crime (it is only mentioned by the Chronicler). (d) Joram is a bastard who killed his brothers in order to reign. The basis for this statement by Gildas cannot be found. 2 Chr 21:3 makes it clear why the father gave him the kingdom (because he was the firstborn) and there is nothing to suggest that he was a spurius nor that the rationale for his crime was so that he might succeed to the throne. It is most unusual for Gildas to make a mistake of fact like this, but there appears to be no biblical text that explains Joram’s crime in this way. (e) Joram is addressed by Elijah. In 2 Chr 21 Joram is presented as having done what was evil in God’s sight and made Ahab his model of kingship (21:6); of waging wars on his neighbours (21:8-10); and engaging in unfaithfulness by worshipping foreign gods (21:11); hence Elijah is prompted to send him a letter (21:12-5) which announces his sins and warn him that on account of his sins a plague will come on his people, his children and his wives, while he himself will die a miserable death. The letter’s message is that the individual sins of a king result in all his people suffering. (f) Elijah is the currus et auriga Israhel. In this Gildas is making an allusion to the moment when Elijah is taken up to heaven in a chariot, and Elisha cries

The Iuxta LXX and Iuxta Hebr. forms of this verse are identical.

104

193

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

out to him thus: pater mi pater mi currus Israhel et auriga eius (2 Kgs 2:12). It is a description that is eventually also given to Elisha (2 Kgs 13:14). The significance of Gildas drawing together (c) which is only found in 2 Chr with (f) which is only found in 2 Kgs lies in it showing us, with certainty, that Gildas read those distinct accounts concordantly. Having thus introduced the scene, Gildas now cites the ‘Letter of Elijah’ in a carefully edited form: Gildas

Vg

sic dicit Dominus Deus David patris tui eo quod non ambulaueris in uia Iosaphat patris tui et in uiis Asae regis Iuda et ambulasti in uiis regum Israhel et stuprose ut gessit

haec dicit Dominus Deus David patris tui quoniam non ambulasti in uiis Iosaphat patris tui et in uiis Asa regis Iuda sed incessisti per iter regum Israhel et fornicari fecisti Iudam et habitatores Hierusalem imitatus fornicationem domus Ahab insuper et fratres tuos domum patris tui meliores te occidisti ecce Dominus percutiet te plaga magna cum populo tuo et filiis et uxoribus tuis uniuersaque substantia tua

domus Ahab insuper et fratres tuos filios Iosaphat meliores te occidisti ecce Dominus percutiet plaga magna te et filios tuos Et post pauca: et tu eris ualitudine in languore uentris tui donec exeat uenter tuus cum ipsa infirmitate de die ex die

tu autem aegrotabis pessimo languore uteri donec egrediantur uitalia tua paulatim per dies singulos

Since Gildas is the only author who cites this text in the VLD we have no comparison against which to check whether the variations are due to his paraphrasing the text or to his having access to a VL version of 2 Chr. In view of his other citations of 2 Chr it would appear likely that Gildas’s citation is influenced by the VL. The differences between the versions clearly concerned an early reader of Gildas for in manuscript H the words et stuprose have been deleted and replaced with et fornicari fecisti Iehoida et habitatores Ierusalem secundum fornications domus Achab et strupratus es.105 This emendation, for all its faults, points to a reader who was familiar with the Vg form of this verse.

Mommsen, 51, in apparatu.

105

194

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

However, given that Gildas finds the letter to his purpose, a great prophet’s warning letter to a wicked king, why did he edit it? The omission – and Gildas was explicit that he was editing for he connects the two parts with et post pauca – consists of cum populo tuo and et uxoribus tuis; indeed, post pauca usually means the omission of several verses and this seems very little: two phrases without a single verb! The reason would appear to be (a) that Gildas wants to separate God’s willingness to punish a king and his family from the suffering that his people also undergo, and (b) that he does not want to point out that polygamy was acceptable in the original Israel: suggesting that God allowed polygamy might just give too much information to those to whom he preaches. This letter may, indeed, have been seen by Gildas as a paradigm for his own work: a prophet writing to correct a king; and, as such, he would not want to appear to be endorsing the idea that a king could have a collection of wives. 190T. 2 Chr 24 As with the other testimonia from the Chronicler, the tale of Joash (2 Chr 24) is also found in 2 Kgs 12, but Gildas builds his case on material that is only found in 2 Chr. Joash, under the tutelage of the priest Jehoiada (Ioiada sacerdotis in 24:2 whereas Gildas refers to him as uatis), was a good king who followed the law and restored the temple (24:1-16). However, after Jehoiada’s death, Joash took new counsel, abandoned the Law and became involved with foreign cults (24:17-9). This prompted a reprimand from Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (24:20): Gildas

Vg

… surgens populo dixit:

spiritus itaque Dei induit Zacchariam filium Ioiadae sacerdotem et stetit in conspectu populi et dixit eis: haec dicit Dominus: quare transgredimini praeceptum Domini quod uobis non proderit et dereliquistis Dominum ut derelinqueret uos

haec dicit Dominus: quare praeteritis praecepta Domini et non prosperamini? quia dereliquistis Dominum et derelinqueret uos

In this verse the VL and the Vg are distinctly different, and Gildas follows the VL; while no other author has this verse in the exact form we find it in DEB, that in the translation of Origen’s commentary on Mt 17:9 is almost identical. Gildas makes explicit that just as the people of Israel acted in the past, so now his own people were acting: as Joash ut uos abandoned the Lord … . However, it would not have fitted either his purpose or his own ministry for Gildas to have pointed out that in the next verse is recorded that the king organized

195

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Zechariah’s murder in the temple courtyard by stoning (24:21); an event recalled in Mt 23:35-6.

DEB XLII 191A. Is 1:1 By way of introducing testimonia from the major prophets, Gildas embellishes the name of the prophet Isaiah. He is called auctor prophetarum which I render as ‘leader of the prophets’106 in order to convey the sense of a procession of prophets – a liturgical image with which Gildas would have been familiar. This role is traditionally assigned to Isaiah because of the role his prophecies play in the Infancy Narratives in the gospels.107 This dignity is well expressed by Cassiodorus, a contemporary of Gildas, quoting Jerome: Nam Esaiam, qui aperte referendo Christi ecclesiaeque mysteria ‘non tam prophetas quam euangelista dicendus est,’ decem et octo libris mirabiliter supradictus sanctus Hieronymus explanauit.108 Gildas refers to the beginning of his prophecy and then offers the alternative that it is the beginning of Isaiah’s ‘vision.’ The rationale for this lies in that while the book of Isaiah was considered prophecy, par excellence;109 it does not begin with classic formula of ‘the word of the Lord came to me saying’ – a formula found on over two hundred occasions in the canonical Scriptures – but with these words: uisio Isaiae filii Amos quam uidit super Iudam et Hierusalem in diebus Oziae Ioatham Ahaz Ezechiae regum Iuda (1:1). Gildas thus correctly introduces his first testimonium from Isaiah as a vision.

Winterbottom (1978), 39 translated it as ‘chief of the prophets.’ Williams, 106, n.1 put forward this argument from the dignity accorded to Isaiah (an attitude he endorsed); but complicated it with the suggestion that it might also be due to the place of the Book of Isaiah within codices. We do not know how codices containing the Old Testament’s books were assembled in Gildas’s milieu, while the variety of text types suggests that there was little binding together in formal arrangements such as we have described in Cassiodorus’s Institutiones 1,3,1 where the prophets, led by the Book of Isaiah, form the ‘fifth codex’ of the Scriptures. 108 Institutiones 1,3,2. 109 Isaiah is referred to as a prophet in all four gospels: e.g. Mt 3:3; Mk 1:2; Lk 3:4; and Jn 1:23. 106 107

196

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

192T. Is 1:2-3 Gildas

Vg

audite caeli et auribus percipe terra quoniam Dominus locutus est filios enutriui et exaltaui ipsi autem spreuerunt me cognouit bos possessorem suum et asinus praesepe domini sui Israhel autem me non cognouit populus meus non intellexit

audite caeli et auribus percipe terra quoniam Dominus locutus est filios enutriui et exaltaui ipsi autem spreuerunt me cognouit bos possessorem suum et asinus praesepe domini sui Israhel non cognouit populus meus non intellexit

Both Mommsen and Williams print percipite rather than percipe (only found in manuscript P), while not only is percipe identical with the Vg, but a plural with terra should be treated as an uncorrected blunder. The addition of autem me is found in some traditions of the Vg: St Gallen 40 (and the Sixto-Clementine ed.). 193T. Is 1:8 Gildas

Vg

derelinquetur … filia Sion ut tabernaculum in uinea et sicut tugurium in cucumerario sicut ciuitas quae uastatur

derelinquetur filia Sion ut umbraculum in uinea et sicut tugurium in cucumerario sicut ciuitas quae uastatur

Gildas’s text has tabernaculum rather than umbraculum which is a VL reading (Gryson (1987-93), 54). 194T. Is 1:10 Gildas

Vg

audite uerbum Domini principes Sodomorum percipite legem Dei populus Gomorrae

audite uerbum Domini principes Sodomorum percipite auribus legem Dei nostri populus Gomorrae

Gildas omits auribus and nostri; but this may simply be his memory abbreviating the text; while his use of Sodomorum (not Sodomum) indicates the Vg rather than the VL (Gryson (1987-93), 57).

197

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

195A. Gen 19:1-29 Gildas endorses Isaiah’s description of Israel as like Sodom and Gomorrah, and extends the image to include his own people. In this image both Gildas (like Is before him) is drawing upon the story of the destruction of the cities in Gen 19:1-29. 196A. Is 1:11-2; and Sir 34:23 Gildas declares that the Lord has prohibited the reception of sacrifices from the wicked; which is an allusion to Is 1:11-2. However, in the way in which Gildas alludes to these verses of Isaiah, he appears to have in mind Sir 34:23: dona iniquorum non probat Altissimus in oblationibus iniquorum nec in multitudine sacrificiorum eorum propitiabitur peccatis. 197T. Is 1:13 This verse is then cited to confirm what Gildas has just stated: Gildas

Vg

ne adferatis ultra sacrificium frustra incensum abominatio est mihi

ne adferatis ultra sacrificium frustra incensum abominatio est mihi

Gildas’s text is certainly the Vg at this point, because the VL is different ((Gryson (1987-93), 61-2). 198T. Is 1:15 Gildas

Vg

et cum extenderitis manus uestras auertam oculos meos a uobis et cum multiplicaueritis orationem non exaudiam … … … manus uestrae sanguine plenae sunt

et cum extenderitis manus uestras auertam oculos meos a uobis et cum multiplicaueritis orationem non audiam manus uestrae sanguine plenae sunt

The VL and Vg are very similar at this point, but et cum points to the Vg ((Gryson (1987-93), 65-7). The variant exaudiam is found in several traditions of the Vg, including St Gallen 40 (and the Sixto-Clementine ed.). Gildas breaks the verse such that manus uestrae sanguine plenae sunt is explained as the cause for God turning aside from their outstretched hands.

198

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

199T. Is 1:16-7 Gildas

Vg

lauamini mundi estote auferte malum cogitationum uestrarum ab oculis meis quiescite agere peruerse discite benefacere quaerite iudicium subuenite oppresso iudicate pupillo

lauamini mundi estote auferte malum cogitationum uestrarum ab oculis meis quiescite agere peruerse discite benefacere quaerite iudicium subuenite oppresso iudicate pupillo

In these verses the VL and Vg differ significantly, and Gildas can be said, with certainty, to be following the Vg at this point (Gryson (1987-93), 67-73). 200T. Is 1:18-20 Gildas

Vg

si fuerint peccata uestra ut coccinum quasi nix dealbabuntur et si fuerint rubra quasi uermiculus uelut lana alba erunt si uolueritis et audieritis me bona terrae manducabitis quod si nolueritis et me prouocaueritis ad iracundiam gladius deuorabit uos

si fuerint peccata uestra ut coccinum quasi nix dealbabuntur et si fuerint rubra quasi uermiculus uelut lana erunt si uolueritis et audieritis bona terrae comedetis quod si nolueritis et me prouocaueritis ad iracundiam gladius deuorabit uos

The three variations are symptoms of the substrate interference from the VL, yet they do not represent any single strand of the VL (Gryson (1987-93), 73-7). The variant lana alba is found in several Vg traditions, including St Gallen 40 (and the Sixto-Clementine ed.). The variant audieritis me is found in several Vg traditions such as those exhibited in the Sixto-Clementine ed., but not including St Gallen 40. The variant manducabitis for comedetis (note that manuscript A has the Vg reading) is a VL reading;110 however, this VL tradition (E) had delicta in v. 18 where the Vg and Gildas have peccata. Taking all the evidence together, these verses indicate a Vg text but one which was significantly affected by the VL. Gildas’s use of these quotations from Isaiah preserves the balance of the text: the Lord rejects Israel, but there is a means of return and reconciliation. In 110 Williams 107, n.3 thought that this usage might indicate either a preference of Gildas or of the particular text he used, however, it is more likely to be simply a case of VL contamination.

199

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

preserving the balance of the biblical text, we have an insight into the balances within Gildas’s own theology.

DEB XLIII 201A. 1 Thes 2:5 Gildas presents his message as that of one who speaks without flattery and, from the following testimonium, one who does not do so out of avarice, this rhetorical device is found in 1 Thes 2:5. 202T. Is 1:23-4; 1:28 Gildas picks out a set of testimonia as specifically aimed at rapacious judge; while at the same time following the sequence of oracles in Is. The first is a combination of two texts (Is 1:23-4; 1:28) which Gildas intends to be read as one: Gildas principes tui infidels socii furum omnes diligunt munera sectantur retributiones pupillo non iudicant et causa uiduae non ingreditur ad eos propter hoc ait Dominus exercituum Fortis Israhel heu consolabor super hostibus meis et uindicabor de inimicis meis et conterentur scelerati et peccatores simul et omnes qui dereliquerunt Dominum consumentur

Vg 1:23-4 principes tui infidels socii furum omnes diligunt munera sequuntur retributiones pupillo non iudicant et causa uiduae non ingreditur ad eos propter hoc ait Dominus exercituum Fortis Israhel heu consolabor super hostibus meis et uindicabor de inimicis meis 1:28 et conteret scelestos et peccatores simul et qui dereliquerunt Dominum consumentur

Gildas departs from the Vg in three places: sectantur for sequuntur which exhibits VL interference in his text: the dominant VL form is sectantes (see Gryson (1987-93), 82); conterentur scelerati for conteret scelestos; and in the addition of omnes at et omnes qui dereliquerunt – these latter variants are both well attested Vg variations (see Gryson (1987-93), 85).

200

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

203T. Is 2:11 Gildas

Vg

oculi sublimis hominis humiliabuntur et incuruabit altitudo uirorum

oculi sublimis hominis humiliati sunt et incuruabitur altitudo uirorum

Gildas departs from the Vg in two places: humiliabuntur for humiliati sunt; and incuruabit for incuruabitur: these variants are both well attested Vg variations (see Gryson (1987-93), 104). On the second variant, Mommsen opted for the lectio difficilior; while noting that manuscript H has incuruabitur (while D and Q have the equally nonsensical active form incuruauit). The reading in H is to be preferred as it makes sense; accords with the Vg; and the change from -bitur to –bit can easily be explained by a copyist’s failure to notice the suspension –t’. 204T. Is 3:11 Gildas’s text is identical with the Vg. 205T. Is 5:11-4 Gildas

Vg

uae qui consurgitis mane ad ebrietatem sectandam et potandum usque ad uesperam ut uino aestuetis cithara et lyra et tympanum et tibia et uinum in conuiuiis uestris et opus Domini non respicitis et opera manuum eius non consideratis propterea captiuus ductus est populus meus quia non habuit scientiam et nobiles eius interierunt fame et multitudo eius siti exaruit propterea dilatauit infernus animam suam et aperuit os suum absque ullo termino et descendent fortes eius et populus eius et sublimes gloriosique eius ad eum

uae qui consurgitis mane ad ebrietatem sectandam et potandum usque ad uesperam ut uino aestuetis cithara et lyra et tympanum et tibia et uinum in conuiuiis uestris et opus Domini non respicitis nec opera manuum eius consideratis propterea captiuus ductus est populus meus quia non habuit scientiam et nobiles eius interierunt fame et multitudo eius siti exaruit propterea dilatauit infernus animam suam et aperuit os suum absque ullo termino et descendent fortes eius et populus eius et sublimes gloriosique eius ad eum

Gildas has only one variant: et opera … non consideratis rather than nec opera … consideratis (the reading found in manuscript A) which is a case of substrate interference from the VL (see Gryson (1987-93), 166).

201

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

206T. Is 5:22-5 Gildas

Vg

uae qui potentes estis ad bibendum uinum et uiri fortes ad miscendam ebrietatem qui iustificatis impium pro muneribus et iustitiam iusti aufertis ab eo propter hoc sicut deuorat stipulam ignis et ligna calor flammae exurit sic radix eorum quasi fauilla erit et germen eorum ut puluis ascendet abiecerunt enim legem Domini exercituum et eloquium Sancti Israhel despexerunt

uae qui potentes estis ad bibendum uinum et uiri fortes ad miscendam ebrietatem qui iustificatis impium pro muneribus et iustitiam iusti aufertis ab eo propter hoc sicut deuorat stipulam lingua ignis et calor flammae exurit sic radix eorum quasi fauilla erit et germen eorum ut puluis ascendet abiecerunt enim legem Domini exercituum et eloquium Sancti Israhel blasphemauerunt ideo iratus est furor Domini in populo suo et extendit manum suam super eum et percussit eum et conturbati sunt montes et facta sunt morticina eorum quasi stercus in medio platearum in omnibus his non est auersus furor eius sed adhuc manus eius extenta

in omnibus his non est auersus furor eius sed adhuc manus eius extenta

Mommsen edition has stipulam ignis et ligna calor which is a copyist’s blunder of stipulam lingua ignis et calor. The Vg reading is found in manuscript Q, while A represents the Vg with another blunder: stipulam ligna et calor. Here we can assume that Gildas has the Vg and the departure is due to erroneous copying. Gildas use of despexerunt for blasphemauerunt is a Vg variation (see Gryson (1987-93), 179). The omission of the first part of 5:25 does not alter the meaning of the testimonium and can be seen as abbreviation.

DEB XLIV Chapters XLIV, XLV, and XLVI (in the traditional division system of DEB) should be treated as one unit; and they present us with Gildas’s view of the Day of the Lord / Day of Judgement.111 This tract, De die iudicii, begins with That the beginning of DEB XLIV marked the beginning of a new section of the work and that it dealt with eschatology was noted by Williams, 108, n.1. 111

202

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas’s statement at the opening words of DEB XLIV on how he reads Isaiah eschatologically (Et post aliquanta de die iudicii et peccatorum ineffabili metu disceptans ait: …) and concludes with the colophon (the opening words of DEB XLVII): Hucusque Esaiae prophetae pauca de multis dixisse sufficiat. That Gildas passes so casually from describing the effects that result from the work of wicked princes and unjust judges to the pains of the Day of Judgement – in the final moments of the universe – could easily give rise to the assumption that Gildas is here exhibiting that most notable characteristic of theological illiteracy: a univocal view of the relationship between the suffering of ‘the present time’ and the on-set of the eschatological catastrophe. This view (‘these are bad times, it must be the beginning of the end when God will finally punish the wicked’) would then imply that Gildas believed that the endtimes were in the near future.112 And, from a similar British milieu, we have Patrick who held, explicitly, that the end times were coming ‘soon,’113 it might seem reasonable to make the same assumption about Gildas. Indeed, Williams seems to have slipped unwittingly into this view in the way he translated Gildas’s opening sentence. He rendered Et post aliquanta de die iudicii et peccatorum ineffabili metu disceptans ait as ‘And after some further words, treating of the day of judgement and the unspeakable fear of sinners, he says:.’ However, the Latin is far plainer if ineffabili metu qualifies the who topic: ‘the Day of Judgement and of sinners’ [i.e. because it is their day]. Thus the opening should read: ‘Then after some other matters, treating, with ineffable fear, of the Day of Judgement and of sinners he says: … .’ What then Gildas implies by the use of ‘ineffable’ is the key to his own eschatology. Because Gildas tells us that he holds these passages of Isaiah to relate to the End Times, the key to his interpretation is that in those passages he holds that Isaiah treats the matter in an ineffable way: his words speak those things which cannot really be spoken of with words. Gildas, along with most Latin theologians in the aftermath of Augustine’s De doctrina christiana, uses the notion of ineffability fully aware of the fact that it is oxymoronic, if not indeed internally self-contradictory: to say by way of comment that anything is ineffable is to say something while also saying that one cannot say anything. So Isaiah tells us, with fearful words, about those times about which it is beyond the power of words to describe. As such, there is no merging of the temporal and eschatological order at some temporally close horizon such as one finds in Priscillian, Patrick, or later millenarians; nor is there a merging of physical suffering and eschatological suffering: the connection must be both like and unlike a relationship of cause and effect. As such, Gildas is alerting his audience that the following passages must be read within a different hermeneutic 112 This is the interpretation of Williams, 108, n.1: ‘This [Day of Judgement] Gildas seems to expect as not distant.’ 113 Confessio, 4: Christus … aduentum ipsius mox futurum … ; see O’Loughlin (2005), 63-78.

203

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

– sensus – than the passages on the wickedness of princes. What is that sensus for reading these passages? Because it must take account of their inherent quality of ineffability, it must be a sense that allows, at least, as great a dissimilarity between words (signa) and referents (res) as it allows for similarities (such that the language has any meaning) and so we might label it a ‘spiritaliter’ reading. So while Isaiah on princes’ and judges’ lives has been read historialiter, that on the Day of Judgement is read spiritaliter: by analogy, image, and reflection. Given, then, that manner of viewing Isaiah, we can conclude that Gildas’s own eschatology was, at the very least, broadly orthodox; and not that of someone expecting an imminent Parousia. A century of scholarship has seen an ingrained antagonism develop among exegetes to attributing to earlier theologians, for example: Paul of Tarsus, any sophisticated reading strategy with regard to eschatology, and so it has become commonplace to attribute widely the notion that a writer believed, or believed at a particular time, in an ‘imminent Parousia.’ It is, therefore, worth noting that there is confirmation in Gildas that such a belief is not present! Commenting on the verse quia prope est dies Domini he asks rhetorically: si tunc prope erat, quid nunc putabitur. At first glance this would appear to invoke the image of the hour glass: if near in the time of Isaiah, then there is even less sand now until it is over! However, the time of Isaiah was not in a continuum with Gildas’s time: Isaiah lived in the age leading towards the Christ, Gildas lives in that time. So as the Lord was close in that time, so he is close now in Gildas’s time: every time stands equally near the time of the Lord, and so equally unnear. Gildas wants his audience to appreciate the nearness of the Lord, but it is not a gradation from then to now to another moment just in the future. However, decoding Gildas’s unwillingness to claim any time as closer to the eschaton than any other was too much for one of the copyists of the DEB; thus in manuscript A we find all time presented as a single continuum: … … quanto magis nunc computatur for quid nunc putabitur. 207T. Is 13:6-11 Gildas

Vg

ululate quia prope est dies Domini quia uastitas a Domino ueniet propter hoc omnes manus dissoluentur et omne cor hominis tabescet et conteretur tortiones et dolores tenebunt quasi parturiens dolebunt unusquisque ad proximum suum stupebit facies conbustae uultus eorum

ululate quia prope est dies Domini quasi uastitas a Domino ueniet propter hoc omnes manus dissoluentur et omne cor hominis tabescet et conteretur tortiones et dolores tenebunt quasi parturiens dolebunt unusquisque ad proximum suum stupebit facies conbustae uultus eorum

204

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg

ecce dies Domini uenit crudelis et indignationis plenus et irae furorisque ad ponendam terram in solitudine et peccatores eius conterendos de ea quoniam stellae caeli et splendor earum non expandent lumen suum obtenebrabitur sol in ortu suo et luna non splendebit in tempore suo et uisitabo super orbis mala et contra impios iniquitatem ipsorum et quiescere faciam superbiam infidelium et arrogantiam fortium humiliabo

ecce dies Domini uenit crudelis et indignationis plenus et irae furorisque ad ponendam terram in solitudine et peccatores eius conterendos de ea quoniam stellae caeli et splendor earum non expandent lumen suum obtenebratus est sol in ortu suo et luna non splendebit in lumine suo et uisitabo super orbis mala et contra impios iniquitatem eorum et quiescere faciam superbiam infidelium et arrogantiam fortium humiliabo

The variations are in bold but all these are variations on the Vg text, and the final variation (in termpore suo) is found only in Gildas (see Gryson (1987-93), 376, 380-1). That these are variations in the Vg text can be demonstrated by the use of stellae caeli et splendor earum where the VL has ‘Orion’ or ‘lucifer’ (see Gryson (1987-93), 380). The following three testimonia form, in effect, one long passage – our Is 24 – with two short gaps between the parts. These gaps are, however, of great interest. Firstly, these gaps form a break in the style of the narrative. Whereas the overall message of these passages is that of the wickedness/punishment that will accompany the eschaton, in these passages the time seems not be be eschatological, but continuous with the present after a calamity. As such these omissions clash with a consistently eschatological approach to Isaiah such as Gildas has declared to be the case. These verses speak of survivors who, although few in number and sinful, not only survive but who offer praise to the Lord. Like many other theologians, Gildas is here shown to have learned the lesson that biblical books teach far more consistently after the careful use of the scissors! Second, these verses, especially the omitted parts of vv. 13-6, would seem to be ideally suited to Gildas’s overall theme of identifying the British with Israel: the survivors of the punishment shall lift up their voices from the sea in praise (v. 14: hii leuabunt uocem suam atque laudabunt cum glorificatus fuerit Dominus hinnient de mari); the Lord’s name shall be glorified from the islands of the sea (v. 15: glorificate Dominum in insulis maris nomen Domini Dei Israhel) which upon reading must surely have put him in mind of the British Isles located at the end of the earth where the praises of the just have been heard (v. 16: a finibus terrae laudes audiuimus gloriam iusti). Perhaps Gildas believed that if he included these then it might ‘sell the pass’ with his audience believing that no matter how bad things get, they will survive.

205

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

208T. Is 24:1-6 Gildas

Vg

ecce Dominus dissipabit terram et nudabit eam et adfliget faciem eius et disperget habitatores eius et erit sicut populus sic sacerdos et sicut seruus sic dominus eius sicut ancilla sic domina eius sicut emens sic ille qui uendit sicut fenerator sic ille qui mutuum accipit sicut qui repetit sic qui debet dissipatione dissipabitur terra et direptione praedabitur Dominus enim locutus est uerbum hoc luxit et defluxit terra

ecce Dominus dissipabit terram et nudabit eam et adfliget faciem eius et disperget habitatores eius et erit sicut populus sic sacerdos et sicut seruus sic dominus eius sicut ancilla sic domina eius sicut emens sic ille qui uendit sicut fenerator sic is qui mutuum accipit sicut qui repetit sic qui debet dissipatione dissipabitur terra et direptione praedabitur Dominus enim locutus est uerbum hoc luxit et defluxit terra et infirmata est defluxit orbis infirmata est altitudo populi terrae et terra interfecta est ab habitatoribus suis quia transgressi sunt leges mutauerunt ius dissipauerunt foedus sempiternum propter hoc maledictio uorabit terram

defluxit orbis infirmata est altitudo populi terrae et terra interfecta est ab habitatoribus suis quia transgressi sunt leges mutauerunt ius dissipauerunt foedus sempiternum propter hoc maledictio uorabit terram

Neither variation is significant: the first is an assimilation to the form (sic ille qui mutuum following sic ille qui uendit) already used in the sentence; the second, the omission of et infirmata est is a case of haplography, where the repetition is, in any case, redundant. The phrase altitudo populi terrae et terra interfecta est is only found in manuscript A, and Williams suggests that it is a ‘retouching’ in accordance with a ‘purer type of the Vg text.114 A simpler hypothesis is that the omission is due to homioteleuton at an earlier point in the text’s tradition which was picked up, and corrected, by manuscript A.

114

Williams, 110, n.2.

206

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB XLV 209T. Is 24:7-13.115 Gildas

Vg

ingemiscent omnes qui laetantur corde cessabit gaudium tympanorum quiescet sonitus laetantium conticescet dulcedo citharae cum cantico non bibent uinum amara erit potio bibentibus illam attrita est ciuitas uanitatis clausa est omnis domus nullo introeunte clamor erit super uino in plateis deserta est omnis laetitia translatum est gaudium terrae relicta est in urbe solitudo et calamitas opprimet portas quia haec erunt in medio terrae et in medio populorum

ingemuerunt omnes qui laetabantur corde cessauit gaudium tympanorum quieuit sonitus laetantium conticuit dulcedo citharae cum cantico non bibent uinum amara erit potio bibentibus illam adtrita est ciuitas uanitatis clausa est omnis domus nullo introeunte clamor erit super uino in plateis deserta est omnis laetitia translatum est gaudium terrae relicta est in urbe solitudo et calamitas opprimet portas quia haec erunt in medio terrae in medio populorum

This text is substantially that of the Vg. The use of ingemiscent reveals contact with the VL, while all the other differences are Vg-variants (see Gryson (198793), 510-1 and 513). 210T. Is 24:16-23 Gildas

Vg

praeuaricantes praeuaricati sunt et praeuaricatione transgressorum praeuaricati sunt formido et foueae et laqueus super te qui habitator es terrae et erit qui fugerit a uoce formidinis cadet in foueam et qui se explicuerit de fouea tenebitur laqueo quia cataractae de excelsis apertae sunt et concutientur fundamenta terrae confractione confringetur terra

praeuaricantes praeuaricati sunt et praeuaricatione transgressorum praeuaricati sunt formido et fouea et laqueus super te qui habitator es terrae et erit qui fugerit a uoce formidinis cadet in foueam et qui se explicuerit de fouea tenebitur laqueo quia cataractae de excelsis apertae sunt et concutientur fundamenta terrae confractione confringetur terra contritione conteretur terra

115

In both Mommsen and Williams this citation is given, in error, as 24:7-15.

207

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg

commotione commouebitur agitatione agitabitur sicut ebrius et auferetur quasi tabernaculum unius noctis et grauabit eam iniquitas sua et corruet et non adiciet ut resurgat et erit in die illa uisitabit Dominus super militiam caeli in excelso et super reges terrae qui sunt super terram et congregabuntur in congregationem unius fascis in lacum et cludentur ibi in carcerem et post multos dies uisitabuntur et erubescet luna et confundetur sol cum regnauerit Dominus exercituum in monte Sion et in Hierusalem et in conspectu senum suorum fuerit glorificatus

commotione commouebitur terra agitatione agitabitur terra sicut ebrius et auferetur quasi tabernaculum unius noctis et grauabit eam iniquitas sua et corruet et non adiciet ut resurgat et erit in die illa uisitabit Dominus super militiam caeli in excelso et super reges terrae qui sunt super terram et congregabuntur in congregationem unius fascis in lacum et cludentur ibi in carcerem et post multos dies uisitabuntur et erubescet luna et confundetur sol cum regnauerit Dominus exercituum in monte Sion et in Hierusalem et in conspectu senum suorum fuerit glorificatus

The variant foueae is found in some Vg codices (see Gryson (1987-93), 516). In manuscript A we find commotione commouebitur terra. The omissions do not appear to have any significance and may be simply due to an error in copying – the eye skipping from one use of terra to another.

DEB XLVI 211T. Is 59:1-4 For Gildas the Book of Isaiah was a single unit, and its shifts in historical and theological perspective were aspects of the challenge it posed to exegetes. Now Gildas skips from [what we call] ch. 24 to the very different perspective of ch. 59, which we identify as a different writer: ‘Trito-Isaiah.’116 While Gildas probably did not appreciate the shift in perspective between these parts of ‘Isaiah,’ the shift does, nonetheless, manifest itself in his theology. His next three testimonia are all from Is 59. First, vv. 1-4, then vv. 6-9, and, lastly, vv. 14-5; and can be read as a single statement. Why Gildas edited Isaiah as he did (omitting v. 5 and part of v. 6; then part of v. 9 and vv. 10-13) is unclear unless it was for the sake of brevity. 116

i.e. ‘Isaiah’ = Is 1-39; ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ = Is 40-55; and ‘Trito-Isaiah’ = Is 56-66.

208

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

What is more significant is that he finishes his treatment just before the promise of a coming redeemer in 59:20: et uenerit Sion redemptor). Gildas attacks the state of affairs he sees around him, but does not announce – for whatever reason – that ‘a redeemer is coming.’ Equally inexplicable is that Gildas did not include v. 18 which refers to the Lord ‘repaying the islands’ which could be read as referring to the British Isles. Gildas

Vg

ecce non est adbreuiata manus Domini ut saluare nequeat neque adgrauata est auris eius ut non exaudiat sed iniquitates uestrae diuiserunt inter uos et Deum uestrum et peccata uestra absconderunt faciem eius a uobis ne exaudiret manus enim uestrae pollutae sunt sanguine et digiti uestri iniquitate labia uestra locuta sunt mendacium et lingua uestra iniquitatem fatur non est qui uocet iustitiam neque est qui iudicet uere sed confidunt in nihil et loquuntur uanitates conceperunt laborem et pepererunt iniquitatem

ecce non est adbreuiata manus Domini ut saluare nequeat neque adgrauata est auris eius ut non exaudiat sed iniquitates uestrae diuiserunt inter uos et Deum uestrum et peccata uestra absconderunt faciem eius a uobis ne exaudiret manus enim uestrae pollutae sunt sanguine et digiti uestri iniquitate labia uestra locuta sunt mendacium et lingua uestra iniquitatem fatur non est qui inuocet iustitiam neque est qui iudicet uere sed confidunt in nihili et loquuntur uanitates conceperunt laborem et pepererunt iniquitatem

Both differences in Gildas’s text are variants in the Vg tradition (see Gryson (1987-93), 1460-1).117

117

Codex A reads nichilo: a reading found in the Clementine edition of the Vg.

209

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

212T. Is 59:6-9 Gildas

Vg

opera eorum inutilia et opus iniquitatis in manibus eorum pedes eorum ad malum currunt et festinant ut effundant sanguinem innocentem cogitationes eorum cogitationes inutiles uastitas et contritio in uiis eorum et uiam pacis non cognouerunt et non est iudicium in gressibus eorum semitae eorum incuruatae sunt eis omnis qui calcat in eis ignorat pacem propter hoc elongatum est iudicium a nobis et non adprehendet uos iustitia

opera eorum opera inutilia et opus iniquitatis in manibus eorum pedes eorum ad malum currunt et festinant ut effundant sanguinem innocentem cogitationes eorum cogitationes inutiles uastitas et contritio in uiis eorum uiam pacis nescierunt et non est iudicium in gressibus eorum semitae eorum incuruatae sunt eis omnis qui calcat in ea ignorat pacem propter hoc elongatum est iudicium a nobis et non adprehendet nos iustitia

The omission of opera is a Vg variant (see Gryson (1987-93), 1464), as is the use of uos rather than nos (see Gryson (1987-93), 1468); while the addition of et, and non cognouerunt instead of nescierunt are both symptoms of contact with the VL (see Gryson (1987-93), 1466). Eis, where Vg has ea, is, according to Gryson, the genuine Vg reading (see Gryson (1987-93), 1467). 213T. Is 59:14-5 Gildas

Vg

et conuersum est retrorsum iudicium et iustitia longe stetit quia corruit in platea ueritas et aequitas non potuit ingredi et facta est ueritas in obliuione et qui recessit a malo praedae patuit et uidit Dominus et non placuit in oculis eius quia non est iudicium

et conuersum est retrorsum iudicium et iustitia longe stetit quia corruit in platea ueritas et aequitas non potuit ingredi et facta est ueritas in obliuione et qui recessit a malo praedae patuit et uidit Dominus et malum apparuit in oculis eius quia non est iudicium

Gildas’s reading of non placuit in place of malum apparuit is a symptom of interference from the VL text (see Gryson (1987-93), 1473).

210

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB XLVII 214A. Jer 1:5; 1:8; 4:22; 5:21; and 25 Gildas begins a series of citations from Jeremiah by introducing the prophet with biographic details all derived from the text of Jeremiah.118 The core of this is a close paraphrase of Jer 1:5: Gildas

Vg

priusquam exiret de uulua sanctificatus et in cunctis gentibus propheta positus est

priusquam te formarem in utero noui te et antequam exires de uulua sanctificaui te prophetam gentibus dedi te

The shift from ‘nations’ to ‘all nations’ is an influence from Mt 28:19: euntes ergo docete omnes gentes. Gildas will further elaborate on the personal history of Jeremiah in DEB LXXX when he describes him as ‘uirgo prophetaque.’119 That Jeremiah was sent to preach to a foolish people is based on Jer 4:22 – which Gildas cites in his opening set of citations: 217T – and 5:21– which Gildas cites subsequently: 219T; and that he must preach to rebellious kings is based on Jer 1:18 and the content of Jer 25. 215T. Jer 2:1-2 and 4-6 These verses are treated by Gildas as continuous text:120 Gildas

Vg

et factum est uerbum Domini ad me dicens uade et clama in auribus Hierusalem et dices

et factum est uerbum Domini ad me dicens uade et clama in auribus Hierusalem dicens haec dicit Dominus recordatus sum tui miserans adulescentiam tuam et caritatem disponsationis tuae quando secuta me es in deserto in terra quae non seminatur sanctus Israhel Domino primitiae frugum eius omnes qui deuorant eum delinquunt mala uenient super eos dicit Dominus

This introduction, as Williams noted (112, n.1), should be read in conjunction with the description of Jeremiah in DEB LXXX; see below. 119 See 393A below. 120 This use of Jer 2:5 here should be compared with the use of the same verse in DEB LXXX (395T). 118

211

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg

audite uerbum Domini domus Iacob et omnes cognationes domus Israhel haec dicit Dominus quid inuenerunt in me patres uestri iniquitatis qui elongati sunt a me et ambulauerunt post uanitatem et uani facti sunt et non dixerunt ubi est qui ascendere nos fecit de terra Aegypti

audite uerbum Domini domus Iacob et omnes cognationes domus Israhel haec dicit Dominus quid inuenerunt patres uestri in me iniquitatis quia elongauerunt a me et ambulauerunt post uanitatem et uani facti sunt et non dixerunt ubi est Dominus qui ascendere nos fecit de terra Aegypti

The variants – if variants they be, rather than scribal errors – do not suggest any text other than the Vg nor do they point to any intermediate author. Gildas employs et dices in 2:2 to act as a link between the announcement of the oracle and the section which he intends to quote. The inversion of inuenerunt patres uestri in me to … in me patres uestri is found in one Vg codex, yet in the citation of the verse in DEB LXXX Gildas has the normal Vg order of words. While the edition has qui (rather than the reading of manuscript A: quia) this is surely a scribal blunder: qui is the lectio difficilior but to the point of meaninglessness, while in DEB LXXX we find quia. The use of elongati sunt here is unique to Gildas; who uses the normal Vg form in DEB LXXX.121 The omission of Dominus, not found in any other author who quotes this verse, is abbreviation by memory. What is perhaps of greater significance is the omission of part of 2:2 and all of 2:3. By omitting the memory of the nation’s former faithfulness, Gildas has focussed on the current unfaithfulness of Israel. 216T. Jer 2:20-22 Gildas

Vg

a saeculo confregisti iugum meum rupisti uincula mea dixisti non seruiam

a saeculo confregisti iugum meum rupisti uincula mea et dixisti non seruiam in omni enim colle sublimi et sub omni ligno frondoso tu prosternebaris meretrix

See 395T.

121

212

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg

ego … plantaui te uineam electam omne semen uerum quomodo ergo conuersa es in prauum uinea aliena si laueris te nitro et multiplicaueris tibi herbam borith maculata es … iniquitate tua coram me dicit Dominus

ego autem plantaui te uineam electam omne semen uerum quomodo ergo conuersa es in prauum uinea aliena si laueris te nitro et multiplicaueris tibi herbam borith maculata es in iniquitate tua coram me dicit Dominus Deus

Gildas’s omission of autem and in are not significant as they are frequently omitted. His omission of et is without parallel. 217T. Jer 2:29-32 and 4:22 Gildas cites these two separate texts from Jeremiah such that the second becomes the explanation of the first. Why have the people abandoned the Lord – suffering his punishments as a consequence – because they are a foolish people: Gildas

Vg

quid uultis mecum iudicio contendere omnes me dereliquistis dicit Dominus frustra percussi filios uestros disciplinam non receperunt audite uerbum Domini numquid solitudo factus sum Israhel aut terra serotina quare ergo dixit populus meus recessimus non ueniemus ultra ad te numquid obliuiscitur uirgo ornamenti sui sponsa fasciae pectoralis suae populus uero meus oblitus est me diebus innumeris quia stultus est populus meus me non cognouit filii insipientes sunt et uecordes sapientes sunt ut faciant mala bene autem facere nescierunt

2:29-32 quid uultis mecum iudicio contendere omnes dereliquistis me dicit Dominus frustra percussi filios uestros disciplinam non receperunt deuorauit gladius uester prophetas uestros quasi leo uastator generatio uestra uidete uerbum Domini numquid solitudo factus sum Israheli aut terra serotina quare ergo dixit populus meus recessimus non ueniemus ultra ad te numquid obliuiscitur uirgo ornamenti sui sponsa fasciae pectoralis suae populus uero meus oblitus est mei diebus innumeri 4:22 quia stultus populus meus me non cognouit filii insipientes sunt et uecordes sapientes sunt ut faciant mala bene autem facere nescierunt

The variants do not point to any textual dependencies nor to a text other than the Vg. In the VLD only Gildas transposes dereliquistis me and in manuscript

213

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

A we find the Vg sequence. The substitution of audite for uidete is due to memory: on 24 occasions in the Vg the command is ‘to listen to the word of the Lord’ (audite uerbum domini) – which is the normal expectation in relation to a word spoken: one listens to it – and only here is the command ‘to look at’; the same confusion of audite for uidete can be found on one occasion in Jerome. Only Gildas has Israhel for Israheli; me rather than mei (but, yet again, manuscript A has mei); and only Gildas inserts est in 4:22. The significance of this combination of texts is that Gildas has provided a solution to a problem inherent in the text: why, when they have been told they are being punished for their disobedience, do they continue to behave in the manner that leads to their problems? But if this is a version of a fundamental ethical question – why do we continue to do what we know to be bad for us – the answer is, for Gildas, simple: stupidity. In supplying this answer Gildas indicates that he shares a view of stupidity (stultitia) and foolishness (insipientia) that is found in many places in the scriptures where stupidity is the inability to see how effects flow from causes.122

DEB XLVIII 218T. Jer 5:3 Gildas

Vg

Domine oculi tui respiciunt fidem percussisti eos et non doluerunt adtriuisti eos et rennuerunt accipere disciplinam indurauerunt facies suas super petram et noluerunt reuerti

Domine oculi tui respiciunt fidem percussisti eos et non doluerunt adtriuisti eos et rennuerunt accipere disciplinam indurauerunt facies suas super petram noluerunt reuerti

In having et in the last phrase, Gildas’s text agrees with some codices of the Vg.

See O’Loughlin (1989).

122

214

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

219T. Jer 5:20-4.123 Gildas

Vg

adnuntiate hoc domui Iacob et auditum facite in Iuda dicentes audi popule stulte qui non habes cor qui habentes oculos non uidetis et aures et non auditis me ergo non timebitis ait Dominus et a facie mea non dolebitis qui posui harenam terminum mari praeceptum sempiternum quod non praeteribit et commouebuntur et non poterunt et intumescent fluctus eius et non transibunt illud populo autem huic factum est cor incredulum et exasperans recesserunt et abierunt et non dixerunt in corde suo metuamus Dominum Deum nostrum

adnuntiate hoc domui Iacob et auditum facite in Iuda dicentes audi populus stulte qui non habes cor qui habentes oculos non uidetis et aures et non auditis me ergo non timebitis ait Dominus et a facie mea non dolebitis qui posui harenam terminum mari praeceptum sempiternum quod non praeteribit et commouebuntur et non poterunt et intumescent fluctus eius et non transibunt illud populo autem huic factum est cor incredulum et exasperans recesserunt et abierunt et non dixerunt in corde suo metuamus Dominum Deum nostrum

The variant popule is given in some Vg codices; however, the Clementine edition apart, this group of manuscripts have no common member with the group noted in 218T. 220T. Jer 5:26-9, Gildas

Vg

quia inuenti sunt in populo meo impii insidiantes quasi aucupes laqueos ponentes et pedicas ad capiendos uiros sicut decipula plena auibus sic domus eorum plenae dolo ideo magnificati sunt et ditati incrassati sunt et inpinguati et praeterierunt sermones meos pessime causam non iudicauerunt causam pupilli non dixerunt et iudicium pauperum non iudicauerunt

quia inuenti sunt in populo meo impii insidiantes quasi aucupes laqueos ponentes et pedicas ad capiendos uiros sicut decipula plena auibus sic domus eorum plenae dolo ideo magnificati sunt et ditati incrassati sunt et inpinguati et praeterierunt sermones meos pessime causam non iudicauerunt causam pupilli non direxerunt et iudicium pauperum non iudicauerunt

Mommsen, followed by Williams, erroneously gives 5:20-3 as the reference for this citation. 123

215

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg

numquid super his non uisitabo dicit Dominus aut super gentem huiusmodi non ulciscetur anima mea

numquid super his non uisitabo dicit Dominus aut super gentem huiuscemodi non ulciscetur anima mea

The variant dixerunt is found in some Vg codices, but these are different to those noted in previous testimonia. Why Gildas divided Jer 5:20-9 into two testimonia, omitting 5:25, is not apparent. Jer 5:25 does not introduce any discordant note between what precedes and follows it.

DEB IL 221T. Jer 7:27-8 Cited following the Vg without variant. 222T. Jer 8:4-7 Cited following the Vg. The opening words of Jer 8:4 (et dices ad eos haec dicit Dominus) are omitted by Gildas as redundant since this citation follows on from 7:28 (et dices ad eos: haec est gens …). At the end of the citation, 8:7, the Vg’s Domini has become Dei which is probably most easily explained as a momentary lapse in memory with identical referents or in reading the nomina sacra whereby Dni was seen as Di. Citations 221 and 222 form a couplet: one repeating but also complementing the other. 221 emphasises that it is the people (haec gens) that is at fault, but 222 emphasises that there was/is the possibility of doing penance,124 but this has not been sought out, through ignorance, by the individuals (nullus est qui …) that make up the gens. This penitential theme is significant in view of the role of Gildas in the development of the system of penitentials, and appears again in 223 and 224. 223T. Jer 8:21-9:3 Gildas introduces his next citation by pointing out the prophet’s weeping is directly connected with an awareness of the seriousness of the sins before The text reads (nullus est qui agat paenitentiam super peccato suo); but faced with this phrase penitentiam agere which was so problematic at the Reformation, Williams fudges the translation with ‘There is none who repenteth of his sin’ (p. 117); while Winterbottom makes the phrase completely passive: ‘No one is repentant of his sins’ (p. 44). This phrase must be translated using the active voice: ‘There is no one who does penance for his sins.’ 124

216

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

God, this tearfulness being at the core of his penitential system.125 Gildas cites Jer 8:21-9:3:126 Gildas

Vg

super contritione filiae populi mei contritus sum … stupor obtinuit me

super contritionem filiae populi mei contritus sum et contristatus stupor obtinuit me numquid resina non est in Galaad aut medicus non est ibi quare igitur non est obducta cicatrix filiae populi mei quis dabit capiti meo aquam et oculis meis fontem lacrimarum et plorabo die et nocte interfectos filiae populi mei quis dabit me in solitudine diuersorium uiatorum et derelinquam populum meum et recedam ab eis quia omnes adulteri sunt coetus praeuaricatorum et extenderunt linguam suam quasi arcum mendacii et non ueritatis confortati sunt in terra quia de malo ad malum egressi sunt et me non cognouerunt dicit Dominus

numquid resina non est in Galaad aut medicus non est ibi quare ergo non … obducta cicatrix filiae populi mei quis dabit capiti meo aquam et oculis meis fontem lacrimarum et plorabo die et nocte interfectos … populi mei quis dabit mihi in solitudine diuersorium uiatorum et derelinquam populum meum et recedam ab eis quando omnes adulteri sunt coetus praeuaricatorum et extenderunt linguam suam quasi arcum mendacii et non ueritatis confortati sunt in terra quia de malo ad malum egressi sunt et me non cognouerunt dicit Dominus

The variants do not suggest a departure from the text of the Vg. While super contritione would appear unusual, this is a common Vg reading – and it was held to be the correct reading in Hetzenhauer’s edition of 1906 – and hence this should be the presumed original reading. Since manuscript A has the accusative, this is an indication that that manuscript shows a deliberate tendency to normalise the biblical text of DEB towards what it considered to be the Vg. The omissions, with the exception of filiae, are not significant as these tend to abbreviate the text (and they are not otherwise attested). The use of ergo and quando (the VL, agreeing with the Vg, has quia) are due to substitution of similar notions in memory (one other writer, but with no possible connection to Gildas, has ergo; Gildas alone has quando). The use of mihi (which is VL) is common within the tradition of writers up to the time of Gildas, but could also be his own substitution. The form of 9:1 shows the consistency of Gildas’s usage in that both here and in 137C he uses the same form (quis dabit capiti See O’Loughlin (2000a); and O’Loughlin and Conrad-O’Briain (1993). Mommsen, followed by Williams, give the citation thus: ‘Jer. viii, 21; ix, 3’ – as if Gildas was citing a combination of verses rather than a continuous text. 125

126

217

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

meo aquam et oculis meis fontem lacrimarum et plorabo die et nocte interfectos … populi mei); in both cases omitting filiae. This text with its combined imagery of tears, physicians, and medicine (resina) is an important link between the theology of reconciliation found in the DEB and that underlying the practices exemplified in the penitentials. 224T. Jer 9:13-5 Gildas

Vg

et dixit Dominus quia dereliquerunt legem meam quam dedi eis et non audierunt uocem meam et non ambulauerunt in ea et abierunt post prauitatem cordis sui

et dixit Dominus quia dereliquerunt legem meam quam dedi eis et non audierunt uocem meam et non ambulauerunt in ea et abierunt post prauitatem cordis sui et post Baalim quos didicerunt a patribus suis idcirco haec dicit Dominus exercituum Deus Israhel ecce ego cibabo eos populum istum absinthio et potum dabo eis aquam fellis

idcirco haec dicit Dominus exercituum Deus Israhel ecce ego cibabo eos populum istum absinthio et potum dabo eis aquam fellis

Gildas follows the Vg; while omitting the historical detail (that the people followed Baal as their ancestors taught them) that is not appropriate in the case of the British. Just as 221T and 222T form a couplet, so this testimonium forms a couplet with 223T. 225T. Jer 11:14 Gildas

Vg

tu ergo noli orare pro populo hoc et ne adsumas pro eis laudem et orationem quia non exaudiam in tempore clamoris eorum ad me et adflictionis eorum

tu ergo noli orare pro populo hoc et ne adsumas pro eis laudem et orationem quia non exaudiam in tempore clamoris eorum ad me in tempore adflictionis eorum

Gildas follows the Vg except that he abbreviates the final phrase; note that manuscript A retains the et but restores the in tempore. Gildas’s comment notes that the prophet’s voice shifts between his own speaking to the people, God’s voice speaking to the people through the prophet, and God’s voice speaking to the prophet with a message that is for him concerning the people.

218

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB L 226A. Mt 7:13 The allusion to the uia angusta and the uia spatiosa is an allusion to Mt 7:13 (intrate per angustam portam quia lata porta et spatiosa uia quae ducit ad perditionem et multi sunt qui intrant per eam). It is noteworthy that Gildas uses Mt 7 which refers to both broad and narrow gates rather than Lk 13:23 (the parallel text) which mentions only the narrow gate; this may indicate that he considers Mt the basic gospel text to which the others add additional details. 227A. Jer 11:14 Gildas’s reference to prayers being forbidden refers back to Jer 11:14 (225T). 228A. Lam 3:33; 2 Sam 14:14 Gildas sets out the need for repentance, which will be successful in obtaining divine mercy, in a melange of scriptural phrases which are partly quotations and partly allusions: Gildas e contrario ex corde ad Deum repedantibus ---Deo nolente animam hominis interire, sed retractante, 3 ne penitus pereat qui abiectus est uindictam non potuissent inducere

Cf. Lam 3:33 and cp. Jer 24:2; Ez 18:32. ---2 Sam 14:14: nec uult perire Deus animam sed retractat cogitans ne penitus pereat qui abiectus est

The text of 2 Sam 14:14 in both the VL and the Vg are almost identical, so it is impossible to determine, in this case, which version Gildas was using. This is another expression of the notion that God does not wish the death of the sinner but repentance; and needs to be read in conjunction with DEB XXIX (95C), LXI (272T), and CX (544E). 229E. Jon 3:4-9; 4:1-2; and 4:11 (and Mt 12:39-41) Gildas demonstrates the power of repentance to change the divine will from punishment to forgiveness by providing a complex exemplum from the Book of Jonah that supposes a thorough knowledge of the whole of the book when he says even Jonah, in the face of repentance, could not persuade God to punish the Ninevites. The exemplum works in this way: Jonah was sent (as are all the prophets to whom Gildas refers, and as Gildas himself is charged in writing his book for the current people of Israel) to issue a warning to the peo-

219

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

ple of Nineveh (Jon 3:4). On hearing this, all the people, from the king to the least, begin to repent of their sins (3:6-9). On seeing their turning away from evil, God changed his mind and stopped the impending punishment (3:10). This escape from the punishment due to them annoys Jonah (4:1-2) who seeks to persuade God to act with justice rather than mercy, but this plea from Jonah is of no avail: God will not change his mind and punish the repentant (4:11). The use of this exemplum not only provides a view of how well Gildas knew the detail of the scriptures – in this case a whole, but minor, book – but his view of the nature of divine justice. However, that the figure of Jonah should be used as an example of the preaching of repentance is not the least surprising in that it is used in the gospels: Jesus described Jonah as the successful pracher of repentance and that it is his ‘sign’ that is given to a sinful generation: Mt 12:39-41 (// Lk 11:29-32), and Mt 16:4. 230A. Is 27:13 Gildas refers to the prophetica tuba which alludes to the trumpet mentioned many times in the prophets when they are issuing warnings to Israel: see Is 27:13; 58:1; Jer 4:5; Ez 7:14; Hos 5:8; 8:1 (see 240T, below); Joel 2:1; 2:15; and Amos 3:6. In DEB XCII (440A) makes reference to another tuba, on that occasion it is the euangelica tuba. 231T. Jer 13:22-3 Gildas

Vg

quod si dixeris [] in corde tuo quare uenerunt mala haec propter multitudinem iniquitatis tuae

quod si dixeris in corde tuo quare uenerunt mihi haec propter multitudinem iniquitatis tuae reuelata sunt uerecundiora tua pollutae sunt plantae tuae si mutare potest Aethiops pellem suam aut pardus uarietates suas et uos poteritis bene facere cum didiceritis malum

si mutare potest Aethiops pellem suam aut pardus uarietates suas et uos poteritis bene facere cum didiceritis malum

The variant mala for mihi is only found in Gildas and may represent a misreading that makes the text more clear. Gildas is following the Vg. This text is particularly appropriate for Gildas in that, in Jer 13:18, the prophet declares that he has been told to say this to the king and ‘the queen’ (dic regi et dominatrici). Thus the omission of reuelata sunt uerecundiora tua pollutae sunt plantae tuae probably reflects Gildas’s appreciation that this phrase, aimed at the queen, is inapplicable to his audience of male princes.

220

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas added after the testimonium this: subauditur, quia non uultis which is an exegesis of why they have given themselves over to doing evil: wicked deeds are done because they are willed, and therefore are culpable. 232T. Jer 14:10-2 Gildas

Vg

haec dicit Dominus populo huic qui dilexit mouere pedes suos et non quieuit et Domino non placuit nunc recordabitur iniquitatum eorum et uisitabit peccata eorum et dixit Dominus ad me noli orare pro populo isto in bonum cum ieiunauerint non exaudiam preces eorum et si obtulerint holocaustomata et uictimas non suscipiam ea

haec dicit Dominus populo huic qui dilexit mouere pedes suos et non quieuit et Domino non placuit nunc recordabitur iniquitatum eorum et uisitabit peccata eorum et dixit Dominus ad me noli orare pro populo isto in bonum cum ieiunauerint non exaudiam preces eorum et si obtulerint holocaustomata et uictimas non suscipiam ea quoniam gladio et fame et peste ego consumam eos

Gildas follows the Vg omitting the second verse’s final phrase. However, he does not point out how this conflicts with the text in Jonah to which he had already alluded (229E). Gildas uses Jer 14:10 again in DEB LXXXI (405T) making a different point, but again following the Vg. 233T. Jer 15:1 Gildas follows the Vg. In adding this verse to Jer 14:10-2 Gildas imagines that he resolves the disagreement just noted. Jonah could not persuade God to punish the Ninevites once they had done penance; but now with regards to this people, even Moses or Samuel could not persuade God to relent. 234T. Jer 15:5-6: Gildas

Vg

quis … miserebitur tui Hierusalem aut quis contristabitur pro te aut quis ibit ad rogandum pro pace tua tu reliquisti me dicit Dominus et retrorsum abisti et extendam manum meam super te et interficiam te

quis enim miserebitur tui Hierusalem aut quis contristabitur pro te aut quis ibit ad rogandum pro pace tua tu reliquisti me dicit Dominus retrorsum abisti et extendam manum meam super te et interficiam te laboraui rogans

221

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

The addition of et is not found elsewhere. By omitting laboraui rogans the sense that God has tried to find a way for the people to avoid punishment is lessened. 235T. Jer 18:11-5 Gildas

Vg

haec dicit Dominus ecce ego fingo contra uos cogitationem reuertatur unusquisque a uia sua mala et dirigite uias uestras et studia uestra qui dixerunt desperamus post cogitationes enim nostras ibimus et unusquisque prauitatem cordis sui mali faciemus ideo haec dicit Dominus interrogate gentes quis audiuit talia horribilia quae fecit nimis uirgo Israhel numquid deficiet de petra agri nix Libani aut uelli possunt aquae erumpentes frigidae et defluentes quia oblitus est mei populus meus

haec dicit Dominus ecce ego fingo contra uos malum et cogito contra uos cogitationem reuertatur unusquisque a uia sua mala et dirigite uias uestras et studia uestra qui dixerunt desperauimus post cogitationes enim nostras ibimus et unusquisque prauitatem cordis sui mali faciemus ideo haec dicit Dominus interrogate gentes quis audiuit talia horribilia quae fecit nimis uirgo Israhel numquid deficiet de petra agri nix Libani aut euelli possunt aquae erumpentes frigidae et defluentes quia oblitus est mei populus meus

The variants desperamus and uelli are only found in Gildas. The omission of malum et cogito contra uos is probably due to homoioteleuton. Moreover, this omission is an important clue as to the layout of Gildas’s text. This omission is far more likely to occur in a text laid out per cola et commata where the text would appear (as in Vg) thus: haec dicit Dominus ecce ego fingo contra uos malum et cogito contra uos cogitationem reuertatur unusquisque a uia sua mala et dirigite uias uestras et studia uestra

222

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

236T. Jer 22:3-5 Gildas

Vg

haec dicit Dominus facite iudicium et iustitiam et liberate ui oppressum de manu calumniatoris et aduenam et pupillum et uiduam nolite contristare neque opprimatis inique et sanguinem innocentem ne effundatis

haec dicit Dominus facite iudicium et iustitiam et liberate ui oppressum de manu calumniatoris et aduenam et pupillum et uiduam nolite contristare neque opprimatis inique et sanguinem innocentem ne effundatis in loco isto si enim facientes feceritis uerbum istud ingredientur per portas domus huius reges sedentes de genere Dauid super thronum eius et ascendentes currus et equos ipsi et serui et populus eorum quod si non audieritis uerba haec in memet ipso iuraui dicit Dominus quia in solitudinem erit domus haec

si enim facientes feceritis uerbum istud ingredientur per portas domus huius reges sedentes de genere Dauid super thronum eius quod si non audieritis uerba haec in memet ipso iuraui dicit Dominus quia in solitudinem erit domus haec

The two omissions delocalise the text from the original Israel and make it a general prophecy relating to any king: this is how a good king should behave. Presumably, by omitting et ascendentes currus et equos ipsi et serui et populus eorum, Gildas does not want to encourage the princes against whom he writes to imagine that as a reward for proper ruling they can look forward to entering a city with a cavalry escort. Because of the paucity of citations of these verses in the VLD it is difficult to know how the Vg and the VL differ; and so this testimonium, while following the Vg, does not provide evidence as to which version was used by Gildas. 237T. Jer 22:24-5 Gildas

Vg

uiuo ego dicit Dominus quia si fuerit Iechonias

uiuo ego dicit Dominus quia si fuerit Iechonias filius Ioachim regis Iuda anulus in manu dextera mea inde auellam eum et dabo te in manu quaerentium animam tuam

anulus in manu dextera mea inde euellam eum et dabo … in manu quaerentium animam eius

The variant euallam is the most common Vg reading (e.g. this is the reading in Hetzenhauer’s edition); the lectio difficilior has been adopted by Vg.

223

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

In the introduction to this testimonium Gildas notes that this is not to be read as a continuation of the previous passage: et iterum, de rege enim scelesto loquebatur. This wicked king is Jehoiakim (Iechonias) introduced in 22:18; and the adaptations of the text by Gildas are intended to make its meaning clear when quoted as a verse without its larger context. As with the previous testimonium we cannot determine Gildas’s version from this quotation.

DEB LI 238T. Hab 2:12-3 Gildas

Vg

uae qui aedificant ciuitatem in sanguine et praeparant ciuitatem in iniquitatibus dicentes nonne haec sunt a Domino omnipotente et defecerunt populi multi in igne et gentes multae minoratae sunt

uae qui aedificat ciuitatem in sanguinibus et praeparat urbem in iniquitate numquid non haec a Domino sunt exercituum laborabunt enim populi in multo igni et gentes in uacuum et deficient

See comment on 239T. 239T. Hab 1:2-4 Gildas

Vg

usquequo clamabo et non exaudies uociferabor ad te

usquequo Domine clamabo et non exaudies uociferabor ad te uim patiens et non saluabis quare ostendisti mihi iniquitatem et laborem uidere praeda et iniustitia contra me et factum est iudicium et contradictio potentior propter hoc lacerata est lex et non peruenit usque ad finem iudicium quia impius praeualet aduersus iustum propterea egreditur iudicium peruersum

ut quid mihi dedisti, labores et dolores inspicere miseriam et impietatem contra et factum est iudicium et iudex accepit propter hoc dissipata est lex et non perducitur ad finem iudicium quia impius per potentiam deprimit iustum propter hoc exiit iudicium peruersum

224

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Neither testimonium from Hab is Vg. However, the relationship of Gildas’s text with that of the VL is complex. While we can find parallels at every point with other witnesses to the VL, in no other source do we find the whole set of variants found in Gildas. We can conclude, therefore, that his text of Hab was VL; and that he had a version of that text which is otherwise no longer extant.

DEB LII 240T. Hos 8:1-4 Gildas

Vg

pro eo quod transgressi sunt pactum meum et aduersus legem meam tulerunt me exclamabant … cognouimus te quia aduersum sis Israhel … bonum et iniquum persecuti sunt

pro eo quod transgressi sunt foedus meum et legem meam praeuaricati sunt me inuocabunt Deus meus cognouimus te Israhel proiecit Israhel bonum inimicus persequetur eum ipsi regnauerunt et non ex me principes extiterunt et non cognoui

sibi regnauerunt et non per me tenuerunt principatum nec me agnouerunt

While there is no witness in the VLD that preserves Gildas’s form of this testimonium from Hos, there are sufficient points of contact with VL readings to assert that Gildas was using a version of the VL for this book.127 However, Gildas alters the text considerably, especially in changing the subject and object of the final phrase, and this may best be explained by being seen as quotation from memory whereby the failure to the acknowledge God is yet one more aspect of their sinfulness. It should be noted that manuscript A, which so often corrects in favour of the Vg, has cognoui at this point. Gildas in his introduction declares that this is a case of the prophet speaking about princes (de principibus), but this is inferred by him from the passage’s content rather than from its scriptural context. However, that context is noteworthy as Hos 8:1 begins with a reference to the ‘prophetic trumpet’ (in gutture tuo sit tuba quasi aquila super domum Domini …) to which Gildas referred in 230T.

127 This can be seen in the stability of a phrase in this testimonium that is also used in DEB CIX, see below: 534T, which departs from the Vg and which has a common element with the VL: non per me rather than non ex me.

225

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LIII The extent of this section in the edition is defined by its being a series of testimonia from Amos. Williams notes that ‘Gildas has quoted more extensively from the writings of this prophet than from any other of the minor prophets, and at greater length here than he quotes from the same prophet in addressing the clergy.’128 Williams explains this use – and is surely correct in this judgement – as a result of the nature of Amos’s prophetic ministry: ‘The prophetic ministry of Amos was specially a mission to the rulers of Israel; the cruel harshness of the rich and powerful grinding down their hopelessly impoverished neighbours, shows a terrible decline in all, kings, judges, priests and prophets.’129 Indeed, given the overall theme of the DEB, there is probably no scriptural writer whose criticisms of kings and priests would have appeared more apposite to Gildas. 241T. Amos 2:4-7 Gildas

Vg

in tribus impietatibus filiorum Iuda et in quattuor non auertam eos propter quod repulerunt legem Domini et praecepta non custodierunt sed seduxerunt eos uana eorum

super tribus sceleribus Iuda et super quattuor non conuertam eum eo quod abiecerint legem Domini

et emittam ignem super Iudam et comedet fundamenta Ierusalem haec dicit Dominus in tribus impietatibus Israhel et in quattuor non auertam eos propter quod tradiderunt pecunia iustum et pauperem pro calciamentis quae calciant super puluerem terrae et colaphis caedebant capita pauperum et uiam humilium declinauerunt

et mandata eius non custodierint deceperunt enim eos idola sua post quae abierant patres eorum et mittam ignem in Iuda et deuorabit aedes Hierusalem haec dicit Dominus super tribus sceleribus Israhel et super quattuor non conuertam eum pro eo quod uendiderit argento iustum et pauperem pro calciamentis qui conterunt super puluerem terrae capita pauperum et uiam humilium declinant

The text found in Gildas is without parallel in the VLD; however, it clearly reflects the VL rather than the Vg – and so we can conclude that Gildas had access to a variant of the VL that is otherwise no longer attested. Variants in manuscripts A and P exhibit a tendency to correct towards the Vg. Williams, 121, n. 4. Williams, 121, n. 4.

128 129

226

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

242T. Amos 5:6 Gildas

Vg

quaerite Dominum et uiuitis ut non reluceat sicut ignis domus Ioseph et comedat eam nec erit qui extinguat [domum Israel]

quaerite Dominum et uiuite ne forte conburatur ut ignis domus Ioseph et deuorabit et non erit qui extinguat Bethel

Gildas’s introduction, et post pauca, gives the impression that this testimonium follows closely on the previous one, however, it comes from much later section of the book. There is no extant witness to the text as we find it in Gildas, however, it clearly is a variant of the VL rather than the Vg and this is borne out by Jerome’s commentary, Commentariorum in Amos prophetam, which relates to the VL rather than the Vg. Jerome notes that in LXX, Bethel (which he retained in the Vg), is rendered as domus Israel (i.e. the text reads: qui extinguat domum Israel).130 However, in the current edition of DEB the verb extinguat is left with an understood object (fire) while habuerunt has being given a singular subject: domus Israel. But while there was a domum Israel in 5:6 in the VL; Amos 5:10 never had domus Israel at its beginning. This rather strained syntax and complicated addition to the text of 5:10 is simply a blunder, which can be explained by assuming that at an early point in the transmission of the text, either by a mis-transcription of a suspension or by a false correction, the domum Israel which ends 5:6 became domus and was read as the subject of 5:10. This should be corrected in a future edition. 243T. Amos 5:10 Gildas

Vg

[domus Israel] odio habuerunt in portis redarguentem et uerbum iustum abominati sunt

odio habuerunt in porta corripientem et loquentem perfecte abominati sunt

Assuming that domus Israel is a corruption of domum Israel; this is the ending of the previous testimonium. While there is no exact parallel to the text as found in Gildas, the VL as found in Jerome’s Commentariorum is much closer than is the Vg.

130

Commentariorum in Amos, 2 (on 5:6) (CCSL 76, 278-9).

227

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

244A. Amos 7:10-3 Gildas notes that Amos was forbidden to prophesy in Israel: a reference to the warning issued to him by Amaziah (7:10-3) that he must not prophesy in medio domus Israel nor leave the sanctuary of Bethel (because it is the royal sanctuary). Gildas then interprets Amos 7:14-7 as a stern reply to this censure. The basis for Gildas making the link is found in the opening words of Amos 7:14: et respondit Amos et dixit ad Amasiam. That Gildas alludes to Amaziah’s warning as a way of interpreting his next testimonium from Amos is an indicator that Gildas was extracting his testimonia from ‘the whole cloth’ of the book of Amos rather than relying on an existing collection of excerpts. 245T. Amos 7:14-7 Gildas

Vg et respondit Amos et dixit ad Amasiam non sum

non eram inquit ego propheta nec filius prophetae sed eram pastor caprarius uellicans sycomoros et suscepit me Dominus ab ouibus et dixit Dominus ad me uade et prophetiaza in plebem meam Israhel et nunc audi uerbum Domini regem namque alloquebatur tu dicis noli prophetare in Israel et non congreges turbas in domum Iacob propter quod haec dicit Dominus uxor tua in ciuitate mereticabitur et filii tui et filiae tuae gladio cadent et terra tua funiculo metietur et tu in terra immunda morieris Israhel autem captious ducetur a terra sua

propheta et non sum filius prophetae sed armentarius ego sum uellicans sycomoros et tulit me Dominus cum sequerer gregem et dixit ad me Dominus uade propheta ad populum meum Israhel et nunc audi uerbum Domini tu dicis non prophetabis super Israhel et non stillabis super domum idoli propter hoc haec dicit Dominus uxor tua in ciuitate fornicabitur et filii tui et filiae tuae in gladio cadent et humus tua funiculo metietur et tu in terra polluta morieris et Israhel captiuus migrabit de terra sua

Again, there is no VL witness that exhibits the text found here in all its details; but Gildas’s text is sufficiently distinct from the Vg, while containing VL readings, that it is clear that he is using a VL of Amos.

228

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

The interjection, regem namque alloquebatur, is an interpretation of the text of Amos: that from this point (the middle of 7:16) Amos is no longer replying to Amaziah – justifying his actions as a prophet – but addressing the king and uttering an oracular warning. This attention to a shift in the focus of the biblical text shows not only that Gildas was working with the text of Amos, and not with an existing collection of testimonia, but it demonstrates his close attention to the text. No doubt Gildas’s attention is focussed here in that he too, Amos-like, is issuing a warning to kings. 246T. Amos 8:4-5 Gildas

Vg

audite itaque haec qui contribulatis in mane pauperem et dominationem exercitis in inopes super terram qui dicitis quando transibit mensis ut adquiramus et sabbata ut aperiamus thesauros

audite hoc qui conteritis pauperem et deficere facitis egenos terrae dicentes quando transibit mensis et uenundabimus merces et sabbatum et aperiemus frumentum ut inminuamus mensuram et augeamus siclum et subponamus stateras dolosas

While there is no single VL witness with all these VL features, every variant found in Gildas which is different from the Vg can be found in at least one VL witness. In both Mommsen and Williams, the text reads: qui contribulatis inmane pauperem which is a misprint; it should read: qui contribulatis in mane pauperem. 247T. Amos 8:7-8 Gildas

Vg

iurat Dominus contra superbiam Iacob si obliuiscetur in contemptione opera uestra

iurauit Dominus in superbia Iacob

et in his non conturbabitur terra et lugebit omnis qui commorabitur in ea et ascendet sicut flumen consummatio

si oblitus fuero usque ad finem omnia opera eorum numquid super isto non commouebitur terra et lugebit omnis habitator eius et ascendet quasi fluuius uniuersus et eicietur et defluet quasi riuus Aegypti

229

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

While there is no single VL witness with all these VL features, almost every variant found in Gildas which is different from the Vg can be found in at least one VL witness; the exception is the phrase in contemptione which is not otherwise attested. 248T. Amos 8:10 Gildas

Vg

et conuertam dies festos uestras in luctum et iniciam in omnem lumbum cilicium et in omne caput decaluationem et ponam eum sicut luctum dilecti et eos qui cum eo sunt sicut diem maeroris

et conuertam festiuitates uestras in luctum et omnia cantica uestra in planctum et inducam super omne dorsum uestrum saccum et super omne caput caluitium et ponam eam quasi luctum unigeniti et nouissima eius quasi diem amarum

While no VL witness exhibits the same text as Gildas, it is clear that his text is related to the VL, rather than to the Vg. The omission of Amos 8:6 and 9 is inexplicable on textual grounds as these verses simply expand on the content of the preceding verses which Gildas uses. It is possible that the omissions allowed him to use the formulae et post pauca and et iterum, and thereby suggest rhetorically that Amos is stating his message again and again. 249T. Amos 9:10 Gildas

Vg

gladio morientur omnes peccatores populi mei qui dicunt non appropinquabunt neque uenient super nos mala

in gladio morientur omnes peccatores populi mei qui dicunt non adpropinquabit et non ueniet super nos malum

In this verse the VL and the Vg are virtually identical, however, one other witness which uses the VL text consistently also has the plural; therefore, this is a further indication that Gildas’s text was VL.

230

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LIV 250T. Mic 6:9-12 Gildas

Vg

uox Domini ad ciuitatem clamat et salus erit timentibus nomen tuum audi tribus: et quid exornabit ciuitatem audite tribus et quis adprobabit illud numquid ignis et domus iniquorum adhuc ignis in domo impii thesauri thesaurizans in thesaurus iniquos, et iniquitatis et mensura minor irae cum iniuria iniustitia plena si iustificabitur in statera iniquus et in numquid iustificabo stateram impiam saccello pondera dolosa et saccelli pondera dolosa ex quibus diuitias suas in impietate in quibus diuites eius repleti sunt repleuerunt iniquitate The VL text of Micah differs markedly from that of the Vg, and here Gildas is following that VL text. In only one detail is there no other VL witness and this is his use of iniustitia in 6:10 which Williams, correctly, recognised should not be in the accusative. The basis for his decision was that it not only made better sense but thereby agreed with the LXX.131 However, in addition, we might note that in VL witnesses the common word here is iniquitas – which in the context is exactly equivalent to iniustitia – and so indicative of what Gildas would have seen in his copy of Micah.

Williams, 122, n. 3.

131

231

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LV 251T. Zeph 1:14-2:2.132 Gildas

Vg

prope est dies Domini magnus iuxta et uelox ualde uox diei Domini amara constituta est et potens dies irae dies ille dies tribulationis et necessitates dies nubis et nebulae dies tubae et clamoris dies miseriae et exterminationis dies tenebrarum et caliginis super ciuitates firmas et super angulos excelsos et contribulabo homines et ibunt sicut caeci quia Domino peccauerunt et effundam sanguinem sicut puluerem et carnes eorum sicut fimum boum et argentum eorum et aurum non poterit eximere eos in die irae Domini et in igne zeli eius consumetur omnis terra quando consummationem et solitudinem faciet Dominus super omnes commorantes in terram conuenite coniungimini gens indisciplina priusquam efficiamini sicut flos praeteriens priusquam ueniat super uos ira Domini

iuxta est dies Domini magnus iuxta et uelox nimis uox diei Domini amara tribulabitur ibi fortis dies irae dies illa dies tribulationis et angustiae dies calamitatis et miseriae dies tenebrarum et caliginis dies nebulae et turbinis dies tubae et clangoris super ciuitates munitas et super angulos excelsos et tribulabo homines et ambulabunt ut caeci quia Domino peccauerunt et effundetur sanguis eorum sicut humus et corpus eorum sicut stercora sed et argentum eorum et aurum eorum non poterit liberare eos in die irae Domini in igne zeli eius deuorabitur omnis terra quia consummationem cum festinatione faciet cunctis habitantibus terram conuenite congregamini gens non amabilis priusquam pariat iussio quasi puluerem transeunte diem antequam ueniat super uos ira furoris Domini

Both Mommsen and Williams reference this testimonium as ending at Zeph 2:1 – this is an error. 132

232

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas’s text of Zephaniah is VL, but his version is not identical to any other witness. Williams suggested a correction of Mommsen’s text (uox Dei Domini) to uox diei Domini on the basis that this would be consistent with Old Testament usage and agree with the LXX, despite the fact that only manuscript A reads diei.133 However, Williams retained Mommsen’s text in his edition. However, it is clear from the text of the Scriptures that Gildas was using that the text should read diei Domini and the change to Dei is a corruption. Manuscripts AP have clangoris for clamoris, which cannot be dismissed simply as a tendency to correct towards the Vg as most VL witnesses have clangoris. However, a few VL witnesses have clamoris and therefore it should be retained as the lectio difficilior.

DEB LVI 252T. Hag 2:12; and 22-3 Gildas

Vg

Haec dicit Dominus semel ego mouebo caelum et terram et mare et aridum et auertam regnum et exterminabo uirtutem regum gentius et auertam quadrigas et ascensores

loquere ad Zorobabel ducem Iuda dicens ego mouebo caelum pariter et terram et subuertam solium regnorum et conteram fortitudinem regni gentium et subuertam quadrigam et ascensorem eius et descendent equi et ascensores eorum uir in gladio fratris sui

Gildas’s text is not the same as any VL witness, but all the differences from the Vg have some VL attestation. So we can conclude that his text of this prophet’s writings was VL. Gildas introduces the testimonium with the stock phrase ‘haec dicit Dominus’ (used on more that 400 occasions in the Scriptures), however, it is not used here simply as an introductory formula but derived from the beginning of the oracle at 2:12. It is this opening that governs all of Haggai’s statements for the remainder of the book. When viewed together with other evidence, this is an indication that Gildas worked directly with the Scriptures rather than an existing book of testimonies. Williams, 124, n. 1.

133

233

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LVII 253A. Zech 1:1; and Ezra 5:1 Gildas introduces Zechariah’s testimonia by naming the prophet in a manner reminiscent of Zech 1:1: mense octauo in anno secundo Darii factum est uerbum Domini ad Zacchariam filium Barachiae filium Addo prophetam dicens (Vg). However, he omits mention of Zechariah’s father Berechiah and has: Zacharias filius Addo. Since the VL also mentioned Berechiah, this omission is probably best explained as a slip of memory on Gildas’s part; rather than, as Williams postulated that it was a case of Gildas being influenced by the LXX directly, or indirectly by Jerome’s Commentariorum in Zachariam 1, which, even if it were seen by Gildas, would not necessarily indicate to a Latin reader that Berechiah was the grandfather rather than the father of the prophet.134 However, this slip of memory on Gildas’s part is not simply that of forgetting a name and thereby confusing a father with a grandfather, it comes from confusing this text in memory with Ezra 5:1 which reads: prophetauerunt autem Aggeus propheta et Zaccharias filius Addo prophetantes ad Iudaeos qui erant in Iudaea et Hierusalem in nomine Dei Israhel. Moreover, this phrase, ‘Zechariah son of Iddo,’ is repeated at Ezra 6:14 and echoed at Neh 12:16. Gildas takes this to be an historical description of the work of the prophet he has just cited, Haggai, and the one he is about to cite: Zechariah, and hence his designation: Zaccharias filius Addo. This silent conflation of two separate texts is a good indicator of Gildas’s level of intimate familiarity with the Scriptures. 254T. Zech 1:3-4 Gildas

Vg

reuertimini ad me et reuertar ad uos dicit Dominus

conuertimini ad me ait Dominus exercituum et conuertar ad uos dicit Dominus exercituum ne sitis sicut patres uestri ad quos clamabant prophetae priores dicentes haec dicit Dominus exercituum conuertimini de uiis uestris malis et cogitationibus uestris pessimis et non audierunt neque adtenderunt ad me dicit Dominus

et nolite tales esse sicut patres uestri quibus imputauerunt prophetae priores dicentes haec dicit Dominus omnipotens auertite uos a uiis uestris et non intenderunt, ut obaudirent me

Gildas’s text, while not being identical with any single witness, shares all its variations from the Vg with some witnesses to the VL; and we can conclude that his text of Zechariah was VL. Williams, 124, n. 3.

134

234

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

255T. Zech 5:2-4 Gildas

Vg

et dixit ad me angelus quid tu uides et dixi falcem ego uideo uolantem longitudinis cubitorum uiginti

et dixit ad me

maledictio quae procedit super faciem totius terrae quoniam omnis fur ex ea usque ad mortem punietur et proiciam eum dicit Dominus omnipotens et intrabit in domum furis et in domum iurationis in nomine meo mendacium

quid tu uides et dixi ego uideo uolumen uolans longitudo eius uiginti cubitorum et latitudo eius decem cubitorum et dixit ad me haec est maledictio quae egreditur super faciem omnis terrae quia omnis fur sicut ibi scriptum est iudicabitur et omnis iurans ex hoc similiter iudicabitur educam illud dicit Dominus exercituum et ueniet ad domum furis et ad domum iurantis in nomine meo mendaciter

In few places is the difference between the VL and the Vg so plain as that between the vision of the flying scythe and the flying scroll – and here we have a clear indicator that Gildas’s text is VL. The insertion of angelus sets the context as the angel is the speaker for this whole section of the book and is referred to both before and after this testimonium at 4:5 and 5:5. Its inclusion here shows Gildas providing his audience with the author of the opening statement and so clarifying an ambiguity in the text that the speaker could be seen to shift without notice to God in 5:4 – the text is not clear as to whether this is a change of speaker or the angel continuing to report what God has said to him – Gildas solves the problem by inserting angelus and we then assume that the whole is the angel’s report to the prophet. Again, this simple addition indicates that Gildas was working directly with the scriptural text. Williams noted questions about furis and mendacium.135 The evidence in the VLD supports furis as certainly the correct biblical text; of the seven witnesses to mendacium/ mendacio/ mendaciter, Gildas is the only witness with mendacium and one other has: in mendacio. Mendacium is to be preferred as the lectio difficilior.

Williams, 126, nn. 1 and 2.

135

235

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LVIII 256T. Mal 4:1 Gildas

Vg

ecce dies Domini ueniet succensa quasi caminus et erunt omnes superbi et omnes facientes iniquitatem ut stipula et inflammabit eos dies adueniens dicit Dominus exercituum quae non relinquet ex eis radicem et germen

ecce enim dies ueniet succensa quasi caminus et erunt omnes superbi et omnes facientes impietatem stipula et inflammabit eos dies ueniens dicit Dominus exercituum quae non relinquet eis radicem et germen

In this verse there is little divergence between the VL and the Vg, moreover, there is no exact parallel to the text we have here in Gildas; however, the inclusion of Domini in dies Domini indicates that Gildas’s text is related the VL; while his use of Dominus exercituum rather than omnipotens tends towards the Vg.136 We do not have a sufficient sample, at this point, to determine which strand was dominant, but what we have points to a very mixed text of Malachi.

DEB LIX Notwithstanding the work of Williams on the text of Job which showed that Gildas was reading a pre-Hieronymian text,137 the texts are studied here again not only for completeness, but because Williams compared Gildas to Jerome’s first revision of the LXX rather than the Vg.138 While the difference between Gildas and Jerome’s revision is mainly a matter of the ‘700 or 800 lines that are missing from the text read in public’;139 the difference between Gildas’s text and that of the Vg is much more marked.

Williams, 127, n. 4 noted that Gildas used exercituum which departed from the

136

LXX.

Williams,129-32. Note the comment by Burkitt (1934), 209: ‘The citations of Job, which all occur in § 59, merit particular attention, because they seem to represent the original text of which Jerome made a revision.’ 139 Jerome, Prologus in libro Iob, Vg, 731. 137

138

236

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

This study is fully in agreement with Williams’ central conclusion: Gildas was using a text of Job that had not been affected by either the Jerome’s first revision or by the Vg. 257T. Job 21:7-13 Gildas

Vg

propter quid impii uiuunt et senuerunt inhoneste et semen eorum secundum desiderium eorum, et filii eorum ante conspectum eorum et domus eorum fructuosae sunt et timor numquam et plaga Domini est super eos uacca eorum non abortiuit et praegnans eorum pertulit partum et non errauit sed permanet sicut oues aeternae et pueri eorum gaudent

quare ergo impii uiuunt subleuati sunt confortatique diuitiis semen eorum permanet coram eis propinquorum turba et nepotum in conspectu eorum domus eorum securae sunt et pacatae et non est uirga Dei super illos

et psalterium sumentes et citharam finierunt in bonis uitam suam in requiem inferorum dormierunt

bos eorum concepit et non abortit uacca peperit et non est priuata fetu suo egrediuntur quasi greges paruuli eorum et infantes eorum exultant lusibus tenent tympanum et citharam et gaudent ad sonitum organi ducunt in bonis dies suos et in puncto ad inferna descendunt

258T. Job 21:17-20 Gildas

Vg

sed lucerna impiorum extinguetur et superueniet eis euersio

quotiens lucerna impiorum extinguetur et superueniet eis inundatio et dolores diuidet furoris sui

et dolores tamquam parturientis eos ab ira tenebunt et erunt sicut paleae a uento et sicut puluis quem abstulit turbo deficiant filiis eius bona uideant oculi eius occisionem suam nec a Domino resaluetur

erunt sicut paleae ante faciem uenti et sicut fauilla quam turbo dispergit Deus seruabit filiis illius dolorem patris et cum reddiderit tunc sciet uidebunt oculi eius interfectionem suam et de furore Omnipotentis bibet

237

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

These two testimonia, 257 and 258, form a couplet in the Book of Job just as they do here: the first is the apparent success of the wicked and the latter is Job’s reply that the plans of the wicked are repugnant to him (21:16) which is here interpreted as the divine reply. By arranging the text in this way with the short connecting sentence, Numquid Deus facta impiorum non respicit?, Gildas provides a key to reading this difficult text and for seeing the character Job – sanctus Iob – as being the mouthpiece of God. The arrangement of the text is further evidence that Gildas was extracting his texts from the Scriptures and not from a pre-existing collection. 259T. Job 24:2-7 Gildas

Vg

qui gregem cum pastore rapuerunt

alii terminos transtulerunt diripuerunt greges et pauerunt eos asinum pupillorum abigerunt et abstulerunt pro pignore bouem uiduae subuerterunt pauperum uiam et oppresserunt pariter mansuetos terrae alii quasi onagri in deserto egrediuntur ad opus suum uigilantesque ad praedam praeparant panem liberis agrum non suum demetunt

[not in VL] et iumentum orfanorum abduxerunt et bouum uiduae pignauerunt et declinauerunt impotentes a uia necessitatis [not in VL]

agrum ante tempus non suum demessi sunt pauperes potentium uineas sine mercede et sine cibo operati sunt nudos multos dormire fecerunt sine uestimentis tegmen animae eorum abstulerunt

et uineam eius quem ui oppresserunt uindemiant nudos dimittunt homines indumenta tollentes quibus non est operimentum in frigore

In the VL, this testimonium is continuous text. 260A. Job 24:16-7 Gildas concluded 259 and introduced 260 with this connecting phrase: et post pauca, cum ergo sciret eorum opera, tradidit eos in tenebras. This is an allusion to Job 24:16-7 (which is present in the VL) and, again, demonstrates that Gildas was working with the whole text, and not just excerpts.

238

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

261T. Job 24:18 and 20-4 Gildas

Vg

[not in VL] maledicatur ergo pars eius a terra pareant plantations eius aridae

leuis est super faciem aquae maledicta sit pars eius in terra

retribuatur ergo illi sicut egit contribuletur omnis iniquus sicut lignum sine sanitate in iracundia enim surgens impotentem euertit proterea enim non credet de uita sua cum infirmari coeperit non speret sanitatem, sed cadet in languorum multos enim laesit superbia eius, et marcidus factus est sicut malua in aestu, uelut spica, cum de stipula sua decidit

nec ambulet per uiam uinearum ad nimium calorem transeat ab aquis niuium et usque ad inferos peccatum illius obliuiscatur eius misericordia dulcedo illius uermes non sit in recordatione sed conteratur quasi lignum infructuosum pauit enim sterilem et quae non parit et uiduae bene non fecit detraxit fortes in fortitudine sua et cum steterit non credet uitae suae dedit ei Deus locum paenitentiae et ille abutitur eo in superbiam oculi autem eius sunt in uiis illius eleuati sunt ad modicum et non subsistent et humiliabuntur sicut omnia et auferentur et sicut summitates spicarum conterentur

In the VL, this testimonium is continuous text (there is no VL equivalent to Job 24:19). 262T. Job 27:14-6 Gildas

Vg

Quod si multi fuerint filii eius in occisionem erunt [not in VL]

si multiplicati fuerint filii eius in gladio erunt et nepotes eius non saturabuntur pane qui reliqui fuerint ex eo sepelientur in interitu et uiduae illius non plorabunt si conportauerit quasi terram argentum et sicut lutum praeparauerit uestimenta [not in Vg]

quod et si collexerit ut terram argentum et similiter ut lutum parauerit aurum haec omnia iusti consequuntur

239

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

In the VL, this testimonium is continuous text; so, clearly, Gildas is using it from such a source.

DEB LX This chapter is defined in the editions by two excerpts from 4 Esdras. Consequently, it has attracted much attention in terms of Gildas’s canon, the attitude to the Scriptures in the church to which Gildas belonged, and that church’s possible relationships to other churches.140 These issues will not be touched on here but are dealt with under the appropriate headings in the body of the book. Only one of the issues discussed by Williams will be examined here: the relationship of Gildas’s text to those found in the edition of R.L. Bensly.141 This edition, which appeared only a couple of years before Williams finished his work is still the basis of all modern work on 4 Esd142 and the source of the text printed in the appendix to Vg. 263A. 4 Esd 14:45-7 and Neh 8:1-8 Gildas refers to Ezra as ‘that collection of books of the law’ (ille bibliotheca legis) which is an allusion to the final oracular scene in the original Jewish text of 4 Esdras. This in turn is a reminiscence of the events surrounding Ezra recounted in Neh 8:1-8.

See the excursus on these issues in Williams, 132-8. Bensly (1895). 142 See Metzger (1983), 518. 140 141

240

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

264T. 4 Esd 15:21-7.143 Gildas

Common Latin text

haec dicit Dominus Deus, non parcet dextera mea super peccantes nec cessabit romphea super effundentes sanguinem innocuum super terram exibit ignis ab ira mea et deuorabit fundamenta terrae et peccatores quasi stramen incensum uae eis qui peccant et non obseruant mandata mea dicit Dominus non parcam illis discedite filii apostatae et nolite contaminare sanctificationem meam nouit Deus qui peccant in eum propterea tradet eos in mortem et in occasionem iam enim uenerunt super orbem terrarum mala multa

haec dicit Dominus Deus, non parcet dextera mea super peccantes nec cessabit romphea super effundentes sanguinem innocuum super terram et exiit ignis ab ira eius et deuorauit fundamenta terrae et peccatores quasi stramen incensum uae eis qui peccant et non obseruant mandata mea dicit Dominus non parcam illis discedite filii apostatae nolite contaminare sanctificationem meam nouit Deus qui peccant in eum propterea tradet eos in mortem et in occasionem iam enim uenerunt super orbem terrarum mala

Both Mommsen and Williams edit the opening line of this testimonium as haec dicit Dominus meus while noting that manuscript P has Deus which is the reading of 4 Esd, and should be preferred. Bensly (1895), 74 used the text of Gildas as part of his editorial process; sometimes agreeing with the variants found in the Gildas-tradition, and sometimes rejecting them. The result is that one can easily argue in a circle in opting for one reading rather than another; suffice to say that in the case of this testimonium, as with the other biblical sources cited by Gildas, his text was not without its textual peculiarities.

143 Both Mommsen and Williams cite this quotation as beginning at 15:22 (see the marginal number in Bensly (1895), 74); but the correct verse numeration, followed here, is found in Vg, 1968.

241

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

265T. 4 Esd 16:3-12 Common text

Gildas

missus est uobis gladius et quis est qui auertat illum missus es uobis ignis et quis est qui extinguat illum missa sunt uobis mala et quis est qui repellat ea numquid repellet aliquis leonem esurientem in silua aut extinguet ignem in stipula mox quae coeperit ardere

inmissus est gladius uobis

aut numquid repellet sagittam a sagittario forti missam Dominus Deus mittit mala et quis repellet ea exiet ignis ex iracundia eius et quis est qui extinguat eum coruscabit et quis non timebit tonabit et quis non urguebit Dominus comminabitur quis non funditus onteretur a facie ipsius terra tremuit et fundamenta eius mare fluctuatur de profundo

Amiens Codex

inmissus est gladius uobis et quis est qui auertat eum inmissus es uobis ignis ignis et quis est qui extinguat [et quis est qui eum extinguat eum inmissa sunt uobis mala] inmissa sunt uobis mala et quis est qui recutiet ea et quis est qui recutiet ea numquid recutiet numquid recutiet aliquis aliquis leonem leonem esurientem in esurientem in silua silua aut numquid extinguet aut numquid extinguet ignem ignem cum stamen incensum cum stamen incensum fuerit fuerit aut numquid recutiet sagittam inmissam a sagittario forte Dominus Deus mittit Dominus Deus mittit mala mala et quis est qui recutiet ea et quis recutiet ea et exiet ignis ex et exiet ignis ex iracundia eius iracundia eius et quis est qui extinguat et quis est qui extinguat eum eum coruscabit coruscabit et quis non timebit et quis non timebit tonabit tonabit et quis non horrebit et quis non horrebit Dominus comminatur Dominus quis non conterretur a comminabitur facie eius quis non terrebitur a facie eius tremet terra a tremet terra a fundamenta fundamento eius maris fluctuantur de Mare fluctuatur de profundo profundo

242

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

By paralleling these texts as we have done here it becomes clear at once that Gildas’s text is closely akin to that found in the ninth-century Corbie manuscript now Amiens, B.M. 10. The differences between the two texts are far less significant than Mommsen’s edition would suggest at first sight. (1) Gildas’s opening line produces the nonsense inmissus est gladius uobis ignis. This is an omission by homoeoteleuton and the text should be restored from the Amiens’ text. (2) The edition then reads et quis est qui recutiet ea which clearly points to something missing between this and the previous sentence. Here Mommsen has followed the majority of the manuscripts against manuscript A which alone has the text as we find it in Amiens; once again the omission can be explained by homoeoteleuton. Again, the text of Gildas should be restored by following A. (3) Gildas omits aut numquid recutiet sagittam inmissam a sagittario forte which could be another homoeoteleuton or an instance where Gildas deliberately contracted what is, in effect, just another variation on a theme already set forth twice – there are other examples of Gildas silently shortening texts. This gap should be indicated in an edition. (4) Gildas reads et quis est qui recutiet where Amiens et quis recutiet. This pleonasm is probably due to harmonization with the similar phrase in the next verse. (5) The other variations: comminabitur / comminatur; terrebitur / conterretur; fundamenta maris fluctuantur / fundamento eius, mare fluctuatur point to variants between Gildas’s text and the tradition of texts within which the Amiens’ text stands. We should read this testimonium in Gildas thus: inmissus est gladius uobis ignis et quis est qui extinguat eum inmissa sunt uobis mala et quis est qui recutiet ea numquid recutiet aliquis leonem esurientem in silua aut numquid extinguet ignem cum stamen incensum fuerit […] Dominus Deus mittit mala et quis recutiet ea et exiet ignis ex iracundia eius et quis est qui extinguat eum coruscabit et quis non timebit tonabit et quis non horrebit Dominus comminabitur quis non terrebitur a facie eius tremet terra a fundamenta maris fluctuantur de profundo.

243

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LXI 266A. Ez 1:5-11; and 10:14 Gildas prefaces his testimonia from Ezekiel with a reference to him as the prophet who foresaw the four animals and so the four gospels. Before making mention of the imagery, the most important aspect for understanding Gildas’s attitude (and that of other theologians in the sixth century) to Scripture is that for him it is a matter of prophecy that there should be four and only four gospels, and then the fact of the four gospels is the fulfilment of this prophecy. The ‘fourness’ of the gospels is not for Gildas, as it was for the writers up to the early fifth century,144 a matter for defence or explanation, but rather a consistent part of the whole process of revelation. In this Gildas is at one with later theologians (e.g. Isidore, or, in an insular context, Ailerán) rather than with those who went before him. The symbolization of the gospel writers, and so their books, with references to the various biblical groups of four (such as the four animals145 of Apoc 4:6-10 and 7:11) was not as clear cut as many historians of iconography suggest. The earliest attestation to the link between the vision of Ezekiel, the four animals around the heavenly throne in Apoc, and the four evangelists (and other sets of four) is to be found in Irenaeus of Lyons, Aduersus haereses 3,11,8; but, as with many exegetical items in Irenaeus, this linkage may be older and simply be recorded by him as the tradition of the churches. The linkages did not form a stable system: there were several systems for linking individual images with particular evangelists.146 Augustine, for example, takes issue (De consensus euangelistarum 1,6,9) with the most common set which he encountered in his milieu. Augustine proposed to link Matthew with a lion, Mark with a man, Luke with a calf, and John with an eagle, and gave his own rationale for these choices.147 Since there were, at least, two other ways of linking these two sets of four (one coming from Irenaeus, another from Jerome), and there were partial overlaps between all three sets of links, it is not surprising that this matter remained a matter of debate among exegetes.148 However, while the individual links might have been disputed, the key to the whole was, as we see here in Gildas, the conviction that the four images related to the four gospels within the dominant theological paradigm of prophecy–fulfilment. See O’Loughlin (2010b), 1-6. Scripture scholars object that ‘animal’ is not an adequate translation of zóon, but I am retaining the usage as the Vg renders this as animal. 146 This is pointed out by Williams, 141-3, n.18. 147 See O’Loughlin (2010c). 148 The most comprehensive treatment of this problem is still that found in Schaff (1883), vol. 2, 585–9; and cf. Hengel (2000), 215 and 236. 144 145

244

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

267A. Is 28:22-3 The word attendite is used on several occasions in the prophets to call attention to divine threats of punishment. The most notable is in Is 28:22 (and this fits with our context): ‘Now therefore do not scoff, or your bonds will be made stronger; for I have heard a decree of destruction from the Lord God of hosts upon the whole land. Listen (adtentite), and hear my voice; Pay attention, and hear my speech.’ There is the possibility that this word was used in the liturgy, with which Gildas was familiar, prior to the readings. Williams has a marginal reference to ‘Ezech. i, 23’ at this point, but this must be an error – possibly a slip for Is 28:23. 268A. Ez 9:8-9; and Lk 23:28 Gildas introduces his first testimonium from Ez with this remark which sets it in context: cui primum Dominus miserabiliter plagam Israel deflenti ait. This refers to Ez 9:8-9: et caede conpleta remansi ego ruique super faciem meam et clamans aio heu heu heu Domine Deus ergone disperdes omnes reliquias Israhel effundens furorem tuum super Hierusalem; et dixit ad me: [269T]. However, the prophet cries out (clamans) for Jerusalem, the text does not say that he sheds tears for the city about to be scourged. The image of tears is a conflation with Jesus crying ( flere) over the city in Lk 23:28. 269T. Ez 9:9-10 Gildas

Vg

iniquitas domus Israel et Iuda inualuit nimis quia impleta est terra populis multis et ciuitas impleta est iniquitate et inmunditia

iniquitas domus Israhel et Iuda magna est nimis ualde et repleta est terra sanguinibus et ciuitas repleta est auersione

Ecce ego sum non parcet oculus meus neque miserebor

dixerunt enim dereliquit Dominus terram et Dominus non uidet igitur et meus non parcet oculus neque miserebor

Gildas’s text is the VL, but he has silently omitted a part of the text, while conflating it with other passages. In the final phrase Gildas has linked in the text of Ez 5:8-11. From 5:8 he has ecce ego (… haec dicit Dominus Deus ecce ego ad te …) and has been led to this because this divine utterance also ends with et non parcet oculus meus et non miserebor (5:11). However, ecce ego has led Gildas to extend the designation to ecce ego sum which is found only in Is 6:8 and Acts 10:21.

245

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

On the basis of the text cited we can assert that Gildas was citing from a VL text; moreover, because of the omission and the way that the catch-word has led to two levels of conflation, that he was citing from memory. 270T. Ez 7:23-5 Gildas

Vg

quoniam terra plena populis

quoniam terra plena est iudicio sanguinum et ciuitas plena iniquitate et adducam pessimos de gentibus et possidebunt domos eorum et quiescere faciam superbiam potentium et possidebunt sanctuaria eorum angustia superueniente requirent pacem et non erit

et ciuitas plena iniquitate est et auertam impetum uirtutis eorum et polluentur sancta eorum exoratio ueniet et quaerent pacem et non erit

Gildas’s text is VL. This testimonium is introduced by Gildas with ‘et infra’ while, in fact, this verse comes before 269T. This could be a slip of memory – correct sequences are often confused in memory – but it could point to his manner of composition. He searched the Scriptures and noted his testimonia as snippets of text and then arranged them, and this seemed to flow from 269T as a rationale. 271T. Ez 14:12-6 Gildas

Vg

factus est sermo Domini ad me dicens fili hominis terra quae peccauerit mihi ut delinquat delictum extendam manum meam et conteram eius firmamentum panis et emittam in eam famem et tollam de ea hominem et pecora et si sint tres uiri isti in medio eius Noe Daniel et Iob non liberabunt eam sed ipsi in sua iustitia salui erunt

et factus est sermo Domini ad me dicens fili hominis terra cum peccauerit mihi ut praeuaricetur praeuaricans extendam manum meam super eam et conteram uirgam panis eius et inmittam in eam famem et interficiam de ea hominem et iumentum et si fuerint tres uiri isti in medio eius Noe Danihel et Iob ipsi iustitia sua liberabunt animas suas

246

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg

ait Dominus quod si etiam bestias malas inducam super terram et puniam illam et erit in exterminium et non erit qui iter faciat a facie bestiarum et tres uiri isti in medio eius sint uiuo ego dicit Dominus si filii nec filiae eius liberabuntur sed ipsi soli salui erunt terra autem erit in interitum

ait Dominus exercituum quod si et bestias pessimas induxero super terram ut uastem eam et fuerit inuia eo quod non sit pertransiens propter bestias tres uiri isti qui fuerint in ea uiuo ego dicit Dominus Deus quia nec filios nec filias liberabunt sed ipsi soli liberabuntur terra autem desolabitur

Gildas’s text is VL although it does not match any other VL witness in the VLD exactly. This testimonium contains a verse that gained notoriety in the later fourth century in disputes over justification because of its implication that by their righteousness (VL: in sua iustitia / Vg: iustitia sua) the three paragons of virtue, Noah, Daniel, and Job were saved / saved themselves (VL: salui erant / and more problematically, but being far closer to the Hebrew, the Vg: liberabunt animas suas). Augustine (e.g. in Quaestionum euangeliorum 1,3,2), and then in the tradition that picked up the text from him (e.g. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob, 1), returned again and again to this text in order, firstly, to provide it with an exegesis that was consistent with his theology of grace, and, secondly, to ascertain how these particular men each signified/represented/personified a class (genus) of human being.149 However, Gildas used the verse without any hint of these issues. 272T. Ez 18:20-4 Gildas

Vg

filius non accipiet iniustitiam patris neque pater non accipiet iniustitiam filii iustitia iusti super iustum erit et iniquus si auertat se ab omnibus iniquitatibus quas fecit et custodiat omnia mandata mea et faciat iustitiam et misericordiam multam

filius non portabit iniquitatem patris et pater non portabit iniquitatem filii iustitia iusti super eum erit et impietas impii erit super eum si autem impius egerit paenitentiam ab omnibus peccatis suis quae operatus est et custodierit uniuersa praecepta mea et fecerit iudicium et iustitiam

See Chatillon (1954) on the patristic debate; and Greenberg (1983), 257-8.

149

247

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg

uita uiuet et non morietur omnia delicta eius quaecumque fecit, non erunt in sua iustitia quam fecit uita uiuet numquid uoluntate uolo mortem iniusti dicit Dominus quam ut auertat se a uia sua mala et uiuat cum se autem conuerterit iustus a iustitia sua et fecerit iniquitatem secundum omnes iniquitates quas fecit iniquus omnes iustitiae quas fecit non erunt in memoria in delicto suo quo excidit et in peccatis suis quibus peccauit morietur

uita uiuet non morietur omnium iniquitatum eius quas operatus est non recordabor in iustitia sua quam operatus est uiuet numquid uoluntatis meae est mors impii dicit Dominus Deus et non ut conuertatur a uiis suis et uiuat si autem auerterit se iustus a iustitia sua et fecerit iniquitatem secundum omnes abominations quas operari solet impius numquid uiuet omnes iustitiae eius quas fecerat non recordabuntur in praeuaricatione qua praeuaricatus est et in peccato suo quod peccauit in ipsis morietur

Gildas’s text is VL although it does not match any other VL witness in the VLD exactly. Ez 18:23 is one of the quotations from Ezekiel most often used in preaching and theology, and so it is no surprise to find it here as it is a key text (usually linked with other parallel texts such as Ez 18:32 and 33:11) in any theology of reconciliation that wishes to have a forgiving God who at the same time punishes or lets punishment occur. However, while Gildas is obviously aware of its importance, it is notable that he cites the testimonium without comment.150 273T. Ez 39:23-4 Gildas

Vg

et scient omnes gentes quia propter peccata sua captiui ducti sunt domus Israhel

et scient gentes quoniam in iniquitate sua capta sit domus Israhel

150

See 95C and 228A above, and 544E below, where this theme is examined.

248

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg

eo quod reliquerunt me et auerti faciem meam ab eis et tradidi eos in manus inimicorum eius et omnes gladio ceciderunt secundum inmunditias suas et secundum iniquitates suas feci illis et auerti faciem meam ab eis

eo quod reliquerint me et absconderim faciem meam ab eis et tradiderim eos in manu hostium et ceciderint in gladio uniuersi iuxta inmunditiam eorum et scelus feci eis et abscondi faciem meam ab illis

Gildas’s text is VL.

DEB LXII 274C. Mt 23:4 At this point in the DEB Gildas explicitly changes his tone. With an elegant word-play, non minus quam minas, he moves from the threats of the prophets to their words of encouragement, and uses this change in tone to introduce the Wisdom of Solomon. Solomon was regarded – as writers on the canon before and after Gildas did likewise151 – as a prophet, but one who offered encouragement in the task of conversion (introduced in DEB LXI with the attitude of Ezekiel and his testimonia). However, Gildas adds further justification for his change of tone by an appeal to the teaching of Jesus in Mt 23:4. Gildas

Vg

ne dicant me grauia et inportabilia in humeros hominum uerborum onera uelle imponere digito autem meo ea id est: consolatorio affatu nolle mouere

alligant autem onera grauia et inportabilia et inponunt in umeros hominum digito autem suo nolunt ea mouere

The VL and Vg do not differ in this verse, so the departures from the scriptural text can be seen as Gildas adapting the text to his own situation as can be seen by his explanation of what moving a finger means in this context: offering a word of consolation. By using this quotation from the gospels to describe his own work, Gildas is showing himself as one who sits in ‘the seat of Moses’ and offers judgement 151

See O’Loughlin (2009a); this was recognised by Williams, 144, n. 1.

249

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

– and so, like the scribes and Pharisees, is someone who is properly appointed to the task of interpreting the law and offering judgement, but he is not doing this like those who are condemned in the gospels (Mt 23 and Lk 11:46 more trenchantly152), but in the correct way: if he must lay the burden of the law, he follows it himself and helps others with their burdens, and he does this by offering the words that follow. It is worth noting that this verse also plays a role in Cassian, Conlationes 14,9,6; and in the Collectio canonum hibernensis 38,4, e (which cites the Lukan form) relating this to being part of the work of doctores. 275T and 276A. Wis 1:1 and Ps 118:34 / 2 Chr 34:31 This testimonium – explicitly referred to as such by Gildas – is the beginning of a running commentary on the opening verses of Wis 1:1-7. Gildas comments on the most of the text; and those parts of the text which he does not cite are placed in bold: 1:1 diligite iustitiam qui iudicatis terram sentite de Domino in bonitate et in simplicitate cordis quaerite illum 1:2 quoniam inuenitur ab his qui non temptant illum apparet autem eis qui fidem habent in illum 1:3 peruersae enim cogitationes separant a Deo probata autem uirtus corripit insipientes 1:4  quoniam in maliuolam animam non intrabit sapientia nec habitabit in corpore subdito peccatis 1:5 sanctus enim spiritus disciplinae effugiet fictum et auferet se a cogitationibus quae sunt sine intellectu et corripietur superueniente iniquitate 1:6  benignus est enim spiritus sapientiae et non liberabit maledictum a labiis suis quoniam renum illius testis est Deus et cordis eius scrutator est uerus et linguae illius auditor 1:7 quoniam spiritus Domini repleuit orbem terrarum et hoc quod continet omnia scientiam habet uocis The texts of Wis in the VL and the Vg are almost identical; and Gildas’s text will only be noted in so far as it departs from that printed in Vg. Gildas treats Wis 1:1 as the key to how kings should rule: it is the core of his teaching on kingship, and he expresses this by an exegesis based on the notion of ‘keeping it with all one’s heart’ (a notion expressed in 2 Chr 34:31 and Ps 118:34). The notion of total dedication expressed by the term ‘with the whole heart’ is found throughout the Scriptures.153 The notion of ‘loving justice’ is also found in Ps 32:5 and Ps 44:8; and so would have been a theme that resonated strongly in Gildas’s memory. There is no evidence of a textual influence from Lk in the text. See 289A below for another example.

152 153

250

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

277T. Wis 1:1 Gildas has seruite while the scriptural text has sentite (a variant not otherwise attested: see Thiele (1977), 245-6). This variation may have been in his text, but, more probably, is the result of a silent conflation by Gildas of Wis 1:1 with a phrase found in the Psalms: seruite Domino in timore et exultate in tremore (2:11); or seruite Domino in laetitia ingredimini coram eo in laude (99:2). Gildas’s text also reads eum rather than illum which is a well attested variant showing the influence of the VL (Thiele (1977), 247). 278T. Wis 1:2 Gildas’s text reads habent in eum rather than habent in illum which is a well attested variant showing the influence of the VL (Thiele (1977), 247-8). 278A bis. Jer 18:17 Gildas’s link between his citations from Wisdom contains the phrase dorsum uersant et non faciem which is an echo of Jer 18:17: dorsum et non faciem ostendam eis in die perditionis eorum. 279T. Wis 1:3 Gildas’s text, peruersae enim cogitationes separant a Deo is identical with both VL and Vg: see Thiele (1977), 247-9. 280T. Wis 1:5 The VL and Vg readings are, de facto, identical here; and Gildas’s variant spiritus autem sanctus for sanctus enim spiritus is not only common, but common in both versions (see Thiele (1977), 251-2); so this citation does not help answer the question of which version Gildas was using. In common with the Christian reading of the Book of Wisdom, Gildas identifies the ‘holy attitude of discipline’ as the Holy Spirit: discipline is then understood as one of the gifts which are manifestations of ‘the greater gift’: the gift of the presence of the Spirit in the heart of the Christian, and this gift is that of the solus uerax: the Spirit of truth. 281A. Jn 14:17, 15:26, and 16:13 In making the link between the spiritus of the Book of Wisdom and the Holy Spirit, Gildas is following the common pattern of the Christian tradition. However, in identifying the Holy Spirit as ‘the Spirit of truth’ Gildas is invoking an image from Jn, which was developed by linking those verses with 1 Jn 5:6 and Apoc 19:11. 282T. Wis 1:7 The VL, Vg, and Gildas’s text are identical (see Thiele (1977), 255-6).

251

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

This verse repeats, and so reinforces, the previous testimonium. We see here Gildas’s manner of repeating similar verses with the intention that by repeating the idea its authenticity as an expression of the divine will is demonstrated. This is one of the most cited verses from the Book of Wisdom among the fathers where it was used to demonstrate the inter-relationship of the Spirit’s divinity and ubiquity.154 However, here Gildas uses it simply to buttress Wis 1:5 as part of his moral argument, without comment on its larger significance. 283T. Wis 5:15-7 Gildas departs from the text of Vg (when it is distinct from the VL as in 5:15) in these cases (in bold): 5:15  quoniam spes impii tamquam lanugo est quae a uento tollitur et tamquam spuma gracilis quae a procella dispergitur et tamquam fumus qui a uento diffusus est Gildas inverts the order of the clauses: et tamquam fumus qui a uento diffusus est et tamquam spuma gracilis quae a procella dispergitur (this inversion is only found in Gildas: see Thiele (1977), 338). et tamquam memoria hospitis unius diei praetereuntis 5:16 iusti autem in perpetuum uiuent et apud Dominum (Gildas: Deum) est merces eorum et cogitatio illorum apud Altissimum 5:17 ideo accipient regnum decoris et diadema speciei de manu Domini quoniam dextera sua teget [Gildas: proteget] eos et brachio [Gildas adds: sancto] suo defendet illos (the use of proteget and the addition of sancto are found elsewhere in the tradition and are due to conflations with other biblical expressions: see Thiele (1977), 339-40). 284T. 1 Sam 2:30 Gildas

Vg

eos qui honorant me honorabo et qui me spernunt erunt ignobiles

quicumque glorificauerit me glorificabo eum qui autem contemnunt me erunt ignobiles

Gildas is citing a VL version; however, there is no witness in the VLD which has the text in this exact form. Gildas also uses this text in DEB LXXVI (384T) in another form and Williams used this text as an exemplary text in his discussion of Gildas’s relation to the Vg.155 Because of the differences between 154 There is no full study of this verse within the history of theology, however, a survey of its importance can be made by consulting the commentary by Cornelius à Lapide (1567-1637) on Wis: à Lapide (1875), 751-2. 155 Williams, 93-4.

252

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

these two uses of 2 Sam 2:30 we cannot simply accept the suggestion that this is a quotation from Lucifer of Cagliari, De Athanasio 1,10, but it may be that this is a remembered form of a verse already thought of by Gildas in relation to that source.156 This is examined in detail in ch. 3, 6, Case 8 where it is concluded that Lucifer’s works were not an influence in any way on Gildas. The theme of 283T and 284T has to be studied in conjunction with a similar doublet of the fates of the just and the wicked found in Mt 10:32-3.

DEB LXIII 285T. Wis 6:2-11 Gildas

Vg

audite omnes reges et intellegite discite iudices finium terrae ……… horrende et celeriter apparebit uobis quoniam iudicium durissimum his qui praesunt fiet exiguis enim conceditur misericordia … non enim personas subtrahet qui est dominator nec reuerebitur magnitudinem cuiusquam …… ad uos ergo reges hi sunt sermones mei ut discatis sapientiam et non decidatis … et qui didicerint sancta sanctificabuntur

audite ergo reges et intellegite discite iudices finium terrae ……… horrende et cito apparebit uobis quoniam iudicium durissimum in his qui praesunt fiet exiguo enim conceditur misericordia … non enim subtrahet personam cuiusquam Dominus nec reuerebitur magnitudinem cuiusquam …… ad uos ergo reges sunt hi sermones mei ut discatis sapientiam et non excidatis … et qui didicerint ista inuenient quid respondeant

Two of these variants, namely the addition of omnes and the use of decidatis, are found only in Gildas (see Thiele (1977), 344 and 351). However, the other variants relate to a VL influence in his text (see Thiele (1977), 347, 348, 349, and 351).157 See Burkitt (1934), 207. Burkitt (1934) 210-11 saw significance in the use of ‘dominator’ as a literal rendering of the Greek, but this argument has been superseded by the work of Thiele. 156 157

253

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LXIV 286C. Sir 21:2-3 Gildas

Vg

quasi a facie colubri fuge peccata si accesseris ad illa te suscipient dentes leonis dentes eius interficientes animas hominum

quasi a facie colubri fuge peccata et si accesseris ad illa suscipient te dentes leonis dentes eius interficientes animas hominum

There is agreement between Gildas’s text and the Vg: Gildas’s inversion of suscipient te is proper to him (see Thiele (1987), 584). 287C. Sir 17:28 Gildas

Vg

quam magna misericordia Domini et propitiatio eius conuertentibus ad se

quam magna misericordia Dei et propitiatio illius conuertentibus ad se

There are slight disagreements between Gildas’s text and the received text. The interchange of Dei / Domini is widely attested – the confusion of the nomina sacra, so, although Domini is the VL reading, this difference is not indicative of which version Gildas was using. The use of eius for illius is only found in Gildas: see Thiele (1987), 506. 288C. Rom 9:3 Gildas

Vg

optabam enim anathema esse a Christo pro fratribus meis

optabam enim ipse ego anathema esse a Christo pro fratribus meis

There is no difference between the VL and the Vg in this verse. However, ipse ego is often dropped by authors before Gildas’s time so it could be that Gildas is remembering the text in a familiar form or he is citing it in a more compact way from memory. Williams’ saw in et si non habemus a striking indication of Gildas’s humility.158 The proof of this was that he added the ‘prophetic word’ (290C) to the ‘apostolic word.’ However, the fact that he uses both words indicated that Williams, 156, n. 2.

158

254

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas sees himself as possessing both the authority of the prophet and that of the apostle. Gildas is God’s messenger: he is sent and authorized to announce the divine judgement to his own people. 289A. Ps 118:34 / 2 Chr 34:31 Gildas again uses the biblical image of obeying the prophet with his ‘whole heart’; see 276A above. 290C. Mic 7:1-2 Gildas

Vg

heu quia

uae mihi quia factus sum sicut qui colligit in autumno racemos uindemiae non est botrus ad comedendum praecoquas ficus desiderauit anima mea periit sanctus de terra et rectus in hominibus non est omnes in sanguine insidiantur uir fratrem suum uenatur ad mortem

anima perit

The difference between the text found in Gildas and that in the Vg led Mommsen to suggest, he placed a ‘?’ after the citation, that the ‘prophetic word’ being cited was Jer 4:10;159 however, the similarity with Mic 7:1-3 cited in DEB LXXXVI (see 419T below), and its similarity to the LXX, led Williams to suggest that this is a quotation from Mic 7:2 – but he too left the matter as uncertain.160 However, the VLD shows that this is a distinct phrase in the VL now spread over two verses in the Vg. It occurs with several variants: the most common form is Uae mihi, anima, quia periit, but it is also sometimes found with the variants of heu me as the opening and quia perit as the conclusion. We can, therefore, be certain that the text we refer to as Mic 7:1-2 is what Gildas had in mind and that he was using a VL text of Micah. This quotation from Micah is one that had prominence in Gildas’s personal canon as he cited it twice, here and in DEB LXXXVI, and it influenced him at 80A (see above). This fondness for Mic 7 is, perhaps, not that surprising given that it is one of the ‘classical texts’ in the Scriptures for the notion that sin punishes itself.161 159 The reason Mommsen suggested this was that in Jer 4:10 there is one of the rare uses of heu, and perhaps he was influenced by the use of et iterum before 291C introducing a testimonium from Lam; however, there is no basis whatsoever for thinking that Jer 4:10 is an influence here once we recognise that Gildas is using the VL of Mic 7:1-2. 160 In the margin Williams placed a ‘?’; and see 157, n. 3. 161 See Hillers (1984), 83-6.

255

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

291C. Lam 3:40-1 Gildas

Vg

scrutemur uias nostras et quaeramus et reuertamur ad Dominum leuemus corda nostra cum manibus ad Dominum in caelo

NUN scrutemur uias nostras et quaeramus et reuertamur ad Dominum NUN leuemus corda nostra cum manibus ad Dominum in caelos

In one version of the VL there is very little difference between the VL and Vg texts in this verse; nonetheless it is clear that Gildas is using just such a VL version of the book. This section of Lamentations (our 3:1-66) is an abecedarian hymn of sixty-six lines – three lines for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet – and these letters were indicated by Jerome in the Vg. Since Gildas has quoted two of the three lines under the letter ‘nun,’ we could assume that he did not realise that the three verses, 40-41-42, formed a unit (as is obvious in the Vg). The other departure, the singular of ‘heaven’ being used in place of the plural, we can assume is a personal variant: Christians think of heaven, whatever is being translated, as a single place where God dwells (e.g. 1 Pet 1:4 among many examples) rather than ‘the heavens’ which is a Hebraism in this text in both the VL and the Vg 292C. Phil 1:8 Gildas

Vg

cupimus unumquemque uestrum in uisceribus Christi esse

testis enim mihi est Deus quomodo cupiam omnes uos in uisceribus Christi Iesu

Williams suggested that this quotation was VL.162 However, there is no VL witness that has anything like the form found here, nor is there any use recorded in the VLD which expresses it in this form. We must therefore conclude that this is a paraphrase from memory.

162

Williams, 157, n. 4.

256

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LXV 293A. Mt 14:24 The image of being thrown about by the waves is a reminiscence of the scene in Mt 14:24: nauicula autem in medio mari iactabatur fluctibus erat enim contrarius uentus. This image, with reference to a writer’s humility, is found elsewhere. It is found in both insular sources and further afield. In insular sources it can be found, inter alia, in Muirchú, Vita Patricii, prologus, 2; and that passage had been studied by Winterbottom (1976b) who pointed out that the image may be derived from Cassian’s prologue to his Conlationes.163 It is found in the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles in the Euthalian Apparatus.164 It is worthy of note that Gildas refers to the sins of bishops, other presbyters (ceterorum sacerdotum) and clerics in his own order; this taxonomy confirms what we noted earlier, that Gildas was a deacon.165 Here again Williams attempts to argue that this indicates that Gildas was a monk,166 but this not only strains the language of ordines, but misses the very obvious meaning of bishops and presbyters being grouped together as sacerdotes – because they both can offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist (see DEB LXVI167) – and then the third ‘major’ order being deacons. 294A. Dt 17:2-7 Gildas see his words as stones, and his action of writing as having the same punishing effect on sin as stoning; hence, according to the Law of Moses (secundum legem) there must be more than one witness before the death penalty is imposed. This, it might be added, is a very self-important view by the author of the effect his treatise will have on British society. 295A. Mt 10:28 The notion of killing the body while letting the soul live is derived from Mt 10:28.

Winterbottom did not mention Gildas in this article, nor link the image to the Scriptures. 164 See Willard (1970), 16. 165 See 26A, above, and DEB CVI, below. 166 Williams, 157, n. 5. 167 See Williams’ note on this on 163, n. 4. 163

257

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

296A. Rom 6:11 The image of being dead to sin but alive to God is taken from Rom 6:11: ita et uos existimate uos mortuos quidem esse peccato uiuentes autem Deo in Christo Iesu (Vg). 297A. Dt 1:17 The notion that God is impartial, he does not make any exceptio personarum, is found in many places in the Scriptures, and indeed can be seen as a ‘stock phrase’: Dt 1:17; 2 Chr 19:7; Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; Jas 2:1; and 1 Pet 1:17.

DEB LXVI 298A. Ez 34 The tone of this part of the DEB and the notion that the duly appointed prophet (Gildas) must issue a warning to the priests of the land, the shepherds of the Lord’s flock, is based on the task, propheta de pastoribus Israhel, which was given to Ezekiel. In a few instances it is possible to note how Gildas has specific parts of the prophecy in mind as he writes. 299A. Ez 38:8-9 and Jn 10:12 The image of the wicked pastors who allow wild beasts (bestiae) to attack the flock is derived from Ezek; the variation that the flock is attached by wolves due to the shepherds’ negligence is an influence from Jn 10:12. 300A. Ez 34:2 and 8 The image of the shepherds who fill their own stomachs at the expense of the flock is from Ezekiel on the wicked shepherds. Gildas contrasts Peter, and his sedes, with Judas the traitor, but apart from invoking the memory of two of the twelve, there is no specific verse in the Scriptures which forms the basis for this recollection, and it is best seen as a commonplace of Christian memory. This contrast of Peter / Judas has already been used by Gildas in DEB 2 (26A) and will be used again in DEB 67 (309A). 301A. Dt 30:14-8 Gildas contrasts two ‘ways’: ‘the way of death’ and ‘the way of life.’ This is an important theme in Jewish and early Christian preaching – as found, for example, in the Didache168 – but the basis of all later use of the imagery is Dt 30.

See Draper (2006), 179; and O’Loughlin (2010d), 28-45.

168

258

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

302A. 1 Cor 11:1 The notion that the standard of holiness is set by the imitation of the apostles is based on a mosaic of texts from Paul: 1 Cor 4:16; Eph 5:1, Phil 3:17; 1 Thes 1:6; 2:14; and 2 Thes 3:7. 303A. 1 Tim 2:7 The image of Paul as the magister gentium is derived from 1 Tim 2:7. Williams pointed out that it is a favourite image of Gildas used in DEB LXXII, LXXIII, and XCVII.169 304A. 1 Tim 3:2 The notion that a cleric should be ‘irreprehensible’ is based, as Williams notes in the margin, on: oportet ergo episcopum inreprehensibilem esse unius uxoris uirum sobrium prudentem ornatum hospitalem doctorem.170 This legislation of the ‘new law’ regarding bishops is also used a few sentences later by Gildas, see 306A.

DEB LXVII 305A. Acts 8:9-24 In comparing the wicked clergy to Simon Magus, a character found in Acts 8:9-24, Gildas is using a standard biblical image which stands behind the sin of ‘simony.’ However, the development of the notion of simony as a sin belongs to period later than Gildas, so he may have been using the image for its direct appeal to his situation rather than to the image as the origin of ‘simony.’ 306A. 1 Tim 3:1 The reference to the episcopatus officium draws on the language of 1 Tim 3:1. See 304A above. 307A. Jn 8:44 The notion that these are false priests is derived their position of being a patre eorum diabolo. This image is based upon, and alludes to, the description of the devil in Jn 8:44: uos ex patre diabolo estis et desideria patris uestri uultis facere ille homicida erat ab initio et in ueritate non stetit quia non est ueritas in eo cum loquitur mendacium ex propriis loquitur quia mendax est et pater eius.

Williams, 169, n. 4. On the use of these ‘apostolic instructions’ in the insular world, see O’Loughlin (2010a). 169 170

259

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas does not see any difficulty in these being ordained clergy of the Church, and yet their ‘priesthood’ being false due to their actions: a position rejected by the Church since the mid-third century with its contention that baptism and ordination (and so the works of the ordained) are ‘valid’ irrespective of the moral condition of the person involved.171 How is this position in DEB to be accounted for? A first possibility would be that Gildas does not appreciate that this established position means that ‘priesthood’ can never be ‘false’ once someone is appropriately ordained; a second possibility would be that he believed that just as standing within the church could be lost by sin, so too could ministry; and a third is that it is a rhetorical figure to demonstrate the extremity of the situation of his Church where the ministrations of the clergy are not returning the people to God’s pleasure and protection. This third position is the most probable because (1) it is hard to imagine any cleric not being aware of the ‘stability’ of ordination; and (2) it would allow for these clergy to hear Gildas’s message, and repent (for Gildas never hints that having repented they need to be ordained anew). 308C. Acts 8:20 Gildas cites the verse following the Vg. This is the curse uttered by Peter in response to the bid made by Simon Magus for apostolic power. As such, it is the culmination of the theme introduced at the beginning of this section (305A). This verse is the actual condemnation of the crime, and it is so cited in the Collectio canonum hibernensis 2,13. Interestingly, however, here its authority is seen to come from its author in action: Peter; whereas in the Collectio it comes from its textual author and its location in an authoritative book: Lucas in Actibus apostolorum. 309A. Apoc 2:1-7; Jn 10:16; Jn 21:15-7; Mt 16:16; Mt 26:14-6; Jn 12:4-6; Acts 6:5; Acts 7:2-60; Apoc 7:9; Apoc 7:14; Apoc 2:14-5 Gildas contrasts the excellent bishops with their opposite, and the excellent deacons with their opposite. This is the quartet of Peter / Judas, and Stephen / Nicolaus.172 This same quartet is used in just this way in DEB II (26A). 310A. Mt 13:46 The pearl that is eagerly sought is an allusion to ‘the Parable of the Pearl’ in Matthew’s gospel. 311A. Lk 16:24 The image of the flammis inferni is derived from Lk 16:24. 171 This theological position is sometimes referred to by the shorthand: ‘the principle of “ex opere operato”.’ 172 Williams’ note on 170 regarding Nicolaus has been addressed at 26A above.

260

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LXVIII 312C. Tit 1:12 Gildas

Vg

bestiis uentris pigri

bestiae uentres pigri

The reading of MS A, adding pigri, is to be preferred as a more complete ‘apostolic’ image than simply bestiis uentris. It is clear from Gildas’s reference, ut dixit apostolus, that he had this verse in Titus in mind, and Williams noted that he did not cite it according to the Vg.173 However, modern research into the VL allows us to be more precise: uentres is common to both the VL and the Vg, but the variant uentris is wisely attested in both Vg manuscripts and in authors, so all we can say is that Gildas was in contact with one of these variant traditions (see Frede (1983-91), 876). The use of bestiis is only attested in Gildas. 313C. Jer 9:5 Gildas

Vg

exprobationem laborant, ut inique agant

docuerunt enim linguam suam loqui mendacium ut inique agerent laborauerunt

Gildas intends to cite a statement by a prophet and this is the only verse he could have had in mind, but, as with the previous citation, he is far from the Vg. However, Gildas is also far from any extant VL readings. In this case, it is probable safest to conclude, as did Williams, that this is a quotation altered in memory. 314A. Mt 16:18 and 2 Pet 2:4 Gildas uses the image of ‘the gates of hell’ (… id est Tartari portis …) as the destination of those following the way of wickedness, and that he intends this to be taken as a real, known destination is indicated by his use of id est glossing his statement. The image of ‘the gates of hell’ is a complex one in the history of Latin theology,174 and here Gildas is combining 2 Pet 2:4 (si enim Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercit sed rudentibus inferni detractos in tartarum tradidit in iudicium cruciatos reseruari) with the basic image from Mt 16:18 (et portae inferi non praeualebunt aduersum eam).

Williams, 173, n. 5. See O’Loughlin (1996a).

173 174

261

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

At this point in Mommsen, followed by Williams, there is a marginal note to Mt 7:16. However, this is mistaken as there is not use of, nor allusion to, Mt 7:16 by Gildas here. 315A Gildas gives as a saluatoris dictum a statement that is not found in any biblical text, but which is a medley of gospel echoes. The elements that compose it are: (1) the unhappy people (infelix populus) must flee to the mountains (that they must flee thither is implied by the comparison with Lot) (2) from the ravenous wolves (3) which are like the wolves of Arabia (4) and flee just as Lot fled Sodom to avoid its fire falling from the skies (5) for when the blind (the wicked clerics) lead the blind, both fall into the pit (6) of hell. (1) The notion of fleeing to the mountains in the time of great tribulation is based on Mt 24:16 (with parallel in Lk 21:21, and a quasi-parallel in Mk 13:14). (2) The notion that the people must flee ravenous wolves is based on Mt 7:15 where the followers of Jesus are told to flee false prophets who are lupi rapaces; and Gildas may have had the fundamental image upon which Matthew built his simile in mind also: Ez 22:27. (3) These dangerous wolves are like those of Arabia is based upon the VL form of Zeph 3:3 and Hab 1:8,175 which has added force for Gildas as he knew the more developed image of these wolves found in 1 Pet 5:8. (4) That this flight from the wicked is comparable to that of Lot from Sodom when it rained fire is based on Lk 17:28-30 (similiter sicut factum est in diebus Loth edebant et bibebant emebant et uendebant plantabant aedificabant qua die autem exiit Loth a Sodomis pluit ignem et sulphur de caelo et omnes perdidit secundum haec erit qua die Filius hominis reuelabitur); and supposed a knowledge of the story of Lot in its entirety: Gen 19:1-29.176 (5) For when the blind lead the blind, and both fall, is based on Mt 15:14 (with parallel in Lk 6:39) which is echoed in the text, but cited as a testimonium in DEB XCV (467T). Williams speculated that the form used by Gildas was probably another VL phrase: there is no parallel to Gildas’s usage in the VLD, and he cites the verse without this form, but with VL variations, in DEB XCV, and so we can conclude that this is citation from memory rather than the influence of different text.177 And (6) the pit is the pit of hell is based on 2 Pet 2:4 and Apoc 1:18, see 314A.

This was noted by Williams, 174, n. 1. To seek to give a narrower reference to Gen 19, as did Mommsen, is to fail to appreciate that this is not a direct reference to Gen but to Lk. 177 Williams, 174, n. 2. 175 176

262

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

In the manner in which Gildas brings these various apocalyptic images from the gospels together, producing a coherent image, shows not only the extent to which he had absorbed these texts, but that he read them as closely dovetailing each other without difficulty. The text of the Zeph or Hab with which Gildas was familiar was that of the VL.

DEB LXIX 316E. Heb 11:1-40 Gildas now embarks on a long series of comparisons based on an established pattern of contrasts found in Heb 11. There, in the section generally known as ‘the faith of the ancestors,’ a series of comparisons is offered by which the Christian can see the way of righteousness. This comparison stretches over DEB LXIX to LXXIII and should be seen as a single unit within the whole work with the unit being concluded by Gildas’s citation of Heb 11:37 and 38 which, in the Letter to the Hebrews, makes the key point about the series of exempla. While Gildas follows the pattern of Heb 11, he also adds additional figures and information to it, and in this he can be seen as ‘filling out’ the list of exempla following the author’s invitation in Heb 11:32: ‘And what more should I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets.’ However, Gildas shows that he has the time and provides his audience with even more detail. In only one instance does Gildas radically depart from Heb in his list of Old Testament figures and that is with his very first example: Eli. Not only does Eli not figure in Heb, but he does not figure as a ‘type’ anywhere in the canonical scriptures. Therefore, Gildas’s inclusion, more especially the fact that he places him first and, therefore, out of chronological sequence – within the chronology of the scriptures – must be seen as puzzling. The ‘faith of the ancestors’ is frequently compared with its model, ‘the praise of the ancestors’ in Sir 44:1-50:1 which would have been familiar to Gildas if only through its influence on Jerome’s De uiris illustribus,178 but there is no conclusive indication of any influence from Sir here.179

See O’Loughlin (1995b). In Sir 46:1-12 there is a survey of the works of Joshua, who is included in Gildas’s list, however, this inclusion by Gildas is better explained as his own work (hence he includes Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah and Jeremiah) than an influence. There is no similarity in content between Sir 46:1-12 and the treatment of Joshua by Gildas. 178

179

263

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

The Letter to the Hebrews

Eli Abel Enoch Noah Melchizedek Abraham not mentioned not mentioned not mentioned Joseph Moses not mentioned Phinehas Joshua

not mentioned 11:4 11:5 11:7 not mentioned 11:8 11:11: Sarah 11:20: Isaac 11:21: Jacob 11:21 11:23 11:31: Rahab not mentioned

not mentioned Jephthah Gideon Samson not mentioned Samuel Elijah Elisha Isaiah Jeremiah

11:32: Gideon 11:32: Barak 11:32: Samson 11:32: Jephthah 11:32: David 11:32: Samuel 11:32: prophets not mentioned by name not mentioned by name not mentioned by name not mentioned by name

Although it is clear that Heb 11 is Gildas’s inspiration, he adopted the formula with considerable freedom. He both added and omitted; and altered the sequence of the names in Heb 11:32 from Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel to Jephthah, Gideon, Samson, Samuel. The addition of Eli has been commented upon, but that of Melchizedek is explicable in that he is presented elsewhere in Heb (e.g. at on several occasions in ch. 7) as the ‘type’ of the priest and so is an ideal comparator for the clergy about whom Gildas complains; while Phinehas is, as Gildas makes explicit, the model for the zealous priest. The omissions are more difficult to explain: Sarah and Rahab can be excluded as women and so could not be compared with clergy, more tenuously David might be excluded as a king rather than a priest, but there is no obvious reason for the omission of Isaac and Jacob (both ‘patriarchs’) nor Barak (a judge of Israel).

264

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

All other uses of the Scriptures in DEB LXIX – LXXIII have to be seen as adding detail to the fundamental structure derived from Heb 11. 317E. 1 Sam 2:12-7; 22-5; 27-34; 3:12-4; 4:10-8 The sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas were ‘filii Belial nescientes Dominum neque officium sacerdotum ad populum’ (2:12-3) and were models of the behaviour of self-serving clergy. The particular offence of grabbing meat before it was burnt in sacrifice is mentioned in 2:15-6. When the sons eventually die in battle, long after the Lord has declared the death-sentence upon them (2:25), the news causes Eli to topple off his seat, break his neck, and die (4:18). Thus, as Gildas points out, he can be said to share in his sons’ punishment, despite the fact that he was a good servant of the Lord who had ‘judged Israel for forty years’ (iudicauit Israhel quadraginta annis) (4:18). 318E. Gen 4:4 with Heb 11:4 (and other influences) Gildas formulates one of the most complex exempla in his whole work in dealing with the sacrifice of Abel: the complexity arises from (a) his awareness that Abel’s offering (his hostia) of a firstling lamb (Gen 4:4) is a type of the Christ who is greeted as the ‘lamb of God’ (Jn 1:29) and whose own death is seen as that of a sacrificial lamb (1 Cor 5:7 and 1 Pet 1:19); and (b) that Abel’s subsequent death (Gen 4:8) was itself a type of the death of the Christ: … et testamenti noui mediatorem Iesum et sanguinis sparsionem melius loquentem quam Abel (Heb 12:24). So he needs to refer both to Abel (who in two distinct yet related ways is a type of the perfect sacrifice) while at the same time noting that as Abel’s offering was better than Cain’s, so there is a still better ‘hostia.’ This complexity is brought out by carefully rendering this sentence: Quis rogo eorum ob inuidiam melioris hostiae caelestique igni in caelis euectae ut Abel occisus as ‘Which of them, I ask you, was killed – as Abel was – from envy of a better and heavenly victim carried to heaven by fire.’ The phrase melioris hostiae is an echo of Heb 11:4: fide plurimam hostiam Abel quam Cain; while the reference to the offering being carried into the heavens by fire is a reference to the manner by which the sacrifices of the Old Law were offered as holocausts (see Lev 1:13 or Ex 29:25 for example). But while this shows a deep awareness of the place of Abel in Christian theological typology – a presence of which Gildas would have been reminded at every celebration of the Eucharist180 – he has clearly forgotten that the first altar, and hence the first burnt offering, was imagined as being after the flood: aedificauit autem Noe altare Domino et tollens de cunctis pecoribus et uolucribus mundis obtulit holocausta super altare (Gen 8:20).

180

See Hennig (1946).

265

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

319C. Ps 25:5 Gildas apparently wanted to refer to just one verse from the psalms: 25:5 which in the iuxta LXX version reads: Ps 25:5 odiui ecclesiam malignantium et cum impiis non sedebo; but, most probably, he intended to paraphrase the text as he does not give any indication that he intends to quote here but merely to evoke an echo in his listeners.181 In his question he combines this with elements from Ps 25:4 (non sedi cum concilio uanitatis et cum iniqua gerentibus non introibo) and Ps 25:9 (ne perdas cum impiis animam meam). The combination of images within a linguistic frame that everyone familiar with the psalms would have recognised gives his question added force. 320E. Gen 5:24 Gildas

Vg: Gen 5:23-4

ambulauit Enoch cum Deo et non inueniebatur

et facti sunt omnes dies Enoch trecenti sexaginta quinque anni ambulauitque cum Deo et non apparuit

Gildas cites the verse, as Williams noted,182 in a version differing from the Vg as can be seen in his use of inueniebatur. However, this may not be an indication that he was using a VL text of Genesis, or even remembering such a text, but could be contamination of his Genesis text from Heb 11:5 which reads in the Vg: fide Enoch translatus est ne uideret mortem et non inueniebatur quia transtulit illum Deus ante translationem enim testimonium habebat placuisse Deo. The omission of the enclitic –que (which is part of the VL text) is an adaptation to the context in which he was using the quotation. Likewise, Gildas’s insertion of the name of Enoch was necessary in the context. 321A. Ps 25:4 The image of stupidity as being in mundi … uanitate is an echo of Ps 25:4 used in 319C. 322A. Ez 20:16, 24, and 39 The image of stupidity as being chasing post idola is based on Ezekiel. 323A. 1 Pet 3:20-1 The image of arca Noe now being the church is a patristic commonplace, and is based in 1 Pet 3:20-1.

181

See 499T, below, which also uses Ps 25:5. Williams, 176, n. 1.

182

266

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

324E. Gen 6:13-8:1 Noah’s ark is seen as the mode by which the innocent are brought to safety. This is the perspective of Heb 11:7 of the Flood Story, but Gildas has given it his particular interpretation in that in Hebrews the innocent are those who have, like Noah, faith; wheras, for Gildas, it is those who are penitent. This should be seen as a further detail within Gildas’s theology of sin and repentance. 325E. Gen 14:1-24; 2 Pet 2:7; and Heb 7:1 Gildas’s account of Melchizedek, in the aftermath of Abraham’s battle, supposes a detailed knowledge of the whole Melchizedek story (Gen 14). As Gildas recalls it, the story has these elements: (1) Abraham was victorious with three hundred men; (2) he liberated a just man; (3) in a battle with five kings with fierce armies; (4) after which he had no desire for booty; and (5) Melchizedek offered a sacrifice and blessed Abraham. The statement that Abraham had three hundred men is simply erroneous: Gen 14:14 in all versions has him go into battle with three hundred and eighteen men. No other author can be found either with only three hundred or who draws out a ‘sacrament’ of the Trinity from this number. So how did Gildas make this mistake? Gildas tells us later (341E) that Gideon’s force of three hundred men (Jds 7:6-8) was another sign of the Trinity: clearly referring back to this exemplum involving Abraham. What appears to have happened is that in Gildas’s memory Abraham’s 318 men and Gideon’s 300 men have elided and he imagined both having the same force in a battle with gentile kings. Gildas’s memory for the details of the Old Testament narratives to which he refers is normally so accurate, that this slip is all the more remarkable, but Homer does nod! The purpose of Abraham going into battle is that he was told that Lot, his nephew, had been taken captive in the battle between the kings (Gen 14:124); and it is Lot that is the iustus to whom Gildas refers. That Lot should be referred to as a iustus is based on the fact that he is considered as worthy to escape the punishment of Sodom in the story in Gen 19; while in 2 Pet 2:7 Lot is given this designation of ‘just’: et iustum Loth oppressum a nefandorum iniuria conuersatione eruit. The story of Gen 14 – in the MT, the LXX, and all the versions – is corrupt but there is reference to a battle (or perhaps two battles separated by a dozen years) between four kings and five kings (14:2; 14:8; and 14:9).183 It is not clear which side Abraham’s people fought, but Gildas assumes that he fought with the four (Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer and Tidal) against the five (Bera, 183

On the problems of Gen 14, see Westermann (1985), 182-208.

267

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Birsha, Shinab, Shemeber and Bela). Gildas’s choice is problematic given the fact that Lot from Sodom was taken captive and Bera was king of Sodom, so it would make more sense if Abraham had fought with the five against the four. Moreover, that Chedorlaomer (one of the four) is defeated is assumed in 14:17! Where Gildas got the notion that these kings had particularly fearsome armies is unclear. One suspects that he was confused by the text and this was his best attempt to make the text coherent and comprehensible. That Abraham would not take booty is based on his reply to the king of Sodom in Gen 14:21-4. That Melchizedek offered a sacrifice and blessed Abraham is based on Gen 14:18-20. The question now arises as to why Gildas introduced Melchizedek in the aftermath of Abraham and ‘the battle of the kings’? This formulation relies on the structure by which Melchizedek in introduced in the Letter to the Hebrews 7:1 hic enim Melchisedech rex Salem sacerdos Dei summi qui obuiauit Abrahae regresso a caede regum et benedixit ei – which is echoed in Gildas’s final word: benedixit.184 However, this word is common to all the versions, and, therefore, is no help in determining which text Gildas was using: see Frede (1983-91), 1297. 326E. Gen 22:1-18; Heb 11:17 Running through the sequence of noble ancestors, Gildas comes to Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, and following the tradition of interpretation he derives from Heb 11:17, he sees that act as an actual sacrifice (Heb 11:17 following Gen 22:12 and 16) even though the victim’s blood was not spilled. That this act of Abraham was seen as a type of the sacrifice of Jesus is a much explored theme in patristic exegesis following Paul’s use of the theme in Rom 8:32; but this is not a theme which Gildas takes up. Gildas’s exegesis begins with the note that God commanded, Deo iubente, Abraham to offer Isaac (Gen 22:2) and this he did; and from this draws an example of obedience to the commands of God which is the key rationale of his work. Hence he can read Heb 11:17 ( fide obtulit Abraham Isaac cum temptaretur et unigenitum offerebat qui susceperat repromissiones) as the result of obedience, which brings the fruit of the promises being fulfilled. This notion of obedience is then further explored in the following citations. 327C. Mt 5:29 Gildas paraphrases this verse: quod si oculus tuus dexter scandalizat te erue eum et proice abs te expedit enim tibi ut pereat unum membrorum tuorum quam totum corpus tuum mittatur in gehennam; and sees the fulfilment of this state On the place of Melchizedek in the Letter to the Hebrews, see Delcor (1971); and on the theological significance of Heb 7:1, see Brooks (1970). 184

268

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

ment, read as a command, as an act of obedience with regard to sin that is similar to the command given to Abraham to sacrifice. 328C. Jer 48:10 The notion of obedience is further reinforced by his use, almost as a quotation of Jeremiah. Gildas

Vg

… maledictum esse gladium et sanguinem prohibentem

maledictus qui facit opus Domini fraudulenter et maledictus qui prohibet gladium suum a sanguine

This combination of Gen 22, Mt 5:29, and Jer 48:10 – or of any two items in this combination – is not found anywhere else in the VLD, and so we can assume that this is Gildas’s own exegetical position on the significance of the ‘Sacrifice of Isaac’ for his audience. 329E. Gen 50:15-21 Following the sequence of Heb 11 Gildas now comes to Joseph whose righteous deed is that he does not remember the crime of his brothers. In this exemplum Gildas has in mind an entire incident rather than a single verse,185 and his text shows no influence from Heb 11:21. 330E. Ex 19-20; 34:29-35; and Heb 11:27 The story’s force, as presented by Gildas, takes as its starting point the memory of the events of Exodus as recalled in Heb 11:27: fide reliquit Aegyptum non ueritus animositatem regis inuisibilem enim tamquam uidens sustinuit – unafraid he looked on the invisible. Then Gildas combines two separate stories, the two trips up the mountain before and after the Golden Calf event, into one. So Moses goes to the mountain top (Ex 19:20 and 20:21) while the people are frightened by the sound of the trumpets (Ex 19:16 and 19; and 20:18) – these are events recorded before the Golden Calf story; then he brought down two tablets but had to keep his face covered before the people (Ex 34:29-35) – details from the account after the Golden Calf episode. For Gildas, the impact of the memory of Moses is greater than the sequence of the details.

185

Mommsen and Williams specify Gen 50:19.

269

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

331C. Ex 32:31-2 Gildas

Vg

Domine, inquiens peccauit populus iste peccatum grande quod si dimittis eis, dimitte alioquin dele me de libro tuo

reuersusque ad Dominum ait obsecro peccauit populus iste peccatum magnum feceruntque sibi deos aureos aut dimitte eis hanc noxam aut si non facis dele me de libro tuo quem scripsisti

While Gildas’s text does not correspond exactly with any known version – indicating, probably, that he was quoting from memory – it is far closer to the VL text than the Vg, but there is possible contamination from Vg (his use of iste rather than hic). The VL of these verses reads: Praecor, Domine, peccauit populus hic peccatum [or delictum] magnum [or grande or grandem], et nunc, si dimittis [or remittis] eis [or illis] peccatum [or delictum], dimitte [or eorum remitte], sin autem [or alias] dele me de libro tuo.

DEB LXX 332A. 1 Mac 5:54 and Ez 38:19 Zeal is mentioned in Num 25:11 (see 333E186) as a quality of Phinehas, but as it is expressed in the opening of the exemplum by Gildas – Phinehas burning with zeal for God – he probably had in mind the memory of Phinehas’s zeal as expressed in 1 Mac 5:54: Finees pater noster zelando zelum Dei accepit testamentum sacerdotii aeterni. This image was enhanced by the link between zeal and fire found in Ez 38:19, and the notion of the righteous prophet’s zeal in 1 Kgs 19:10: zelo zelatus sum pro Domino Deo exercituum. 333E. Num 25:5-12 The exemplum of Phinehas’s murder of the man and the woman, which stops the plague and then establishes a pact of peace with God, is seen by Gildas as an instance of penitential medicine.187

Cf. also, the other mentions of Phinehas: 334C and 337E. Gildas’s exemplum assumes the knowledge of the whole story, not just v. 7 as was noted by Mommsen and Williams. 186

187

270

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Phinehas, the priest (cf. Jos 22:13, 30, 31, 32; Jds 20:28) was the model (cf. Ps 105 and 334C) of the zealous (cf. 332A) priest who intercedes for the people and delivers them from divine punishment. 334C. Ps 105:28-31 Gildas only cites v. 31 – in aeuo reputaretur illi iustitia – but has in mind the whole reference to Phinehas in the Ps (which meant that the example of Phinehas was far better known than simply the original story in Num 25). Iuxta LXX

Iuxta Hebr.

et initiati sunt Beelphegor et comederunt sacrificia mortuorum et inritauerunt eum in adinuentionibus suis et multiplicata est in eis ruina et stetit Finees et placauit et cessauit quassatio et reputatum est ei in iustitiam in generatione et generationem usque in sempiternum

et consecrati sunt Beelphegor et comederunt uictimas mortuorum et concitauerunt eum in studiis suis et percussit eos plaga stetit autem Finees et deiudicauit et est retenta percussio et reputatum est ei in iustitia in generatione et generatione usque in aeternum

Williams noted that Gildas’s in aeuo reputaretur illi iustitia does match either version found in the Vg and suspects that it is VL.188 However, it is more likely that Gildas is drawing from memory, or paraphrasing a text, a reference to someone whom he assumes his audience will recognise. 335E. Jos 3:10; Heb 11:9 The first exemplum from Joshua is his conquest of the territories from the ‘seven nations’ (gentes). These seven nations are mentioned as a group in many places in scripture (e.g. Dt 7:1), but are first mentioned in Jos at 3:10. Gildas’s statement that this land is the ‘promised land’ is, however, an echo of Heb 11:9: fide moratus est in terra repromissionis tamquam in aliena in casulis habitando cum Isaac et Iacob coheredibus repromissionis eiusdem.189 336A. Jos 24:1-31 The final phrase of the exemplum carries with it a new, and distinct, aspect of the work of Joshua: uel ad constabilisionis spiritalis Israel pro eis Iesum Naue imitatus est. This does not refer to the act of conquest and, then, the possession of God’s gift of the land, but to the new Israel that Joshua set up in the aftermath of that conquest: this, therefore, relates to the renewal of the covenant at Williams, 180, n. 1. On this use of Heb 11:9, see O’Loughlin (2005b).

188 189

271

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Shechem in Jos 24 when Israel, the people, were challenged by Joshua to: timete Dominum et seruite ei perfecto corde (24:11) in the time of peace and stability that is referred to by Gildas.190 This additional phrase shows Gildas not simply looking at the details of the Joshua story, but standing back and having an appreciation of the whole narrative / book. The key verse which forms the link with the exemplum of Joshua’s conquest is 24:11: transistisque Iordanem et uenistis ad Hiericho pugnaueruntque contra uos uiri ciuitatis eius (1) Amorreus et (2) Ferezeus et (3) Chananeus et (4) Hettheus et (5) Gergeseus et (6) Eueus et (7) Iebuseus et tradidi illos in manus uestras. The basis for the new way that Israel should live is that God has kept his promises in giving the seven gentes into their hands. 337E. Jos 13:8-32; and 22:1-34 The second exemplum involving Joshua relates to the land trans Iordanem (see Jos 22:4: in terram possessionis quam tradidit uobis Moses famulus Domini trans Iordanem), and involves Phinehas.191 This relates to the distribution of the lands in trans-Jordan to the Reubenites, Gadites, and those of the halftribe of Manassah which is narrated in Jos 13. However, the additional reference to Phinehas indicates that Gildas is linking this act of Joshua to the way he dealt with the ‘revolt’ against the Lord that forms the basis of that curious story. Once again, this shows Gildas having an overview of the whole book, and not just an awareness of the various stories as items. 338E. Jds 11:1-40 The exemplum of Jephthah, which is only mentioned in the New Testament at Heb 11:32, is focussed on his sacrifice of his only child, his daughter, as a human sacrifice to fulfil a vow.192 This part of the story, vv. 34-9, is the basis of Gildas’s concern. However, when the textual problems are borne in mind, it becomes clear that the exemplary feature he sees in Jephthah’s action is not that of sacrificing a child, but doing the will of God as seen in his obedience to his vow (11:35). As edited by Mommsen, followed by Williams, the text is not consistent – for here we have a case of Gildas giving a glossing exegesis as he proceeds through the exemplum – but a consistent text can be established by drawing on MS A, with this as the resulting text:

On the significance of the Shechem Covenant within the Joshua story, see Boling and Wright (1982), 527-45. 191 Gildas invites his audience to note that Phinehas is again involved: see 332A, 333E, and 334C. 192 There is no study, to date, of the significance of the story of Jephthah’s daughter in early Christian exegesis against which we can study Gildas’s use of the story; however, see Fuchs (1989) which examines some of the implications of the story. 190

272

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

 uis ut aduersariorum plebi Dei innumera prosterneret gentium milia, Q unicam filiam (quae propria uoluptas intellegitur) imitans in hoc Christum dicentem ‘non ueni facere uoluntatem meam’ et apostolum ‘non quaerens quod mihi utile est sed quod multis ut salui fiant,’ obuiantem uictoribus cum tympanis et choris (id est carnalibus desideriis) in sacrificium uotiuae placationis, ut Iepte, mactauit? The citation to Jn 6:38 makes sense of the text of Paul, and while it could have dropped from the text of Gildas at an early date, would be unlikely to have entered the text. 339C. Jn 6:38 Gildas

Vg

non ueni facere uoluntatem meam

quia descendi de caelo non ut faciam uoluntatem meam sed uoluntatem eius qui misit me

At first sight, Gildas’s words look like a paraphrase of the text of Jn in both the VL and the Vg However, Gildas’s form of the quotation is found in 89 out of the 220 citations of this verse in the VLD and includes such writers as Augustine (e.g. Tractates in Ioannis euangelium 25,16,23), Cassian, and ‘The Master’ who wrote the Regula magistri (and, consequently, the Regula sancti Benedicti). We should look on the form not as a distinct version, but a commonly remembered form of a popular quotation. That this verse is quoted in this popular, if textually inaccurate, form lends support to the contention that the text in MS A represents Gildas’s original text at this point. 340C. 1 Cor 10:33 Gildas

Vg

non quaerens quod mihi utile est sed quod multis ut salui fiant

non quaerens quod mihi utile est sed quod multis ut salui fiant

The VL and Vg coincide in this verse, so this citation does not contribute to our knowledge of the version used by Gildas. The combination of scriptural texts used here (Jds 11; Jn 6; and 1 Cor 10) is not found in any other author in the VLD, we can, therefore, see this as Gildas’s own exegesis, springing from the mention of Jephthah’s name in Heb 11.

273

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

341E. Jds 6:25-6; 36-40; and 7:1-22 The stories linked to Gideon form a sizable unit in Judges: 6:11 to 8:35, but Gildas is only interested in the battle with the Midianites (7:1-22) and two preliminary episodes. The following details make up his presentation of Gideon: (1) Gideon had a force of only three hundred men which Gildas sees as yet another sign of the Trinity. This is based on Jds 7:6-8. The information that this is another sacrament of the Trinity is most valuable for understanding his use of scripture as it explains how Gildas came up with 300 rather than 318 men in the case of Abraham in 325E. (2) The strange behaviour with the torches inside the pitchers and the trumpets is based on Jds 7:8, 16-20, and 22. (3) Gideon’s act of cutting down the sacred trees is based on Jds 6:25-6. The phrase used by Gildas, idolatriae luci … succisionem siluae, indicates, firstly, that he recognised that the activity engaged in by Gideon was the fulfilling of the law as expressed in Ex 34:13 (sed aras eorum destrue confringe statuas lucosque succide) and Dt 7:5 (quin potius haec facietis eis aras eorum subuertite confringite statuas lucosque succidite et sculptilia conburite); and, secondly, that his version of Jds was VL because at 6:25-6 the VL has lucus while the Vg uses nemus. (4) The miracle of the fleece is based on Jds 6:36-40. 342C. Isa 58:1 Gildas

Vg

exalta quasi tuba uocem tuam

quasi tuba exalta uocem tuam

The variation in word order may reflect substrate interference from the VL in a Vg text (see Gryson (1993), 1419). 343C. Ps 18:5.193 Gildas

Vg – iuxta LXX

in omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum

in omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum

344C. 2 Cor 4:7 Gildas

Vg

habentes thesaurum istum in uasis fictilibus

habemus autem thesaurum istum in uasis fictilibus

The version of 2 Cor is most probably Vg (some VL witnesses have enim for autem, or hunc for istum; but several VL codices are identical to the Vg). The change from habemus to habentes is to be explained by the move to indirect speech. Mommsen’s citation of Ps 18:4 (Williams: 19:4) is incorrect.

193

274

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LXXI 345E. Jds 16:23-30 The Samson narrative runs from Jds 13:24 to 16:31 (with a preliminary story of his conception in Jds 13:2-23), and despite the fact that the infancy narratives of Jesus in Lk borrow many motifs from these stories, Samson is only mentioned outside the narrative in Jds in the list of heroes in 1 Sam 11:12 and its dependent list in Heb 11:32. Gildas takes as his exemplum the final act of Samson when at a great religious feast – from the text we infer, as did Gildas, that it was a banquet: his luxuriosos … conuiuas is based on 16:25: laetantesque per conuiuia sumptis – during which Samson toppled the columns of the house, killing all at the feast including himself. There is no parallel in the VLD to the manner in which Gildas draws out a moral exegesis of the passage. 346A. ? Rom 6:2-13 The phrase mori exoptans mundo et uiuere Christo sounds ‘pauline’ – and, presumably, this led Mommsen, followed by Williams, to place ‘Phil 1:23’ in the margin. However, there is no such sentiment in Paul, and the reference to Phil 1:23 is useless and, so, misleading. The nearest we have in Paul is the notion of those who have died to sin (Rom 6:2) followed by the notion that having so died, the Christians will live with Christ (Rom 6:8). This then implies that Gildas links the idea of the world with that of sin: so that the two terms are interchangeable. Such an identification would not be out of place in Latin asceticism in the sixth century (as we can see from his exegesis of the ‘luxurious feasts’ in this passage) and would rely on such biblical texts such as Jas 4:4; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:20; or 1 Jn 2: 15-6. 347C. Col 3:5 The biblical text reads et auaritiam [Gildas: auaritia] quae est simulacrorum seruitus. The alteration in case by Gildas may be due to its context within the sentence or to a variant Vg reading as auaritia is attested. However, the use of simulacrorum indicates a distinctly Vg text (Frede (1966-71), 465. This citation is but a phrase from Col 3:5-6 which Gildas uses, omitting this phrase, at 496T. 348E. 1 Sam 7:5-11; 9:15-10:25; 12:1-25; 15:10-35; and 16:1-13 The exemplum of Samuel has three notable features in this part of the DEB. (1) Samuel acts, in each situation, as a mediating figure: he stands accusing the people and the king on behalf of the Lord; he stands for the people making intercession with the Lord; and he acts for the people as the one who delivers their desire that the Lord give them a king. It is this mediation aspect that links the details of the exemplum.

275

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

(2) Samuel speaks to both people and kings without flattery and tells them of their sins: this is the aspect of the noble cleric that Gildas wants to promote. (3) Gildas takes the details out of the order of narration in the biblical text presenting them as two instances when he relates to the people, and then two instances when he relates to kings. The exemplum is made up of four incidents: (a) Samuel made intercession for the people when they were afraid of the Philistines: this intercession drove away their fear and it took the form of prayer and a holocaust of a suckling lamb. This is based on the incident in 1 Sam 7:5-11 with the key verses being 7 (dispelling the fear) and 9 (the holocaust). (b) Samuel warns the people about their sin, and his authority is shown by his ability to command thunder and rain. This is based on 1 Sam 12:1-25 with the details being found in vv. 17-8. (c) Samuel anointed Saul king without flattery. The election narrative runs from 1 Sam 9:15-10:25; the tone of Samuel’s speech to the chosen king can be heard in 9:26 and the actual anointing takes place at 10:1. (d) Samuel brings news to sinful Saul that he is deposed as king and in his stead a better (melior) man, David, is appointed and anointed. The confrontation of Samuel with Saul is found in 1 Sam 15:10-35 with v. 23 as the key when it is announced that Saul is rejected. That a ‘better man’ (… uncto pro illo meliore in regno …) is to take his place is an echo of 1 Sam 15:28: Scidit Dominus regnum Israhel a te hodie et traditit illud proximo tuo meliori te. The anointing of David is narrated in 1 Sam 16:1-13 with v. 13 being the key verse. 349T. 1 Sam 12:2-4 Gildas

Vg

ecce praesto sum loquimini coram Domino et christo eius utrum bouem cuiusquam tulerim an asinum si quempiam calumniatus sum si oppressi aliquem si de manu cuiusquam munus accepi

ecce praesto sum loquimini de me coram Domino et coram christo eius utrum bouem cuiusquam tulerim an asinum si quempiam calumniatus sum si oppressi aliquem si de manu cuiusquam munus accepi et contemnam illud hodie restituamque uobis et dixerunt non es calumniatus nos neque oppressisti neque tulisti de manu alicuius quippiam

cui a populo responsum est dicente: non es calumniatus nos neque oppressisti neque tulisti de manu alicuius quippiam

276

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas is here using the Vg form of 1 Sam (the VL has uitulum for bouem; and adds the phrase: aut alicui uestrum per potentiam nocui before accepi); his departures from the Vg (omitting de me and the second use of coram) are examples of his tendency to remove unnecessary words. 350E. 1 Kgs 18:20-40; 19:1; 2 Kgs 1:2-17 The exemplum of Elijah, like the previous case of Samuel, is a composite of the prophet’s works which are taken out of historical sequence (i.e. as they are presented/found in the narrative of 1 and 2 Kgs). The exemplum is made up of three elements out of sequence: (1) The death by fire from heaven of the one hundred troops (fifty plus fifty) that were sent by King Ahaziah to arrest Elijah is taken from 2 Kgs 1:9-10 and 11-12. While the survival of the third group of fifty men is based on 2 Kgs 1:1314. The assertion that the first hundred were proud is based on the fact that the second group were humble: Gildas’s evidence for this is that this group fell on their knees before Elijah (curuauit genua contra Heliam) and described themselves as his servants (… seruorum tuorum …); so by obversion: the others, who perished, were proud.194 The key text is 2 Kgs 1:13. (2) Elijah speaks against the king’s consorting with foreign gods by seeking predictions from them, the god of Ekron (Accaron), which results in Elijahs’s prediction of the king’s death. This is found in 2 Kings 1:2-8 and 15-17. (3) The contest of deities at Mount Carmel when Elijah overcame the prophets of Baal and killed them with the sword. This is based on 1 Kgs 18:20-40. However, in the main story it is merely said that Elijah killed the prophets of Baal at the brook called Kishon; the detail that he put them to the sword is derived from 1 Kgs 19:1. 351A. Eph 6:17 and Heb 4:12 The reference to the sword (derived from 1Kgs 19:1) prompts an allegorical exegesis by Gildas that the sword is ‘the word of God.’ This is based on two passages which make such an identification in the New Testament: et galeam salutis adsumite et gladium Spiritus quod est uerbum Dei (Eph 6:17) and uiuus est enim Dei sermo et efficax et penetrabilior omni gladio ancipiti et pertingens usque ad divisionem animae ac spiritus conpagum quoque et medullarum et discretor cogitationum et intentionum cordis (Heb 4:12). 352T. 1 Kgs 19:4-10; Lk 4:25 / Jas 5:17; Rom 11:3 The section on Elijah concludes with a testimonium, but it is given a detailed introduction that adds to our information about Elijah as an example for clerics. It should be observed that in the penitentials, kneeling is a sign of humility and prayer for mercy. 194

277

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

(1) We are told that it was zeal that caused Elijah to set about his work. This is based on 1 Kgs 19:10 – the same verse that he then cites – but which he assumes his readers know as a quality of Elijah. (2) That Elijah caused a drought that lasted three years and six months (… tribus annis sexque mensibus …) which is not a detail derived from 1 Kgs where it is merely that the rain came in the third year (1 Kgs 18:1). This detail comes from Lk 4:25 (this was an independent tradition which has found its way into Luke’s gospel and Jas 5:17);195 and shows that Gildas can combine information relative to an individual from across the scriptures. (3) Gildas sets the scene for the quotation by noting that Elijah was about to die in the wilderness when he spoke the words being cited. This is based on 1 Kgs 19:4-9; it shows us how Gildas can be sensitive to the context of his quotations. The testimonium proper: 1 Kgs 19:10 / Rom 11:3 Gildas

Domine, inquiens, prophetas tuos occiderunt et altaria tua suffoderunt et ego relictus sum solus et quaerunt animam meam

Vg: at ille respondit zelo zelatus sum pro Domino Deo exercituum quia dereliquerunt pactum Domini filii Israhel altaria tua destruxerunt et prophetas tuos occiderunt gladio et derelictus sum ego solus et quaerunt animam meam ut auferant eam

It might appear, at first sight, from this comparison that despite the fact that 1 Kgs 19:10 is the text Gildas wished to cite, and which he correctly introduced by setting its context, he did not do so accurately or used a version very different from that of the Vg. However, this part of Elijah’s prayer had been incorporated by Paul into his Letter to the Romans, and it is from there that Gildas cites it: an nescitis in Helia quid dicit scriptura quemadmodum interpellat Deum aduersus Israhel Domine prophetas tuos occiderunt altaria tua suffoderunt et ego relictus sum solus et quaerunt animam meam sed quid dicit (Rom 11:2-4). For further details on this length of time, see Fitzmyer (1981), 357-8.

195

278

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

That Gildas is citing Romans, while thinking of the original context, is shown not only in that his text agrees with Paul, but that he prefaces the quote with Domine (not used in 1 Kgs) and ends the citation abruptly as does Paul. Again, we see Gildas’s overall familiarity with the scriptures which allows him to produce a composite picture of a biblical person by combining details from many different parts of the scriptures. Moreover, that he combines texts from different places so freely indicates an important aspect of his overall hermeneutic: the scriptures form an entirely consistent, and mutually interlocking, set of propositions, and these can be combined at will without damage to their meaning or to understanding.

DEB LXXII 353E. 2 Kgs 5 This exemplum is based on the final twist in the tale of the healing of Naaman the Syrian,196 when Gehazi, Elisha’s servant (Giezi puer uiri Dei), sought to profit personally and materially from the healing given to Naaman by Elisha which is found in vv. 19-27; and which could be seen as instance of ‘simony.’ Gildas refers to him being weighed down – alluding to v. 23: duo talenta argenti in duobus saccis et duplicia uestimenta et inposuit duobus pueris suis qui et portaverunt coram eo – and then being caught out because the prophet knew Gehazi’s secret deed. As punishment, Gehazi (and his descendants) took on Naaman’s leprosy and was dismissed (v. 27). Gildas then draws his lesson from this using an argument based on the notion that leprosy and dismissal formed a double punishment. Gehazi suffered both for his self-serving abuse of his position, but the clerics Gildas condemns, who could have been dismissed for their crimes, did not even suffer that penalty: thus they have been doubly let off. 354E. 2 Kgs 6:8-23 (especially 15-7) The exemplum is given to show that the man of God (Elisha is frequently referred to in 2 Kgs as a uir Dei) placed his trust in prayer when attacked by an enemy army that was intent on his death, and was granted a miraculous victory through having an invisible heavenly army of horsemen and fiery chariots. This protecting force, which Gildas in continuity with the tradition sees as an an-

196 In modern translations Naaman is described as ‘the commander of the army of the king of Aram’ (2 Kgs 5:1), but in the Vg he is ‘princeps militiae regis Syriae’ – hence the customary designation.

279

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

gelic army,197 could only be seen by others through God specially opening their eyes to see what is normally invisible. That Gildas considers it an angelic army is made certain by his reference back to this exemplum in 359E when referring to the miraculous deliverance mentioned in 2 Kgs 19:35 (and elsewhere). The details given by Gildas can each be found in the scriptures (the servant: 15; opening his eyes: 17; his fear: 16; the city being surrounded: 13 and 15; the prophet’s prayer: 17; the mountain full of heavenly cavalry: 17; and God’s force being stronger: 16), but with one change of detail. The Vg has this force made up of chariots of fire (curruum igneorum) while Gildas has the charioteers with fiery faces (uultu fulgentium). Gildas appears to be alone in making this alteration. 355E. 2 Kgs 4:8-37 (especially 34-5) This exemplum is intended to show the difference between a good man of God (Elisha) where contact brings life, and others (including Gehazi) where contact is of no avail. The exemplum is based on that part of the story of the Shunammite woman (4:8-37) when Elisha lies on top of the corpse of her death son, and so brings him back to life (vv. 34-5). 356A. Rom 6:9-11 This and the next allusion, which flows from it, follow on from the image of the dead body touched by Elisha. Gildas explores the variants of being dead to the world / alive to Christ, dead to sin / alive to God (taken together) in contrast with the lives of the useless clerics who were dead to God / alive to sin. This passage is based on Rom 6:9-12. In this passage from Paul, the contrasts (vv. 10-11) flow from the fact of Christ having risen from the dead (v. 9: scientes quod Christus surgens ex mortuis iam non moritur mors illi ultra non dominabitur), and so Gildas’s usage follows the same pattern coming after the fact of the boy being restored to life by the prophet. 357A. Lk 17:11-19 The image of men coming forward, or not, to thank Christ for healing invokes the image of the ten lepers healed where only one returns to thank him. The final words, v. 19, of this story, found only in Luke, makes Gildas’s point: fides tua te saluum fecit. By contrast with this man, Gildas’s clerics have despaired of divine healing. 358A. Is 6:6-7 The allusion to Isaiah being purified of his sins seems to be mentioned as a way of introducing the prophet in order to set the scene for the next exemplum of prayer being a manner by which invaders are overcome. Gildas refers to it as caelestis exercitus; while Ambrose (in Contra Auxentium de basilicas tradendis, 11), for example, as angelorum millia. 197

280

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

However, while the Vg has unus de seraphim carry a calculus to touch Isaiah’s lips, Gildas has a cherub carrying a burning coal (carbon). This use of carbon indicates a VL influence: see Gryson (1987-93), 209). But the confusion of seraph and cherub suggests both variations are the work of memory. 359E. 2 Kgs 19:14-35 / Is 37:14-36 These texts are virtually identical, and we must note that this story has a much larger life in memory than simply these two locations: this incident of divine deliverance after prayer is mentioned in 2 Chr 32:20-1; Sir 48:20-2; 1 Mac 7:41; and 2 Mac 8:19; and is alluded to in Jer 26:18-9. The details mentioned by Gildas can all be found in the text,198 with the exception of his comment that there was no trace of a wound on the bodies. No other source for this detail has been found. The fact that Gildas invokes two incidents (here and in 354E), and crossreferences the second instance to the first, where Israel (= God’s people) is delivered from invaders by an angelic force makes these exempla important keys to his theology of Providence. First, he links the invasions of Britain with the wickedness of the clergy – which could be either divine retributive justice or that the divine protection was not available because they failed to serve their duty to pray for their people; and, second, it indicates his understanding of intervening providence: God can intervene in response to the prayer of the officials of his people. 360E. Jer 20:1-3; 26 (especially vv. 18-9); 37:11-16; and 38:7-13 This exemplum is based on a series of incidents in Jer where Jeremiah is commanded to speak publicly, and then suffers for his action by imprisonment or the threat of death. The reference to squalores is an allusion to Jeremiah being thrown into a water cistern (37:16 and 38:7-13). There is a chain of ideas linking these exempla: the deliverance of Israel at the time of Elisha (354E) is paralleled to the deliverance of Israel at the time of Isaiah (359E); while this exemplum links back to Isaiah in that it is appealed to in Jer 26:18-9. Given Gildas’s comprehensive reading of the scriptures these links would have been known to him, and constituted the basis for his connecting these events in his work. 361A. 1 Tim 2:7 As we have already noted at 303A, the image of Paul as the magister gentium is derived from 1 Tim 2:7. However, it has an additional importance here in that it clearly identifies, in Gildas’s mind, Paul as the author of the Letter to

The details can be located as follows: Hezekiah’s prayer: 2 Kgs 19:15-9 / Is 37:16-20; Isaiah’s words: 2 Kgs 19:20-34 / Is 37:21-35; the destruction of 185,000 Assyrians by an angel: 2 Kgs 19:35 / Is 37:36. 198

281

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

the Hebrews. An idea that would be confirmed for him by his possession and use of Jerome’s De uiris inlustribus.199 362T. Heb 11:37-8 Gildas

errare in montibus et in speluncis et in cauernis terrae lapidari secari …. attemptari

Vg lapidati sunt secti sunt temptati sunt in occisione gladii mortui sunt circumierunt in melotis in pellibus caprinis egentes angustiati adflicti quibus dignus non erat mundus in solitudinibus errantes et montibus et speluncis et in cauernis terrae

Gildas inverts the order of ideas placing those of v. 37 after those of v. 38 – no other author quoting this verse does this (see Frede (1983-91), 1556). Gildas’s use of in montibus and of in speluncis reflects the VL: see Frede (1983-91), 1559-60. 363A. Acts 21:13 While the notion of ‘the name of the Lord’ is found throughout the scriptures, the precise implication of the reference here is that of being found worthy to suffer for the sake of the Lord’s name. This is based on Acts, and anticipates Gildas’s arguments in DEB LXXIII. 364A. Mt 23:30-1 / Lk 13:34; and Lk 1:70 Gildas’s notion that the prophets were made to suffer in various ways and were put to death by those to whom they were sent is not based solely on his reading of incidents in the scriptures such as what happened to Jeremiah, but is based on the theme found in Matthew (23:30-1, 34, 37) and Luke (11:47-50 and 13:34) when Jesus says ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!’ The addition of the adjective ‘holy’ in ‘holy prophets’ reflects the influence of Lk 1:17, Acts 3:21, and 2 Pet 3:2.

199

See 365A, and following, below.

282

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LXXIII This section presents the exempla from the time of the ‘new covenant’ by citing a series of martyrs from the first generation of the apostles and their immediate followers: James the brother of Jesus; James the brother of John; Stephen; Peter; and Paul. The section is important for understanding Gildas’s approach to the scriptures in two respects. First, Gildas begins the section by asking why should he delay with the exempla from the ‘older times,’ when he could give some from the ‘new.’ Clearly, once the new is available, then it has superseded the old. Second, this approach indicates that this is a succession of times, and the events belonging to those times (the events during the period of the Old Covenant and then those during the period of the New Covenant), not simply a succession of books where the books belonging to one category / period (what we casually refer to as ‘the New Testament’) are superior to books in a related category / period. This is brought out in that the cases Gildas cites (Jesus’s brother James and Peter) display the whole extent of his information about these people (i.e. from Jerome) and not just that information found in the canonical texts. It is the history that is of primary significance – for this constitutes the history of the covenant, the texts are significant in a secondary way as its record – the proof of this is that the information from Jerome is intermingled with that from canonical texts. In relation to this section Mommsen noted the sources as Rufinus’s Historia, then Williams suggested, and thought most probable, the use of Jerome’s De uiris illustribus. Given the sequence of material presented in DEB, it can be taken as certain that the proximate source is Jerome. 200 365A. Mt 7:13-4 The reference to ‘the narrow way of the Christian religion’ (angustum hoc iter Christianae religionis) alludes to the narrow door (angusta porta) in Mt 7. 366E. Acts 16:19-23; with Acts 5:41 The exemplum refers to the events in Philippi (16:12-40) when Paul and his companions were arrested and brought before the principes / magistrates (there is no mention of a consilium at this point in Acts) of the city who ordered them to be beaten with rods (16:19-23). The notion that the apostles rejoiced at being able to suffer thus is not found in Acts 16, but comes from Acts 5:41, and this is made clear by Gildas’s use of eiectus de consilio impiorum which echoes Acts: ibant gaudentes a conspectus consilii. That Gildas had Acts 5:41 in mind is confirmed by his reference to a consilium. 200 Both the 1896 (by E.C. Richardson) and 1988 (by A. Ceresa-Gastaldo) editions of De uiris illustribus are used here; for the rationale for this approach, see O’Loughlin (2009b), 485.

283

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

367E James is described in Jerome’s De uiris illustribus as having been the first bishop of Jerusalem, and as having been killed because he refused to deny that the Christ was the Son of God by being hit on the head with a fuller’s club. Gildas, while giving every title of James, does not mention that he was ‘the Lord’s brother’ (cf. Gal 1:19) as this was, probably, for him – as it had been for Jerome – one of the major textual ‘difficulties’ against the notion of Mary being ‘ever virgin.’ Gildas’s silence on this point (allowing that Jerome had carefully tried to dismiss the notion in De uiris illustribus) can be seen as an aspect of Gildas’s christology (and possibly of his marian theology). 368E. Acts 12:1-2 The exemplum relates to the death of James (the brother of John) which is described thus in the Vg: eodem autem tempore misit Herodes rex manus ut adfligeret quosdam de ecclesi occidit autem Iacobum fratrem Iohannis gladio. The mention of James being killed ab iniquo principe would fit with the traditional perception of ‘Herod’ as the wicked king, 201 however, Gildas’s detail that James was beheaded is not taken from Acts but from Jerome’s description of John which incidentally mentions John’s brother: Iohannes apostolus … , filius Zebedaei et frater Iacobi apostoli quem Herodes post passionem Domini decollauit, … (De uiris illustribus, 9). 369E. Acts 6:5 and 7:53-9 Gildas draws on the exemplum of Stephen (Gildas does not think it necessary to name Stephen, Peter or Paul as the descriptions are sufficiently precise to identify these well known individuals) both as the first deacon and the first martyr. This instance must be linked to all the other references to Stephen, and to the diaconate, to see the full extent of Gildas’s thought on this topic. 370E. Mt 16:19 Peter is not mentioned by name and most of the description comes from Jerome, De uiris illustribus, 1: A quo [Nero] et adfixus cruci, martyrio coronatus est, capite ad terram uerso et in sublime pedibus eleuatis, adserens se indignum qui sic crucifigeretur ut Dominus suus. The reference to the keys (… ut clauicularius ille caelorum regni idoneus …) is derived from Mt 16:19.202 Gildas further elaborates his views on Peter ‘the key bearer’ and how this is relevant to his situation in DEB CIX, see 537T and 539T, below. 201 Gildas appears to conflate, as was often the case, the several kings with the name ‘Herod’ with that of Herod the Great whose wickedness was exemplified for Christians by his ‘slaughter of the innocents’ in Mt 2:16-18. 202 The name ‘clauicularius’ is also found in the Orationale Visigothicum, 497 (p. 167).

284

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

371E. 2 Cor 11:13; 2 Cor 11:23-9; Eph 6:20; Rom 15:19; Acts 9:15; and 1 Tim 2:7 The exemplum of Paul is a combination of scriptural sources and Jerome’s De uiris illustribus, 5. That Paul was killed with a sword is taken from Jerome. Most of the exemplum comes from 2 Cor 11:13 and 2 Cor 11:23-9 where Paul lists the sufferings he has endured for the sake of the churches. However, while Paul mentions imprisonment in that passage, he does not mention ‘chains’ which is found, inter alia, in Eph 6:20. That Paul has preached the ‘gospel of Christ’ is taken from Rom 15:19. 203 That Paul is a uas electionis is from Acts 9:15; and is used of him in De uiris illustribus. That Paul is ‘the teacher of the Gentiles’ is from 1 Tim 2:7 and is used elsewhere in DEB.204

DEB LXXIV 372A. Eph 1:8 Gildas’s image of their hearts being in gloom and in need of light is an echo of Eph 1:8 where Paul prays in a similar vein for those to whom he writes. 373C. Is 14:12; Lk 10:18; and Apoc 12:8-9 Gildas sees Lucifer – the planet Venus and a metaphor for the King of Babylon in the Book of Isaiah – as the name of the principal ‘fallen angel’ who has been ejected from heaven. This is based on linking Is 14:12 (quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui uulnerabas gentes) where Lucifer is addressed as falling from heaven and then damaging the earth; and the words of Jesus in Lk 10:18 (uidebam Satanan sicut fulgur de caelo cadentem) which were taken as relating to the same event. Gildas’s use of proiectus indicates that he also has in mind Apoc 12:8-9 which used that word. We should note that these three texts (Is, Lk and Apoc) were often linked in the tradition.205 The linkage was formalised by Jerome, Commentarii in Esaiam 1,14, and became a commonplace in the Latin tradition after him; Gildas is a significant witness to the spread of this notion as he takes the identification of the ‘lucifer’ of Is 14 with Satan as an established fact. 206 This is confirmed by Gildas’s use of Is 14:13-4 (375C). 203 There are misprints in Williams on 187 in margine and in n. 4 where this reference is given incorrectly. 204 See 303A and 361A above. 205 See Gryson (1987-93), 396. 206 See Gryson (1987-93), 396-9.

285

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

374A. 1 Cor 2:4 The supposed contrast of ‘words’ with ‘power’ is based on 1 Cor 2:4 – and the theme is also found 2 Kgs 18:20 and Is 36:5. 375C. Isa 14:13-4 Gildas in caelum conscendam

et ero similis Altissimo

Vg qui dicebas in corde tuo in caelum conscendam super astra Dei exaltabo solium meum sedebo in monte testamenti in lateribus aquilonis ascendam super altitudinem nubium ero similis Altissimo

Gildas shortens the quotation to its essentials: the crime is the imagining that one could become like God. There is no evidence here for Gildas using any other text than the Vg (see Gryson (1987-93), 406). 376C. Is 37:25 Gildas

Vg

ego fodi et bibi aquam et exsiccaui pedum meorum uestigio omnes riuos aggerum

ego fodi et bibi aquam et exsiccaui uestigio pedis mei omnes riuos aggerum

This variation is not attested apart from Gildas; see Gryson (1987-93), 753. 377A. 1 Cor 11:1 The notion that Christian perfection consists in the imitation of Christ, here described as inuictum exemplar … totius bonitatis et humilitatis, can be traced to Paul (see also 1 Cor 4:16; Eph 5:1; 1 Thes 1:6 and 2:14; 2 Thes 3:7 and 9; Heb 6:12 and 13:7).207 378C. Ps 21:7 Gildas

Vg – Iuxta LXX

ego autem sum uermis et non homo obprobrium hominum et abiectio plebis

ego autem sum uermis et non homo obprobrium hominum et abiectio plebis

It can also be found in 3 Jn 11.

207

286

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

379C. Jn 5:30 Gildas

Vg

non possum ego a me ipso facere quicquam

non possum ego a me ipso facere quicquam

Both VL and Vg are identical at this point; therefore, this quotation is of no avail in determining which version Gildas was using. 380A. Gen 2:1 The phrase used by Gildas, caelum et terram cum omni eorum inaestimabili ornamento fecerit, is an echo of Gen 2:1: igitur perfecti sunt caeli et terra et omnis ornatus eorum. 381C. Sir 10:9 (and Sir 17:31) Gildas

Vg

quid superbit terra et cinis

quid superbit terra et cinis

This is the verse Gildas cites, but he may have – in the context of the power of the Creator – also this verse from Sir in mind: uirtutem altitudinis caeli ipse conspicit et omnes homines terra et cinis (Sir 17:31). In the case of 10:9, the VL and the Vg texts are identical: see Thiele (1987), 363.

DEB LXXV 382C. Acts 5:29 Gildas

Vg

oboedire oportet magis Deo quam hominibus

oboedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus

The inversion of word order, magis Deo rather than Deo magis, is only found here and in one other place: Jerome, De uiris illustribus 45. There, in the entry for Polycrates, Jerome mentions Polycarp of Smyrna in much the same manner as Gildas does in this chapter; it may be that Gildas is citing these words as the reply of a saint, rather than as Peter’s words in Acts, and is influenced in this by the work of Jerome.

287

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LXXVI 383A. Lk 1:70 Gildas admonishes his audience that they must listen to what God had spoken in the past through the mouths of his ‘holy prophets.’ This invokes a notion and an image from Lk 1:70, which Gildas would have understood as being corroborated in Acts 3:21 and 2 Pet 3:2. 384T. 1 Sam 2:12-7; 22-5; 27-34 The judgement on the sons of Eli is presented as a single event by Gildas that encapsulates the judgement on the clergy to which he belongs. Gildas begins by recalling the background that the sons of Eli were wicked (2 Sam 2:127), and that they were admonished by their father, but did not change their ways (2 Sam 2:22-5). This sets the scene for the oracle whose main theme is that God moves his favour, promised long ago, from the wicked. From that moment they should expect punishment, and after that has occurred its survivors should beg for a morsel of bread. Within the story, Gildas is able both to read, and explain, what has befallen his people. Since the oracle is at the core of Gildas’s message, it is this that is quoted as the testimonium proper. Gildas begins by saying that the prophet (dicente ad eum propheta) spoke to Eli, but the biblical text says: uenit autem uir Dei ad Heli et ait ad eum (1 Sam 2:27). This unnamed uir Dei is interpreted by Gildas as being a ‘prophet.’ Gildas

Vg: 1 Sam 2:27-8

haec dicit Dominus manifeste ostendi me domum patris tui cum essent in Aegypto seruientes [in domo] Pharaonis et elegi domum patris tui ex omnibus tribubus Israel mihi in sacerdotio

haec dicit Dominus numquid non aperte reuelatus sum domui patris tui cum essent in Aegypto in domo Pharaonis et elegi eum ex omnibus tribubus Israel mihi in sacerdotem

Williams points out that he follows manuscript A in adding in domo, but while the addition accommodates the text towards the Vg, it is unnecessary for meaning. Gildas omits the remainder of v. 28 (ut ascenderet altare meum et adoleret mihi incensum et portaret ephod coram me et dedi domui patris tui omnia de sacrificiis filiorum Israhel) and continues:

288

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg: 1 Sam 2:29

Quare respexisti in incensum meum et in sacrificium meum improbo oculo et honorificasti filios tuos plus quam me, ut benediceres eos a primordio in omnibus sacrificiis coram me?

quare calce abicitis uictimam meam et munera mea quae praecepi ut offerrentur in templo et magis honorasti filios tuos quam me ut comederetis primitias omnis sacrificii Israhel populi mei

Gildas continues: Gildas

Vg: 1 Sam 2:30-4

Et nunc sic dicit Dominus quoniam qui honorificant me, honorabo eos et qui pro nihilo habent me, ad nihilum redigentur ecce dies uenient et disperdam nomen tuum et semen domus patris tui

nunc autem dicit Dominus absit hoc a me sed quicumque glorificauerit me glorificabo eum qui autem contemnunt me erunt ignobiles ecce dies ueniunt et praecidam brachium tuum et brachium domus patris tui ut non sit senex in domo tua et uidebis aemulum tuum in templo in uniuersis prosperis Israhel et non erit senex in domo tua omnibus diebus uerumtamen non auferam penitus uirum ex te ab altari meo sed ut deficiant oculi tui et tabescat anima tua et pars magna domus tuae morietur cum ad uirilem aetatem uenerit hoc autem erit tibi signum quod uenturum est duobus filiis tuis Ofni et Finees in die uno morientur ambo

Et hoc tibi signum sit, quod ueniet super duos filios tuos Ofni et Finees In uno die morientur ambo in gladio uirorum

As Williams pointed out, 208 here Gildas’s text is very much at variance with the Vg, and while no other witness used in the VLD matches his usage exactly, there is at least one witness in agreement for every variant. We can, therefore, conclude that he was using a VL source at this point, but we cannot simply accept the solution of Burkitt (1934), 207 that Gildas is taking this from Lu-

208

Williams, 193, n. 4.

289

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

cifer, De Athanasio 1,10209. See ch. 3, 6, Case 8 for a fuller examination of the suggestion by Burkitt, where it is concluded that Lucifer’s works were not an influence on Gildas. This incident of the oracle against the sons of Eli as wicked priests is used twice by Gildas in DEB. But the only verse in common is 1 Sam 2:30. DEB LXII (284T)

DEB LXXVI (384T)

eos qui honorant me honorabo et qui me spernunt erunt ignobiles

qui honorificant me, honorabo eos et qui pro nihilo habent me, ad nihilum redigentur

In neither case does Gildas follow the Vg, nor show any apparent decision in favour of any particular version.

DEB LXXVII 385ET. 1 Kgs 13 The story of the ‘man of God’ from Judah has exercised a powerful fascination on theologians down the centuries because it was taken to pose the problem of why the deceived true prophet is punished by God for falling into the trap set by the false prophet. 210 As Gildas reads the story – and he treats it as a unit, 211 a single exemplum of the command of God for obedience – it is a paradigm for the behaviour of the British clergy: they may have been the true prophets, but in not being obedient to their original calling, being anxious to obtain worldly benefit, 212 and listening to those who suggested that an easier course was now allowed by God, they have taken part in rebellion, and as such have suffered the punishment of rebellion. Gildas summarises most of the story accurately, and assumes that the audience is familiar with the story, but then, once the false prophet of Bethel, his hospes, begins to function as a true prophet, he cites the divine oracle as a testimonium:

Burkitt noted that ‘Gildas agrees with [Lucifer] almost word for word.’ See Van Winkle (1989) for a summary of recent treatments up to that time. 211 The story can be read as an isolated incident (as here), as part of the story of Jeroboam, and in the context of 1 Kgs as a whole: see Walsh (1989) and Van Winkle (1996). 212 See Reis (1994). 209 210

290

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg: 1 Kgs 13:21-24

haec dicit Dominus Deus quia inoboediens fuisti ori Domini et non custodisti mandatum quod praecepit Dominus Deus tuus et reuersus es et comedisti panem et bibisti aquam in hoc loco in quo mandaueram tibi ne manducares panem nec biberes aquam non ponetur corpus tuum in sepulchro patrum tuorum et factum est postquam manducauit panem et bibit aquam strauit sibi asinum suam et abiit

haec dicit Dominus quia inoboediens fuisti ori Domini et non custodisti mandatum quod praecepit tibi Dominus Deus tuus et reuersus es et comedisti panem et bibisti aquam in loco in quo praecepit tibi ne comederes panem neque biberes aquam non inferetur cadauer tuum in sepulchrum patrum tuorum cumque comedisset et bibisset strauit asinum prophetae quem reduxerat qui cum abisset inuenit eum leo in uia et occidit et erat cadauer eius proiectum in itinere asinus autem stabat iuxta illum et leo stabat iuxta cadauer

et inuenit eum leo in uia et occidit eum

There is no witness in the VLD that corresponds exactly with what we find here in Gildas. In vv. 21-22 he follows the Vg, as distinct from the VL, and some of the differences (e.g adding Deus or omitting tibi) appear to be Gildas’s own variations. But in these two verses Gildas’s text does show some influence from the VL in the phrase in hoc loco. By contrast, in vv. 23-24 the influence of the VL is far more marked, but it is still not a VL text, as seen in its use of corpus rather than cadauer and the phrase et factum est postquam manducauit panem et bibit aquam. Many, but not all, of the same variations are to be found in Lucifer of Cagliari’s De non conueniendo cum haereticis, 3, but there is no evidence that this text by Lucifer was an influence on Gildas. 213 Gildas breaks off the story of 1 Kgs 13 with the death of ‘the man of God’ and so does not have to deal with the curious aftermath of his common burial with the man who deceived him yet who uttered the oracle. This is an interesting insight into Gildas’s method: he invokes the exact point he wishes to make (punishment for disobedience) and cites the judgement (the testimonium: vv. See ch 3, 6 for more information.

213

291

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

21-4), but avoids not only the problems of the actual incident/text, but anything that might detract from the starkness of that judgement.

DEB LXXVIII DEB LXXVIII and LXXIX have to be seen as a unit; formed of a catena of six or seven quotations from Isaiah, and that catena was intended to be read as a single prophetic text containing a condemnation of the behaviour of the priests (sacerdotes) in Jerusalem. It is, in effect, a single testimonium, that was intended to be read as a single oracle is signalled by the link-words used in the catena: it begins Esiam … audite, then the next quotation is introduced by et item; then et infra, then et post aliquanta; then et iterum; and finally et post aliquanta. The uncertainty as to whether the catena contains six or seven links arises from whether 388T and 389T should be treated as a single quotation, with ellipses, or as several (as in the editions); see the arguments set out below. The whole testimonium is introduced as a criticism by Isaiah of the priests (de sacerdotibus) of the Jerusalem temple, but this link is more in the mind of Gildas than in the text of Isaiah. The Book of Isaiah cannot be said to have priesthood as one of its targets: there are only about six references to Levites or priests in the whole book, and only two (24:2 and 28:7) can be seen as criticisms that pick out ‘priests’ by name – and in both cases they are mentioned along with other groups. So from whence did Gildas get the idea that Isaiah prophesied against the priests? That Gildas confused Isaiah with Ezekiel (his complaint against the shepherds in Ez 34) is possible, but not likely as Gildas is very precise in his recollection of the Old Testament. That he simply misread Isaiah is unlikely for the same reason. A plausible explanation might be that he was so concerned with the destruction he blamed on the clergy in his own society, that when Gildas read a complaint by Isaiah against those who brought destruction upon Jerusalem, he was so fixed on its appropriateness that he imagined the prophet with a similar target group to his own: after all, there was a priesthood and a temple set up under the Old Law (a prefigurement of that to which Gildas himself belonged in the New) and so it might seem obvious that Isaiah’s criticism should be towards that priestly / clerical group. In other words, Gildas so merged the time of the text and his own time, that he imagined that both situations were wholly interchangeable.

292

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

386T. Is 3:11-15 Gildas

Vg

uae impio in malum retributio enim manuum eius fiet ei populum meum exactores sui spoliauerunt et mulieres dominatae sunt eius popule meus qui beatum te dicunt ipsi te decipiunt et uiam gressuum tuorum dissipant stat ad iudicandum Dominus et stat ad iudicandos populos Dominus ad iudicium ueniet cum senibus populi sui et principibus eius uos depasti estis uineam meam et rapina pauperis in domo uestra quare adteritis populum meum et facies pauperum commolitis dicit Dominus Deus exercituum

uae impio in malum retributio enim manuum eius fiet ei populum meum exactores sui spoliauerunt et mulieres dominatae sunt eius popule meus qui beatum te dicunt ipsi te decipiunt et uiam gressuum tuorum dissipant stat ad iudicandum Dominus et stat ad iudicandos populos Dominus ad iudicium ueniet cum senibus populi sui et principibus eius uos enim depasti estis uineam meam et rapina pauperis in domo uestra quare adteritis populum meum et facies pauperum commolitis dicit Dominus Deus exercituum

Here the text of Gildas is identical with that of the Vg, apart from the omission of enim in 3:14 which does not constitute a significant variant. 387T. Is 10:1-3 Gildas

Vg

uae qui condunt leges iniquas et scribentes iniustitiam scripserunt ut opprimerent in iudicio pauperes et uim facerent causae humilium populi mei ut essent uiduae praeda eorum et pupillos diriperent quid facietis in die uisitationis et calamitatis de longe uenientis

uae qui condunt leges iniquas et scribentes iniustitiam scripserunt ut opprimerent in iudicio pauperes et uim facerent causae humilium populi mei ut essent uiduae praeda eorum et pupillos diriperent quid facietis in die uisitationis et calamitatis de longe uenientis

Here the text of Gildas is identical with that of the Vg.

293

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

388T. Is 28:7-8 Gildas

Vg

361-363uerum hii quoque prae uino nescierunt et prae ebrietate errauerunt sacerdotes nescierunt prae ebrietate absorti sunt a uino errauerunt in ebrietate nescierunt uidentem ignorauerunt iudicium omnes enim mensae repletae sunt uomitu sordium ita ut non esset ultra locus

uerum hii quoque prae uino nescierunt et prae ebrietate errauerunt sacerdos et propheta nescierunt prae ebrietate absorti sunt a uino errauerunt in ebrietate nescierunt uidentem ignorauerunt iudicium omnes enim mensae repletae sunt uomitu sordiumque ita ut non esset ultra locus

Gildas’s text is almost identical with the Vg; but differs from the Vg in two respects. First, sordiumque is replaced by sordium, quite apart from this being a lectio facilior, it is a variant found in several families of Vg manuscripts; therefore, it does not indicate the presence of a non-Vg text. Second, the phrase ‘sacerdos et propheta’ has been replaced with ‘sacerdotes.’ This variation does not reflect a text variant but an adaptation of the text to Gildas’s own perception: on the one hand, he sees the texts applying to a group: the clergy as he makes clear in his reference to sacerdotes at the beginning of the testimony of Isaiah; secondly, he may not have wished to involve any prophet in a condemnation as he sees himself fulfilling the role of the prophet within his own church. This variation is, therefore, irrelevant to the issue of his biblical text, but of great significance for his self-perception.

294

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LXXIX 389T. Is 28:14-5 Gildas

Vg

propterea audite uerbum Domini uiri inlusores qui dominamini super populum meum qui est in Hierusalem dixistis enim percussimus foedus cum morte et cum inferno fecimus pactum flagellum inundans cum transierit non ueniet super nos quia posuimus mendacium spem nostram et mendacio protecti sumus

propter hoc audite uerbum Domini uiri inlusores qui dominamini super populum meum qui est in Hierusalem dixistis enim percussimus foedus cum morte et cum inferno fecimus pactum flagellum inundans cum transierit non ueniet super nos quia posuimus mendacium spem nostram et mendacio protecti sumus

Gildas’s text and that of the Vg are identical except for Gildas’s use of propterea rather than propter hoc. Because the intervening verses between 28:8 and 28:14 can be read as a gloss on 28:7-8, Gildas probably understood propterea to refer to the content of the 2:7-8. In this case he would have thought of 388T and 389T as a single quotation, and a single link in his catena from Isaiah. 390T. Is 28:17-9 Gildas

Vg

et subuertet grando spem mendacii et protectionem aquae inundabunt et delebitur foedus uestrum cum morte et pactum uestrum cum inferno non stabit flagellum inundans cum transierit eritis ei in conculcationem quandocumque pertransierit tollet uos

et ponam iudicium in pondere et iustitiam in mensura et subuertet grando spem mendacii et protectionem aquae inundabunt et delebitur foedus uestrum cum morte et pactum uestrum cum inferno non stabit flagellum inundans cum transierit eritis ei in conculcationem quandocumque pertransierit tollet uos quoniam mane diluculo pertransibit in die et in nocte et tantummodo sola uexatio intellectum dabit auditui

Gildas’s text and that of the Vg are identical. Gildas, however, is careful to trim his citation of every nuance that might make the case against his opponents less exacting.

295

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

391T. Is 29:13-6 Gildas

Vg

et dixit Dominus eo quod adpropinquat populus iste ore suo et labiis glorificant me cor autem eorum longe est a me

et dixit Dominus eo quod adpropinquat populus iste ore suo et labiis suis glorificat me cor autem eius longe est a me et timuerunt me mandato hominum et doctrinis ideo ecce ego addam ut admirationem faciam populo huic miraculo grandi et stupendo peribit enim sapientia a sapientibus eius et intellectus prudentium eius abscondetur uae qui profundi estis corde ut a Domino abscondatis consilium quorum sunt in tenebris opera et dicunt quis uidet nos et quis nouit nos peruersa est haec uestra cogitatio

ideo ecce ego addam ut admirationem faciam populo huic miraculo grandi et stupendo peribit enim sapientia a sapientibus eius et intellectus prudentium eius abscondetur uae qui profundi estis corde ut a Domino abscondatis consilium quorum sunt in tenebris opera et dicunt quis uidet nos et quis nouit nos peruersa enim haec uestra cogitatio

Here Gildas’s text and that of the Vg are identical except for (1) the omission of suis; (2) the plural glorificant when it should be glorificat to agree with populus; and (3) the substitution of enim for est. The omission of suis is not a significant variant. Glorificat is found in MS A, and should be restored rather than the glorificant which is simply a blunder in the manuscript tradition. Similarly, the substitution of enim for est is most probably a scribal error in transcribing an abbreviation.

296

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

392T. Is 66:1-3 Gildas

Vg

haec dicit Dominus caelum sedis mea et terra scabillum pedum meorum est quae ista est domus quam aedificabitis mihi et quis erit locus quietis meae omnia haec manus mea fecit et facta sunt uniuersa ista dicit Dominus ad quem autem aspiciam nisi ad pauperculum et contritum spiritu et trementem sermones meos qui immolat bouem quasi qui interficiat uirum qui mactat pecus quasi qui excerebret canem qui offert oblationem quasi qui sanguinem suillum offerat qui recordatur turis quasi qui benedicat idolo haec omnia elegerunt in uiis suis et in abominationibus suis anima eorum delectata est

haec dicit Dominus caelum sedis mea et terra scabillum pedum meorum quae ista domus quam aedificabitis mihi et quis iste locus quietis meae omnia haec manus mea fecit et facta sunt uniuersa ista dicit Dominus ad quem autem respiciam nisi ad pauperculum et contritum spiritu et trementem sermones meos qui immolat bouem quasi qui interficiat uirum qui mactat pecus quasi qui excerebret canem qui offert oblationem quasi qui sanguinem suillum offerat qui recordatur turis quasi qui benedicat idolo haec omnia elegerunt in uiis suis et in abominationibus suis anima eorum delectata est

Gildas’s text is the Vg (quietis in v. 1 is found only in the Vg). However, meorum est; et quis erit locus; and aspiciam all point to influence from a VL text. The variant quae ista est is found only in Gildas. See Gryson (1993), 1605-11.

DEB LXXX As with the catena of testimonia from Isaiah, DEB LXXX to LXXXII have to be seen as a unit: another prophetic catena (395T-408T), this time from Jeremiah, which manifests the divine judgement against the foolish priests. As with the Isaian catena, these citations are linked by phrases such as et paulo post, et iterum, item post aliquanta, and itemque loquitur.

297

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

393A. Jer 16:2 Gildas, in an earlier selection of testimonia from Jeremiah, 214 had given an introduction to the prophet by paraphrasing Jer 1:5. 215 Now he adds to this by making Jeremiah a virgin: Hieremias … uirgo prophetaque … . This is based on a tradition of patristic interpretation of Jer 16:2: et factum est uerbum Domini ad me dicens: non accipies uxorem et non erunt tibi filii et filiae in loco isto (16:1-2).216 This exegesis probably had its origin in Jerome’s Ep 22,21: Virgo Elias, Elisacus uirgo, uirgines multi filii prophetarum. Ieremiae dicitur ‘Et tu ne accipias uxorem.’ Sanctificatus in utero, captiuitate propinqua, uxorem prohibetur accipere. Jerome read the divine utterance as an absolute command rather than as a transitory prohibition, and saw it as appropriate and in accordance with what was said by Jeremiah himself about being consecrated from the time he was in the womb (Jer 1:5). This is another instance of Jerome’s theme that that which has been ‘marked out for the Lord’ – as in the case of any of those chosen while in the womb – should remain continent. Since this piece of information about Jeremiah was not widely diffused in the tradition, 217 Jerome’s letter is probably Gildas’s source at this point. 218 394A. Jer 10:21 Gildas presents Jeremiah as addressing his warnings to the stupid shepherds … insipientibus loquatur pastoribus … which alludes to Jer 10:21: quia stulte egerunt pastores et Dominum non quaesierunt propterea non intellexerunt et omnis grex eorum dispersus est. In contrast to Isaiah, 219 there are several passages in Jeremiah which are cited by Gildas (e.g. 2:7; 10:21; 23:11) which present the prophet being critical of the priesthood, and so are particularly suitable for Gildas’s purpose. 395T. Jer 2:5 The text of Gildas and the Vg are identical: haec dicit Dominus quid inuenerunt patres uestri in me iniquitatis quia elongauerunt a me et ambulauerunt post uanitatem et uani facti sunt.

DEB XLVII. See 214A above. 216 Cited in Williams, 112, with reference to DEB XLVII. 217 There is only one patristic citation of the verse in the VLD. 218 In his edition, Williams, 196, suggests – despite what he noted earlier to which he makes a reference – that the assertion of Jeremiah’s celibacy was based on Jer 20:8 as read within Alexandrian tradition going back to the time of Origen. However, this particular quality of Jeremiah the ascetic, his celibacy, is directly related to 16:2 and a further reference to 20:8 is unnecessary. 219 See the preliminary note at DEB LXXVIII, above. 214 215

298

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

When Gildas used this verse earlier, there were some superficial departures from the Vg, and the exact Vg form here confirms that those departures do not constitute evidence for the presence of another, non-Vg, text.220 396T. Jer 2:7-9 Gildas

Vg

et ingressi contaminastis terram meam et hereditatem meam posuistis in abominationem sacerdotes non dixerunt ubi est Dominus et tenentes legem nescierunt me et pastores praeuaricati sunt in me

et ingressi contaminastis terram meam et hereditatem meam posuistis in abominationem sacerdotes non dixerunt ubi est Dominus et tenentes legem nescierunt me et pastores praeuaricati sunt in me et prophetae prophetaverunt in Baal et idola secuti sunt propterea adhuc iudicio contendam uobiscum ait Dominus et cum filiis uestris disceptabo

propterea adhuc iudicio contendam uobiscum ait Dominus et cum filiis uestris disceptabo

Gildas and the Vg are identical. The omission of the mention of Baal is another instance of Gildas trimming any detail that does not serve his purpose. Moreover, in omitting a reference to Baal, a specific cult that would have been irrelevant in his society, Gildas focuses upon the notion that the words of the prophet are absolute and timeless. 397T. Jer 5:30-1 Gildas

Vg

stupor et mirabilia facta sunt in terra prophetae praedicabant mendacium et sacerdotes adplaudebant manibus suis et populus meus dilexit talia quid igitur fiet in nouissimis eius

stupor et mirabilia facta sunt in terra prophetae prophetabant mendacium et sacerdotes adplaudebant manibus suis et populus meus dilexit talia quid igitur fiet in nouissimo eius

Gildas departs from the Vg at two points. First, he has praedicabant for prophetabant; and this variant is not otherwise found. Second, the edition has nouissimis (MSS AP have nouissimo) rather than nouissimo, again a variant not otherwise found. These two departures from the Vg are best seen as slips; and in the latter case, it is possible that nouissimis represents a later scribal error.

220

DEB XLVIII, 215T.

299

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

398T. Jer 6:10 Gildas

Vg

cui loquar et quem contestabor ut audiat ecce incircumcisae aures eorum et audire non possunt ecce uerbum Domini factum est illis in obprobrium et non suscipiunt illud

cui loquar et quem contestabor ut audiant ecce incircumcisae aures eorum et audire non possunt ecce uerbum Domini factum est eis in obprobrium et non suscipient illud

Gildas, apparently, departs in minor ways from the Vg. Audiat is the more common Vg reading, but has not been adopted in Vg. Both illis and the suscipiunt are VL readings; their presence here may indicate a Vg text contaminated with VL readings or they might simply be alterations due to memory. 399T. Jer 6:12-5 Gildas

Vg

quia extendam manum meam super habitantes terram dicit Dominus a minore quippe usque ad maiorem omnes auaritiae student et a propheta usque ad sacerdotem cuncti faciunt dolum et curabant contritionem filiae populi mei cum ignominia dicentes pax pax et non erit pax confusi sunt quia abominationem fecerunt quin potius confusione non sunt confusi et erubescere nescierunt quam ob rem cadent inter ruentes in tempore uisitationis eorum corruent dicit Dominus

et transibunt domus eorum ad alteros agri et uxores pariter quia extendam manum meam super habitantes terram dicit Dominus a minore quippe usque ad maiorem omnes auaritiae student et a propheta usque ad sacerdotem cuncti faciunt dolum et curabant contritionem filiae populi mei cum ignominia dicentes pax pax et non erat pax confusi sunt quia abominationem fecerunt quin potius confusione non sunt confusi et erubescere nescierunt quam ob rem cadent inter ruentes in tempore uisitationis suae corruent dicit Dominus

Gildas departs from the Vg at two points. First, he has non erit instead of non erat (MS A has non esset which brings the usage into harmony with Jer 8:11 but not 6:14), This change from erat to erit is found in several authors and does not suggest a VL usage. Second, Gildas has eorum for suae, and this variation is not otherwise attested. Both these minor alterations in wording can be accounted for by quotation from memory.

300

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

400T. Jer 6:28-30 Gildas

Vg

omnes isti principes declinantium ambulantes fraudulenter aes et ferrum uniuersi corrupti sunt defecit sufflatorium in igne

omnes isti principes declinantum ambulantes fraudulenter aes et ferrum uniuersi corrupti sunt defecit sufflatorium in igne consumptum est plumbum frustra conflauit conflator malitiae enim eorum non sunt consumptae argentum reprobum uocate eos quia Dominus proiecit illos

frustra conflauit conflator malitiae enim eorum non sunt consumptae argentum reprobum uocate eos quia Dominus proiecit illos

Gildas’s departure from the Vg is not otherwise attested. 401T. Jer 7:11-5 Gildas’s text is identical with the Vg; except he begins the testimonium with ego sum, ego sum, ego uidi rather than ego ego sum ego uidi – a variation from the Vg that is otherwise unattested.

DEB LXXXI 402T. Jer 10:20-1 Gildas

Vg

filii mei exierunt a me et non subsistunt non est qui extendat ultra tentorium meum et erigat pelles meas quia stulte egerunt pastores et Dominum non quaesierunt propterea non intellexerunt et omnis grex eorum dispersus est

tabernaculum meum uastatum est omnes funiculi mei disrupti sunt filii mei exierunt a me et non subsistunt non est qui extendat ultra tentorium meum et erigat pelles meas quia stulte egerunt pastores et Dominum non quaesierunt propterea non intellexerunt et omnis grex eorum dispersus est

Both the addition of et and the omission of omnis are variations that are otherwise unattested.

301

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

403T. Jer 11:15-6 Gildas’s text is identical with the Vg.221 404T. Jer 12:9-10 Gildas’s text is identical with the Vg. 405T. Jer 14:10 Gildas’s text is identical with the Vg. Gildas had already used Jer 14:10 in DEB L (232T) making a different point, but also following the Vg. 406T. Jer 14:13-6 Gildas

Vg

prophetae dicunt eis non uidebitis gladium et fames non erit in uobis sed pacem ueram dabit uobis in loco isto

et dixi a a a Domine Deus prophetae dicunt eis non uidebitis gladium et famis non erit in uobis sed pacem ueram dabit uobis in loco isto et dixit Dominus ad me falso prophetae uaticinantur in nomine meo non misi eos et non praecepi eis neque locutus sum ad eos uisionem mendacem et diuinationem et fraudulentiam et seductionem cordis sui prophetant uobis ideo haec dicit Dominus de prophetis qui prophetant in nomine meo quos ego non misi dicentes gladius et famis non erit in terra hac in gladio et fame consumentur prophetae illi et populi quibus prophetant erunt proiecti in uiis Hierusalem prae fame et gladio et non erit qui sepeliat eos ipsi et uxores eorum filii et filiae eorum et effundam super eos malum suum

et dixit Dominus ad me falso prophetae uaticinantur in nomine meo non misi eos et non praecepi eis uisionem mendacem et diuinationem et fraudulentiam et seductionem cordis sui prophetant uobis ideo haec dicit Dominus in gladio et fame consumentur prophetae illi et populi quibus prophetauerunt proiecti erunt in uiis Hierusalem prae fame et gladio et non erit qui sepeliat

Gildas presents these oracles as following on directly from Jer 14:10. The variation of fames rather than famis is not a departure form the Vg, but from Vg: fames is the more common Vg reading. The phrase prophetauerunt In Williams, 198, line 34 there is a misprint which reads uberam instead of uberem. 221

302

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

proiecti erunt is not that of the VL, but is a contamination of the Vg by a halfremembered VL phrase.

DEB LXXXII 407T. Jer 23:1-2 Gildas

Vg

uae pastoribus qui disperdunt et dilacerant gregem pascuae meae dicit Dominus ideo haec dicit Dominus Deus Israhel ad pastores qui pascunt populum meum uos dispersistis gregem meum eiecistis eos et non uisitastis illos ecce ego uisitabo super uos malitiam studiorum uestrorum dicit Dominus

uae pastoribus qui disperdunt et dilacerant gregem pascuae meae dicit Dominus ideo haec dicit Dominus Deus Israhel ad pastores qui pascunt populum meum uos dispersistis gregem meum eiecistis eos et non uisitastis eos ecce ego uisitabo super uos malitiam studiorum uestrorum ait Dominus

The two variations in 23:2, eos becoming illos, and ait becoming dicit do not suggest a different text, but substitution of similar words by Gildas. As we shall see in the next testimonium, Gildas seems to remember the phrase dicit Dominus rather than the phrase ait Dominus, and often replaces ait with dicit. 408T. Jer 23:11-20 Gildas

Vg

propheta namque et sacerdos polluti sunt et in domu mea inueni malum eorum dicit Dominus et idcirco uia eorum erit quasi lubricum in tenebris inpellentur enim et corruent in ea adferam enim super eos mala annum uisitationis eorum dicit Dominus et in prophetis Samariae uidi fatuitatem et prophetabant in Baal et decipiebant populum meum Israhel

propheta namque et sacerdos polluti sunt et in domo mea inueni malum eorum ait Dominus idcirco uia eorum erit quasi lubricum in tenebris inpellentur enim et corruent in ea adferam enim super eos mala annum uisitationis eorum ait Dominus et in prophetis Samariae uidi fatuitatem prophetabant in Baal et decipiebant populum meum Israhel

303

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg

et in prophetis Hierusalem uidi similitudinem adulterium et iter mendacii et confortauerunt manus pessimorum ut non conuerteretur unusquisque a malitia sua facti sunt mihi omnes Sodoma et habitatores eius quasi Gomorra propterea haec dicit Dominus

et in prophetis Hierusalem uidi similitudinem adulterium et iter mendacii et confortauerunt manus pessimorum ut non conuerteretur unusquisque a malitia sua facti sunt mihi omnes Sodoma et habitatores eius quasi Gomorra propterea haec dicit Dominus exercituum ad prophetas ecce ego cibabo eos absinthio et potabo eos felle a prophetis enim Hierusalem est egressa pollutio super omnem terram haec dicit Dominus exercituum nolite audire uerba prophetarum qui prophetant uobis et decipiunt uos uisionem cordis sui loquuntur non de ore Domini dicunt his qui blasphemant me locutus est Dominus pax erit uobis et omni qui ambulat in prauitate cordis sui dixerunt non ueniet super uos malum quis enim adfuit in consilio Domini et uidit et audiuit sermonem eius quis considerauit uerbum illius et audiuit ecce turbo dominicae indignationis egredietur et tempestas erumpens super caput impiorum ueniet non reuertetur furor Domini usque dum faciat et usque dum conpleat cogitationem cordis sui in nouissimis diebus intellegetis consilium eius

ad prophetas ecce ego cibabo eos absinthio et potabo eos felle a prophetis enim Hierusalem est egressa pollutio super omnem terram haec dicit Dominus exercituum nolite audire uerba prophetarum qui prophetant uobis et decipiunt uos uisionem cordis sui loquuntur non de ore Domini dicunt enim his qui me blasphemant locutus est Dominus pax erit uobis et omni qui ambulant in prauitate cordis sui dixerunt non ueniet super uos malum quis enim adfuit in consilio Domini et uidit et audiuit sermonem eius quis considerauit uerbum illius et audiuit ecce turbo dominicae indignationis egredietur et tempestas erumpens super caput impiorum ueniet non reuertetur furor Domini usque dum faciat et usque dum conpleat cogitationem cordis sui in nouissimis diebus intellegetis consilium eius

With the exception of ambulant, all these variations are found only in Gildas whose text is that of the Vg. The plural ambulant does, as Williams noted, represent the LXX, 222 but both forms, singular and plural, are found in the citations in the VLD: it, therefore, may represent an influence of a VL substrate, but it could equally well be contamination from such texts as 1 Kgs 8:23; Ps 222

Williams, 200, n. 2.

304

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

83:13 or 118:1; Mk 7:5 or Phil 3:17 where similar sentiments are expressed using a group as the focus, or it could be a more distant contamination from a verse such as Ez 20:16.

DEB LXXXIII 409T. Joel 1:5; 9-12 Although Williams pointed out that Gildas used a version other than the Vg;223 however, only the Vg can act as a comparitor to indicate the verses omitted by Gildas because we cannot interpolate a pre-Vg text from the variety of surviving materials with any certainty. Gildas

Vg

expergiscimini qui estis ebrii a uino uestro, et plorate et lamentamini omnes qui bibitis uinum in ebrietatem quia ablata est ab ore uestro

expergescimini ebrii

iucunditas et gaudium lugete sacerdotes qui deseruitis altario

223

et flete et ululate omnes qui bibitis uinum in dulcedine quoniam periit ab ore uestro gens enim ascendit super terram meam fortis et innumerabilis dentes eius ut dentes leonis et molares eius ut catuli leonis posuit uineam meam in desertum et ficum meam decorticauit nudans spoliauit eam et proiecit albi facti sunt rami eius plange quasi uirgo accincta sacco super uirum pubertatis suae periit sacrificium et libatio de domo Domini luxerunt sacerdotes ministri Domini

Williams, 202, n. 1.

305

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas

Vg

quia miseri facti sunt campi lugeat terra, quia miserum factum est frumentum et siccatum est uinum diminutum est oleum aruerunt agricolae lugete possessiones pro tritico et hordeo quia periit uindemia ex agro uitis arefacta est ficus diminutae sunt granata et palma et malum et omnia ligna arefacti sunt quoniam confuderunt gaudium filii hominum

depopulata est regio luxit humus quoniam deuastatum est triticum confusum est uinum elanguit oleum confusi sunt agricolae ululauerunt uinitores super frumento et hordeo quia periit messis agri uinea confusa est et ficus elanguit malogranatum et palma et malum et omnia ligna agri aruerunt quia confusum est gaudium a filiis hominum

There is no text in the VLD that matches that found here in Gildas; but it has clear affinities to other remains of the VL. 410A. Amos 8:11 Gildas warns his audience that they must read the words of Joel using a ‘spiritual sense’ or else they will face a particular type of famine: that of the word of God which will cause their spiritual selves to wither. For Gildas, the ‘word of God’ is to be understood by analogy with food’s role in sustaining the body; and this allows him to utilise the prophetic threats of famine against those who have departed from the Lord’s ways (e.g. Is 3:1 and Ez 14:13). However, Gildas has in mind a particular use of this theme: Amos 8:11 (soon to be used as a testimonium: 415T) where a time is foretold which, spiritually understood (i.e. outside its original historical setting), would apply to his people: ‘The time is surely coming, says the Lord God, when I will send a famine on the land; not a famine of bread, or a thirst for water, but of the hearing of the word of the Lord’ (Gildas has here uerbi Dei, while in the testimonium he follows the Vg: uerbum). The significance of this allusion is that it allows us to see both an aspect of Gildas’s view of the place of scripture within the Christian edifice, and how he understood ‘spiritual understanding.’

306

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

411T. Joel 2:17 Gildas

Vg

flete sacerdotes qui deseruitis domino dicentes parce Domine populo tuo et ne des hereditatem tuam in obprobrium et ne dominentur eorum gentes uti ne dicant gentes ubi est Deus eorum

inter uestibulum et altare plorabunt sacerdotes ministri Domini et dicent parce Domine populo tuo et ne des hereditatem tuam in obprobrium ut dominentur eis nationes quare dicunt in populis ubi est Deus eorum

There is no text in the VLD that matches that found here in Gildas; but it has clear affinities to other remains of the VL. The move from narration to command is found only in Gildas.

DEB LXXXIV 412T. Hos 5:1-2.224 Gildas

Vg

audite haec sacerdotes et intendat domus Israel et domus regis infigite auribus uestris quoniam ad uos est iudicium quia laqueus facti estis speculationi et uelut retiaculum extensum super Thabor quod indicators uenationis confinxerunt

audite hoc sacerdotes et adtendite domus Israhel et domus regis auscultate quia uobis iudicium est quoniam laqueus facti estis speculationi et rete expansum super Thabor

There is no text in the VLD that matches that found here in Gildas; but it has clear affinities to other remains of the VL.

224 Both Mommsen and Williams cite this testimonium as containing only one verse: Hos 5:1; although Williams notes (203, n. 6) that the final sentence, … quod indicatores …, represents a different Hebrew original.

307

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LXXXV 413T. Amos 5:21-3 Gildas

Vg

odio habui et repuli dies festos uestros et non accipiam odorem in sollemnibus conuentionibus uestris, quia etsi obtuleritis holocaustomata et hostias uestras, non accipiam ea

odi et proieci festiuitates uestras et non capiam odorem coetuum uestrorum

et salutare declarationis uestrae non aspiciam transfer a me sonum cantionum tuarum et psalmum organum tuorum non audiam

quod si adtuleritis mihi holocaustomata et munera uestra non suscipiam et uota pinguium uestrorum non respiciam aufer a me tumultum carminum tuorum et cantica lyrae tuae non audiam

There is no text in the VLD that matches that found here in Gildas; but it has clear affinities to other remains of the VL. 414A. Jn 6:27 Gildas introduces the key verse, Amos 8:11, which makes the link between the word of God and food, by referring to the need for evangelical food (euangelici cibi) which alludes to Jn 6:27: disciples have to be concerned with the food which does not perish, the word of God, rather than the food which perishes. From the way Gildas alludes to food, it appears that he sees Amos 8:11 and Jn 6:27 as a couplet.

308

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

415T. Amos 8:11-2. 225 Gildas

Vg

ecce dies ueniunt dicit Dominus et inmittam famem in terram non famem panis neque sitim aquae sed famen in audiendo uerbum Dei et mouebuntur aquae a mari usque ad mare et ab aquilone usque ad orientem percurrent quaerentes uerbum Domini et non inuenient

ecce dies ueniunt dicit Dominus et mittam famem in terram non famem panis neque sitim aquae sed audiendi uerbum Domini et commouebuntur a mari usque ad mare et ab aquilone usque ad orientem circumibunt quaerentes uerbum Domini et non inuenient

This testimonium has to be read in the light of how Gildas uses these ideas at the beginning of this set of quotations from the prophets, see 410A. While Amos 8:11 is a favourite text for Christian writers (almost a hundred citations in the VLD), there are less than a dozen uses of Amos 8:12; another indication that Gildas made his own collection of extracts rather than relying on an existing body of testimonia. There is no text in the VLD that matches exactly that found here in Gildas; but it has clear affinities to other remains of the VL.

DEB LXXXVI 416A. Is 6:9-10 with Mt 13:14-5 and Acts 28:26-7 Gildas gives a warning, in a prophetic context, to his audience that they need to hear and understand what is reaching them through their ears: auribus quoque percipite. This invokes a theme in the work of Isaiah when he was told to utter a warning to a people who were not listening to the word of God; and that incident in Isaiah was used in both Mt (and the other gospels)226 and Acts. See an earlier use of this theme in DEB XXXVI (150A) and a subsequent one is DEB CVII (510A).

225 Both Mommsen and Williams cite this testimonium as containing only one verse, Amos 8:11, whereas it contains two verses. 226 It is Eusebian Section 133 of Mt, in the first canon, and so would have been known to Gildas as something in all four gospels.

309

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

417A. Is 58:1 The reference to Micah as a caeleste … tuba is a based upon Is 58:1: clama ne cesses quasi tuba exalta vocem tuam et adnuntia populo meo scelera eorum et domui Iacob peccata eorum. This linking of Micah ‘the tuba’ with Isaiah is a distinct item of information in Gildas’s mind because he makes this same link in DEB XXXVI (151C). The basis of the link is to be found in the similarity of Is 58:1 with the latter portion of Mic 3:8 which reads, in Gildas’s version of the VL: ut annuntiem domui Iacob impietates suas et Israel peccata sua. The two oracles, and hence the images of the two prophets, were conflated in Gildas’s mind. 418T. Mic 3:1-12227 There is no text in the VLD that matches that found here in Gildas; but it has clear affinities with other remains of the VL. 419T. Mic 7:1-3 Gildas

Vg

hue me, quia factus sum qui colligit stipulam in messe et sicut racemes in uindemia, cum non sit botrus ad manducandum primitiua. hue me anima, quia periit terrenis operibus, semper peccatorum reuerentia exoritur reverens a terra, et qui corrigat inter homines, non est. omnes in sanguinem iudicio contendunt, et unusquisque proximum suum tribulatione tribulauit, in malum manus suas praeparat

uae mihi quia factus sum sicut qui colligit in autumno racemos uindemiae non est botrus ad comedendum praecoquas ficus desiderauit anima mea periit sanctus de terra et rectus in hominibus non est omnes in sanguine insidiantur uir fratrem suum uenatur ad mortem malum manuum suarum dicunt bonum princeps postulat et iudex in reddendo est et magnus locutus est desiderium animae suae et conturbauerunt eam

Gildas version in this testimonium is far less like the Vg than is the case in 418T; and this verse, as we have already noted, was of special significance to Gildas (see 290C above) and we cannot exclude the possibility that its variants are due to his mutation of a favourite verse in memory (see 80A above). The importance of the verse for Gildas’s theology of sin must begin with the use of the whole testimonium from Micah here, and then be qualified by his use of the text earlier in the DEB.

227

See 151C above.

310

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

There is no text in the VLD that matches that found here in Gildas; but it has clear affinities to other remains of the VL.

DEB LXXXVII 420A. Zeph 1:4 The identification of the city mentioned in Zeph 3:1, against which the prophet preaches, with Jerusalem is based on Zeph 1:4 which states that the Lord will stretch out his ‘hand against Judah, and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem,’ and that place is then the object of prophecy when the text finally makes mention of the city in Zeph 3:1. This linkage has to be seen as an act of interpretation on the part of Gildas, because Jerusalem is not the object of criticism in Zeph 3:14 and 3:16. On the interpretation of a reference, interpreted spiritually, to the city of Jerusalem as being the church, Gildas could be drawing on any one of several writers who used ‘Jerusalem’ as an exemplar for the different levels/kinds of exegesis.228 421T. Zeph 3:1-2 There is no text in the VLD that matches that found here in Gildas; but it has clear affinities to other remains of the VL. 422T. Zeph 3:3-5 There is no text in the VLD that matches that found here in Gildas; but it has clear affinities to other remains of the VL. In the brief comment between these quotations, et id quare, ostendit, Gildas shows that it is the wickedness of princes and priests that is the cause of the prophetic oracle against the city / church. This verse, therefore, is part of Gildas’s own mandate to write as he does, and a further confirmation of his vocation as a prophet: he is a marker of God’s presence and judgement, day by day (mane mane) among his people in Britain. The expression of the continuous work of the prophet in Zeph 3:5 (… mane mane …) would have echoed for Gildas the similar expression of Isaiah in his work of teaching: Is 50:4.

228

See O’Loughlin (1998), 166-8.

311

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LXXXVIII 423C. Lk 5:1 (e.g.) Gildas states that the prophet admonishes the wicked in uerbo Dei, but in using this phrase shows something of his understanding of scripture. The phrase ‘the word of God’ is only found on four occasions in the Old Testament229 but on thirty-eight occasions in the New. Of the New Testament usages, the greatest preponderance is in Luke / Acts where ‘the word of God’ is the announcement of the kingdom being proclaimed by Jesus which then spreads out to all nations through the work of the apostles. 230 However, for Gildas it is a generic term describing the contents of the scriptures, in both testaments, which stand before people as a law. 424T. Zech 7:9-12 Gildas uses a VL text of Zechariah with one of its characteristic markers: Dominus omnipotens rather than Dominus exercituum. There is no indication in the VLD that Gildas has an intermediate source for this quotation. 425T. Zech 10:2-3 Gildas uses a VL text of Zechariah. There is no indication in the VLD that Gildas has an intermediate source for this quotation. 426T. Zech 11:3-6 Gildas uses a VL text of Zechariah. There is no indication in the VLD that Gildas has an intermediate source for this quotation. Burkitt (1934), 208, n. 2 made a special note of the text of Zech 11:5 in Mommsen’s edition where Mommsen emended the text of Gildas, as found in the manuscripts, from nihil passi sunt to nihil parsi sunt on the basis that this approached the Vg: non parcebant eis. Burkitt saw this emendation as a failure to recognise that since Gildas is using a VL text, that passi might be the correct reading because it followed the LXX: ‘their shepherds have suffered no sorrow for them.’ Burkitt is no doubt correct here, and the text should be read with passi not parsi; we should note that Gildas is the only Latin writer, not using the Vg, to cite this part of this verse.

229

1 Sam 9:27; 1 Kgs 12:22; Prov 30:5; and Tob 14:4. For example: Lk 5:1 and 8:1; or Acts 6:2

230

312

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB LXXXIX 427T. Mal 1:6-9 Gildas Vos, inquiens, sacerdotes qui spernitis nomen meum et dixistis in quo spernimus nomen tuum offerendo ad altare meum panes pollutos et dixistis in quo polluimus eos in eo quod dixistis mensa Domini pro nihilo est et quae superposita sunt spreuistis quoniam, si adducatis caecum ad uictimam nonne malum si ammoueatis claudum aut languidum nonne malum offer itaque illud praeposito tuo si suscipiet illud, si accipiet personam tuam dicit Dominus omnipotens et nunc exorate faciem Dei uestri et deprecamini eam in manibus uestris facta sunt haec si accipiam ex uobis personas uestras

Vg dicit Dominus exercituum ad uos o sacerdotes qui despicitis nomen meum et dixistis in quo despeximus nomen tuum offertis super altare meum panem pollutum et dicitis in quo polluimus te in eo quod dicitis mensa Domini despecta est si offeratis caecum ad immolandum nonne malum est et si offeratis claudum et languidum nonne malum est offer illud duci tuo si placuerit ei aut si susceperit faciem tuam dicit Dominus exercituum et nunc deprecamini uultum Dei ut misereatur uestri de manu enim uestra factum est hoc si quo modo suscipiat facies uestras dicit Dominus exercituum

Gildas is here using a VL version, as Williams noted, 231 and all of the variations in his text can be traced to the older version which Jerome changed extensively. Furthermore, Gildas must be doing so from acquaintance with a text of the VL, because: (1) he quotes the additional line et quae superposita sunt spreuistis (Mal 1:7) which Jerome noted was not to be found in the Hebrew, and which he therefore omitted from the Vg; (2) Gildas is the only author in the VLD who cites this additional line – with the exception of Jerome who, in noting it, used despexistis for spreuistis; and, therefore, Gildas did not have access to it through an intermediate author. Williams, 208, n. 3.

231

313

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

428T. Mal 1:13 – 2:3.232 Gildas

Vg

et intulistis de rapina claudum et languidum et intulistis munus numquid suscipiam illud de manu uestra dicit Dominus maledictus dolosus qui habet in grege suo masculum et uotum faciens immolat debile Domino quia rex magnus ego sum dicit Dominus exercituum et nomen meum horribile in gentibus et nunc ad uos mandatum hoc o sacerdotes si nolueritis audire et ponere super cor

et intulistis de rapinis claudum et languidum et intulistis munus numquid suscipiam illud de manu uestra dicit Dominus maledictus dolosus qui habet in grege suo masculum et uotum faciens immolat debile Domino quia rex magnus ego dicit Dominus exercituum et nomen meum horribile in gentibus et nunc ad uos mandatum hoc o sacerdotes si nolueritis audire et si nolueritis ponere super cor ut detis gloriam nomini meo ait Dominus exercituum mittam in uos egestatem et maledicam benedictionibus uestris et maledicam illis quoniam non posuistis super cor ecce ego proiciam uobis brachium et dispergam super uultum uestrum stercus sollemnitatum uestrarum et adsumet uos secum

ut detis gloriam nomini meo ait Dominus exercituum mittam in uos egestatem et maledicam benedictionibus uestris quoniam non posuistis super cor ecce ego proiciam uobis brachium et dispergam super uultum uestrum stercus sollemnitatum uestrarum

As Williams noted, this passage is clearly the Vg, and clearly not the VL for the two versions differ markedly. We even have that characteristic phrase of the Vg, as distinct from the VL: Dominus exercituum. The presence of this testimonium following on from the previous one, the first markedly VL, the latter markedly Vg, means that we must confirm the judgement of Williams: ‘As in the case of I Samuel, we may conclude that Gildas possessed codices of both versions of this book.’233 429A. Mal 2:17 Gildas employs the biblical topos of the wicked person who returns evil deeds for good (mala pro bono) which would have been familiar from many 232 Note the misprint in the margin of Williams 208/209, which reads ‘i:13; ii 3’ but should read: ‘i:13-ii:3.’ 233 Williams, 208, n. 3.

314

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

places in the psalms, 234 and which is also used in Mal 2:17: laborare fecistis Dominum in sermonibus uestris et dixistis in quo eum fecimus laborare in eo cum diceretis omnis qui facit malum bonus est in conspectu Domini et tales ei placent aut certe ubi est Deus iudicii. Anyone hearing Gildas was expected to have recognized the heinousness of organa nequitiae … ad bona from his familiarity with biblical references to this form of sinfulness. 430T. Mal 2:5-7 This is cited following the Vg. The context of these verses in the biblical text makes it clear that the past covenant which is being recalled is the one that was made with Levi (this is stated explicitly in 2:4, repeated in 2:8, and re-affirmed indirectly in 3:3); from whence does Gildas get the idea that this covenant is the one with Levi or Moses? The answer probably lies in Gildas’s notion of the historical certainty of the biblical text. His problem comes from the fact that there is no mention of a covenant being made with Levi (or with his descendants) anywhere in the historical books, the Pentateuch: they are only mentioned in so far as they had to perform priestly services required as part of the covenant. But here in Malachi, at 2:4 and 8, and only here, such a covenant is mentioned as a fact in the past. Gildas is now torn: a statement in the text is to be read literally as having occurred, but there is no such record, so he interpreted it as being a reference to the covenant with Moses, but covered the possibility that he might be mistaken by de Leui namque uel Moyse. Moreover, there is a reference to Moses in Mal 4:4 which could be taken as implying that all that was commanded by the covenant was contained within the laws given to Moses. 431T. Mal 2:8-10 Gildas continues his quotation from 430T, again following the Vg, but breaks the quotation to note a change in the time-signature of the text (from historical recollection to the time and audience of the oracle). This Gildas takes to be a change in the sense within the text: because, as Gildas understands it, the text is now to be approached through the use of a different mode of interpretation (i.e. a ‘sense’) and thus generate what the hearer is to hear in the text. This comment on this testimonium by Gildas is the single most important indicator we have in the DEB to his hermeneutic and his understanding of what he is doing as an exegete. The ‘sense’ which yields the inspired text’s true meaning is not the result of the empirical application by the exegete of frames of interpretation (‘senses’) such that any results are either automatically valid or valid because of their theological appropriateness; rather, the true sense of each passage is inherent in that passage, and it is the exegete’s task to pay at It is found in these places: Gen 44:4; 1 Sam 24:17; 25:21; Ps 34:12; 37:20; 108:5; Prov 17:13: Mal 2:17; and 1 Thes 5:15 (and echoed in Jer 18:20). 234

315

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

tention to recognizing the sense at each point (and, as here, shifts in ‘the sense’ over even very short passages) and thus make the meaning (‘the sense’ of the passage) clear. 432T. Mal 3:1-3 Gildas

Vg

ecce ueniet Dominus exercituum et quis poterit cogitare diem aduentus eius et quis stabit ad uidendum eum ipse enim egredietur quasi ignis ardens et quasi poa lauantium et sedebit conflans et emundans argentum et purgabit filios Leui et colabit eos quasi aurum et quasi argentum

ecce ego mittam angelum meum et praeparabit uiam ante faciem meam et statim ueniet ad templum suum dominator quem uos quaeritis et angelus testamenti quem uos uultis ecce uenit dicit Dominus exercituum et quis poterit cogitare diem aduentus eius et quis stabit ad uidendum eum ipse enim quasi ignis conflans et quasi herba fullonum et sedebit conflans et emundans argentum et purgabit filios Leui et colabit eos quasi aurum et quasi argentum

The text is substantially that of the Vg, but there is interference from a VL substrate in three cases: (1) ecce ueniet Dominus omnipotens is a VL reading that is found in several liturgical books, and here ueniet replacing uenit, dicit, embeds itself; (2) several authors have ingredietur, but egredietur and ardens are found only in Gildas; and (3) poa lauantium – harmonized in one MS of DEB to the Vg – is one of a number of non-Vg readings found in the VLD. However, the most significant aspect of this testimonium is that by omitting the opening phrases of 3:1, which are used in the gospels as prophecies fulfilled in the coming of Jesus, 235 Gildas takes an important messianic text and turns it into an apocalyptic one. No longer is it pointing to the coming of the Lord in the birth of Jesus as deliverer, but his coming at the end of time as judge recompensing sinners. This apocalyptic reading has the support of the Apoc 6:17 and its presentation of ‘the Day of the Lord’: quoniam uenit dies magnus irae ipsorum et quis poterit stare. This omission is crucial for an understanding of Gildas’s operative Christology and his soteriology.

Mt 11:10; Mk 1:2; Lk 1:17 and 76; and 7:27

235

316

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

433T. Mal 3:13-5 Gildas (as in editions)

Vg

inualuerunt super me uerba uestra dicit Dominus et dixistis

inualuerunt super me uerba uestra dicit Dominus et dixistis quid locuti sumus contra te dixistis uanus est qui seruit Deo et quod emolumentum quia custodiuimus praecepta eius et quia ambulauimus tristes coram Domino exercituum ergo nunc beatos dicimus arrogantes siquidem aedificati sunt facientes impietatem et temptauerunt Deum et salui facti sunt

uanus est qui seruit Deo et quod emolumentum quia custodiuimus praecepta eius et quia ambulauimus coram Domino exercituum tristes ergo nunc beatos dicimus arrogantes siquidem aedificati sunt facientes iniquitatem temptauerunt Deum et salui facti sunt

The text is Vg, and the variations in Gildas’s text are not significant. However, the omission of the phrase following dixistis is probably due to homoioteleuton at an early stage in the text’s tradition, and probably should be restored (more­ over, its deliberate omission is without significance).

DEB XC 434T. Ez 7:26 As Williams notes, 236 Gildas now uses a VL version, and his text of this verse is not otherwise attested in the VLD. While there are witnesses in the VLD that are closer than others to Gildas, since there are so few witnesses overall, and there is no reason to suspect any links between those that are more close than others, any attempt at making sense from these verses of the history of the transmission of the biblical text in Latin has such a low level of certainty, that the mere utterance of possibilities is more likely to confuse than to offer worthwhile information. 435T. Ez 13:8-10 Same situation as 434T.

236

Williams, 210, n. 3.

317

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

436T. Ez 13:18-9 Same situation as 434T. 237 437T. Ez 22:24-6 Same situation as 434T.

DEB XCI 438T. Ez 22:30-31 Same situation as 434T. 439T. Ez 33:1-9 Same situation as 434T.

DEB XCII 440A. Mt 24:31; Ez 33:5-6; and Ps 18:5 The image of ‘the trumpet of the gospel’ whose sound has gone throughout the earth is a complex one, but one which was of special significance to Gildas not only with regard to his own mission but the nature of the revelation. The core image of a ‘gospel trumpet’ is based on Mt 24:31 when Christ, returned as judge, will as the Son of Man ‘send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.’ This, in turn, is based on Ez 33:5 and 6 (439T) which in Gildas’s version actually contains the word tuba (the more common VL rendering is bucina) which is an instance of prophecy and fulfilment. Moreover, both the gospel text and Ezekiel are seen by Gildas as eschatological images; and, as such, the composite image merges with 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Thes 4:16. This ‘fuller image’ in Gildas is then enhanced by the notion of the sound spreading across the earth (mundo personans) which is derived from Ps 18:5. Gildas’s own task, despite his note of his own insignificance, is that of being the trumpet; while the testimonies of the two testaments is that of announcing the law prior to judgement. The image of the trumpet is an important one for Gildas; here we have the ‘euangelica tuba,’ elsewhere ‘the prophetica tuba,’238 and in several other places prophets are described in terms of trumpets.239 237 Ez 13:19 is found in the Collectio canonum Hibernensis 27,8 but in a version different both to the Vg and to what is found here. 238 See 230A and 240T above. 239 See 151C, 342C, and 417C above.

318

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

441A. Mt 19:28 The image of the ‘apostolic seat’ is derived from its primary eschatological locus in the gospels.240 This reference should be read in conjunction with 446A, 468T. and 494A below. Williams was led astray into anachronism in his notes at this point. He imagined Gildas was discussing the issue of the validity of ‘the Sacrament of Order’ with the concomitant issues of ‘right intention’ and the chain of ‘apostolic succession’ with its links to the Apostolic See as conceived in Reformation and more modern terms.241 Such a diversion was perhaps inevitable in the immediate aftermath of the publication of Pope Leo XIII’s bull Apostolicae curae in September 1896 when these issues, and Gildas’s evidence in particular as the witness to the ‘ancient British Church’ was a ‘hot’ commodity. 242 Though it should be noted that Williams, ever a careful scholar, was aware that the language of his note was anachronistic: ‘ … to use a more modern phrase … .’ 243 However, if we assume that such questions relating to the western theology of Holy Orders are a product of the scholastic use of canon law, then their irrelevance to Gildas should become obvious and necessitates that we seek his theology of ministry while eschewing such solutions as that found in Williams, despite the fact that some of the language Gildas used, e.g. legitimus pastor, was part of the tradition that later became the canonical tradition. 442C. Mt 24:45 [Lk 12:42] Gildas

Vg

conseruis suis in tempore cibaria

Mt fidelis servus et prudens quem constituit dominus suus supra familiam suam ut det illis cibum in tempore Lk fidelis dispensator et prudens quem constituet dominus super familiam suam ut det illis in tempore tritici mensuram

As Williams notes, 244 this phrase in Gildas is based on a reading of the VL. Williams (it was not noted by Mommsen) opted for Lk 12:42 (without men 242 243 244 240 241

The parallel text is found in Lk 22:30. Williams, 214, nn. 2 and 3. See Williams (1912), 457-62. Williams, 214, n. 2. Williams, 215, n. 4.

319

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

tion of Mt) and suggested that Gildas’s gospel codex had a reading such as ‘ut largiatur conseruis suis in tempore cibaria.’ Working with the VLD we can see that one VL variation of this verse is in tempore cibaria conseruis suis. However, when we consult the parallel verse in Mt 24:45,245 we find that one strand of the VL of this verse is far closer to Gildas for the VL reads: conseruis suis in tempore cibaria. Therefore, Gildas is thinking of this classic text on the qualities of ministers within its Matthaean context, and it needs to be read as such. 443A. Jn 10:11-6 and Ez 34:5-8 The image of the bad pastor who abandons the sheep, in contrast to the pastor bonus, is derived from John’s gospel, and would have summoned many other pastor images to Gildas’s mind such as the key verses from Ezekiel on the scattered sheep. 444A. Mt 7:9-11 The giving of the wrong food as an example of poor care is based on Mt; it has a parallel in Lk 11:12. 445A. Mt 7:24-6 The reference to anyone, ordained or not, who rejects the words of the Lord alludes to Matthew’s ‘Parable of the Sower.’ 446A. Mt 23:2 The reference to the sacerdotalis cathedra seems to build on the image of ‘scribes and Pharisees who sit in Moses’ seat.’ The image should be read in conjunction with 441A, above, and note that this link is made explicit in 468T, below (and compare 494A below). 447A. Jn 4:42 and Ps 133:3 The christological title, saluator mundi factorque, is based on Jn: hic est uere saluator mundi; combined with Ps 133:3: Dominus … factor caeli et terrae. 448T. Mt 5:13 The reading of this verse does not vary significantly between the VL and the Vg. However, Gildas’s proiciatur (the Vg reads mittatur – and manuscript D emends to bring the text of Gildas into line) does show the influence of the VL. Williams noted it as Vg, along with the other citations of Mt, and that the variations are consistent with the variants found in Vg manuscripts; however, the pursuit of the ‘Irish text’ is more complex than was assumed by Wordsworth.246 245

This is Mt 265/5 = Lk 157/5 within the Eusebian Apparatus. Williams, 216, n. 1.

246

320

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB XCIII 449T. Mt 5:14-5 This is cited following the Vg; however, it should be noted that most of the VL versions of this verse are identical with the Vg. 450A. Apoc 18:23 The lux that cannot be hidden and the lucerna on the stand, mentioned in Mt, are then drawn out in a comment on the lux clarissimae lucernae as a reality that should be in the lives of the sacerdotes, 247 but which by implication is absent. Its absence is a punishment in Apoc 18:23: et lux lucernae non lucebit tibi amplius. 451T. Mt 5:16 Although this verse is not quoted directly in the text, Gildas expects his audience to know the verse that follows on from the previous testimonium in the Sermon on the Mount: sic luceat lux uestra coram hominibus ut uideant uestra bona opera et glorificent Patrem uestrum qui in caelis est. This is expressed by Gildas in the phrase: scientiae et bonorum operum lampade which prepares the audience for the formal citation in 453T. 452A. Mt 5:14 with Is 26:1, Prov 18:11, and Mic 4:1 The image of the city set on the hill is based on Mt 5:14 (see 449T), but the image is now elaborated by Gildas as that city being like ‘strong cities’ (ut est ciuibus firmissima forte) which takes over an image from Isaiah which looks forward to the day of victory when the people shall have a strong city build for them by the Lord as a defence against their enemies. The contrast (Prov 18:11) may well also be influencing Gildas: the foolish rich think that their wealth is their ‘strong city.’ But the strong city of the righteous which will be established in the future will be upon the summit of a mountain which invokes the image of the house on the summit of the highest mountain which the Lord will establish on the last days / the judgement day, as expressed in Mic 4:1: et in nouissimo dierum erit mons domus Domini praeparatus in uertice montium et sublimis super colles et fluent ad eum populi. This compound image is here used as an image of the divine promise of deliverance and must be seen in conjunction with Gildas’s notion of forgiveness and salvation.

247 This cannot be translated accurately by the word ‘priests’ – which implies in Christian usage in English just one grade (i.e. presbyters) – but must include all the grades with which Gildas is familiar: bishops, presbyters, and deacons.

321

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

453T. Mt 5:16 Having already anticipated this testimonium in commentary, Gildas then quotes it. Mt 5:16 is almost identical in the VL and the Vg, but, as noted by Williams, 248 Gildas had magnificent rather than glorificent which is indicative of the VL. Gildas then offers a comment upon it by contrast: the people to whom he preaches, who follow the byways of crime, are those who do not fulfil this command that the Father in heaven be praised by public good works (Mt: ut uideant uestra bona opera et glorificent Patrem uestrum qui in caelis est) which is echoed thus: quorum non modo Pater caelestis non laudatur per opera. The centrality of Mt 5:16 within this exposition can be seen in that it is anticipated with a paraphrase (451T) and concluded with this paraphrase; these taken together cover the whole of the Matthaean verse. The text of Gildas has this structure: … scientiae simul et bonorum operum lampade luceat … sic luceat lux uestra coram hominibus ut uideant uestra bona opera et magnificent Patrem uestrum qui in caelis est … quorum non modo Pater caelestis non laudatur per opera … And it is this structure that he wishes would then be interpreted both in terms of the historical and moral senses. Moreover, that Gildas intends this section of his work to be read as a paraphrase is confirmed by his statement that space does not permit him to cite every testimonium from the gospels as he would wish to cite them – presumably drawing out their significance according to the various senses relevant to the texts; therefore, he must now proceed to simply quote them without further comment.

DEB XCIV 454T. Mt 5:19 The Vg and the VL are almost identical here; but Gildas’s use of qui enim rather than qui ergo (the only point where Vg and VL differ) implies that his text is VL or a text with VL interference.

Williams, 216, n. 1.

248

322

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

455T. Mt 7:1-2 Gildas

Vg

nolite iudicare ut non iudicemini in quo enim iudicio iudicaueritis iudicabitur de uobis

nolite iudicare ut non iudicemini in quo enim iudicio iudicaueritis iudicabimini

Here, where the Vg and VL are clearly distinct in 7:2, Gildas follows the VL. 456T. Mt 7:3-4 Gildas

Vg

quid autem uides [ ] festucam in oculo fratris tui et trabem in oculo tuo non consideras aut quomodo dicis fratri tuo sine eiciam festucam de oculo tuo et ecce trabes est in oculo tuo est

quid autem uides festucam in oculo fratris tui et trabem in oculo tuo non uides aut quomodo dicis fratri tuo sine eiciam festucam de oculo tuo et ecce trabis est in oculo tuo

Gildas here follows one strand of the VL; though, as before, the Vg and the VL are almost identical. 457T. Mt 7:6 The VL differs from the Vg in this verse in only one word reading miseritis margaritas when the Vg reads mittatis margaritas. It is the VL reading that it found in Gildas. 458T. Mt 7:15-7 Mt 7:15 in the VL adds uobis after attendite, the Vg reading attendite a falsis; while 7:17 the VL has the word order bona bonos fructus in contrast to the Vg’s bona fructus bonos. Gildas has both VL variants. 459T. Mt 7:21 Some strands of the VL are identical with the Vg; therefore nothing can be inferred as to Gildas’s version from this citation.

323

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB XCV 460C. Is 29:13 and Mt 15:7-8 The basic text referred to by Gildas is Is 29:13. But this prophecy is used by Jesus in Mt 15:7-8 (// Mk 7:6); and it is probable that it is in this form that it was present in Gildas’s memory: Gildas

Vg: Mt 15:7-8

labiis tantum et non corde deum adhaeritis

hypocritae bene prophetauit de uobis Esaias dicens populus hic labiis me honorat cor autem eorum longe est a me

However, the form found in the DEB does not share any similarities with any variant in the VLD, and therefore can be seen as Gildas’s own paraphrase. 461T. Mt 10:16 The omission of ergo, supplied in one manuscript, is also found in some forms of the VL. 462A. 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 4:15 and 5:23 The identification of a ‘head’ with the Christ is based on these ‘Pauline’ uses. 463A. Lk 10:19 The image of ‘treading underfoot all the works of the evildoers’ is based on the power given to the apostles to do just that. Lk 10:19 belongs to Eusebian Section 117/10. 464A. Gen 8:6 with Song 5:11 The sending of the raven (coruus) from the ark is a direct recollection of Gen 8:6. However, Gildas adds the further detail that it was a ‘black raven’ (coruino … nigrori) which shows that he assimilated the raven of the days after the flood (Gen) with the ‘black raven’ (nigrae quasi coruus) that is used to describe the beauty of the beloved in Song 5. This combination fits with Gildas’s thinking about the church-Christ relationship in this passage. 465A. 1 Pet 3:20-1 Gildas invokes the traditional linking of ark and church (… de arca, id est ecclesia, euolantes …) which he would see as having its authority as an interpretation in 1 Pet 3:20-1.

324

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

466T. Mt 10:28 Gildas omits potius in the phrase sed potius timete eum. The Vg and VL only differ in that some VL witness use magis rather than potius, but since this is omitted here, which version this testimonium exhibits is unascertainable. 467T. Mt 15:14 Here Gildas’s text lacks et in et duces caecorum; and has cadent rather than cadunt;249 both variants are found in the VL; and suggests that this should be seen as evidence for Gildas using a VL text. 250

DEB XCVI 468T. Mt 23:2-3.251 There are two differences from the Vg: Gildas has the inelegant word order uero opera rather than opera uero, this word order is found in other authors later than Gildas, but is very rare; the addition of ipsi (omitted in MS A) in et ipsi non faciunt is a VL variant; and suggests that this should be seen as evidence for Gildas using a VL text. This linking of the clergy of his own time with those who had authority, sitting on the chair of Moses, whom Jesus condemned had already been made in 441A and 446A, above, and will recur again in 494A. When these references are read together the structure of Gildas’s thinking becomes much clearer 469T. Mt 23:13 There are three differences from the Vg: (1) omitting autem in the phrase uae autem uobis; (2) qui instead of quia; and (3) autem instead of enim. In each case, we have VL variants. The omission of scribae et Pharisaei in the opening phrase uae autem uobis scribae et Pharisaei hypocritae is probably a deliberate omission rather than a textual variant,252 by simply making those addressed ‘the hypocrites’ Gildas removes the possibility that his opponents might reply that they are neither 249 Manuscript D has cadunt which is probably a correction from memory by a later scribe more familiar with the Vg phrase; if it were a deliberate attempt to harmonize with the Vg, we would expect to find that the et had also been added. 250 See 315A above where this verse is discussed in more detail. 251 Note the range of the testimonium: vv. 2-3; Mommsen cited only v. 3; Williams only v. 2. 252 See Williams, 216, n. 1.

325

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

scribes nor Pharisees. That this is an exegetical omission is confirmed by the use of the verse in 18C, above. Williams made the point that the controversial verse, Mt 23:14, 253 was not part of Gildas’s text as he had quoted Mt 23:13 and 15.254 However, how Williams came to this conclusion is not clear as Gildas never cites Mt 23:15; and in any case one would have to have a single quotation of both verses before one could speculate on whether or not his version contained 23:14. 470A. Lev 16:27; Mt 12:36; and Is 1:12 The phrase quorum sanguis in die iudicii de uestris manibus requiretur is a case of biblical style language, without being a quotation or allusion. The words quorum sanguis is taken from a similar situation in Lev 16:27; the words in die iudicii is used eight times in the Scriptures but the key use for this sentence is Mt 12:36 (and cf. Mt 11:22 and 24); while the words de uestris manibus come from Is 1:12. 471T. Mt 24:49-51.255 Here we have an instance of verse-by-verse exegesis by Gildas: Gildas

Vg

Paraphrased, and set in the context of a wicked servant. moram facit dominus meus uenire qui pro hoc forsitan inceperat percutere conseruos suos manducans et bibens cum ebriis ueniet ergo … dominus serui illius in die qua non sperat et hora qua ignorat et diuidet eum a sanctis scilicet sacerdotibus partemque eius ponet cum hypocritis cum eis certe, qui sub sacerdotali tegmine multum obumbrant nequitiae illic … erit fletus et stridor dentium

si autem dixerit malus seruus ille in corde suo moram facit dominus meus uenire et coeperit percutere conseruos suos manducet autem et bibat cum ebriis ueniet dominus serui illius in die qua non sperat et hora qua ignorat et diuidet eum partemque eius ponet cum hypocritis

illic erit fletus et stridor dentium

See Metzger (1975), 60; and Omanson (2006), 41. See Williams, 216, n. 1. 255 Mommsen gives the citation as beginning at 24:48; while Williams had it begin at 24:49 as he did not recognise that the opening sentence of the this paragraph, Sed quid mali serui … dicentis in corde suo, was a paraphrase of 24:48. 253

254

326

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas’s glossing commentary is placed in bold. Where Gildas’s text departs from the Vg (inceperat … manducans et bibens) it is uncertain whether this is the influence of another version (which is a likely explanation because the VL often reads incipiet) or his own variation. 472A. Gal 4:26; Mt 2:18; 13:11; and 16:19 The final gloss on the parable of the wicked servant involves the church as mother (invoking an image based on Gal 4:26) weeping for the ruined children (invoking an image from Mt 2:18);256 or the desires of the regni caelorum which uses an image found only in Mt 13:11 and 16:19.

DEB XCVII 473A. 1 Tim 2:7 The testimonia from Paul are introduced by describing him as ‘teacher of the nations’: see 303A, 361A, and 371E above where the phrase has already been used. 474T. 1 Cor 11:1 The text does not depart from the Vg. The description by Gildas of Paul as a uerus discipulus allows the notion of imitating him to be justified. 475T. Rom 1:21-2 Gildas

Vg

quia cum cognouerunt Deum non sicut Deum magnificauerunt aut gratias egerunt sed euanuerunt in cogitationibus suis et obcaecatum est insipiens cor eorum dicentes enim se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt

quia cum cognouissent Deum non sicut Deum glorificauerunt aut gratias egerunt sed euanuerunt in cogitationibus suis et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum dicentes enim se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt

The three departures from the Vg are all found in VL versions; and so this testimonium, while there is no witness with these exact three variations in the VLD, is to be regarded as VL.257 Williams, 222, n. 1 recognised and identified this allusion to Rachel. Williams, 222-3, extended note, held that Gildas was using the Vg with variations such as are found in the Codex Fuldensis, however, when we compare all the variants found in Gildas with all known citations, it becomes clear that he was using a VL version of Rom. 256 257

327

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

In whatever order the Pauline letters came to Gildas, 258 it is clear from his introduction to this testimonium that Romans headed the list: in prima epistola dicens… . 476T. Rom 1:25-6 Here Gildas’s reading is identical with the Vg; however, while Vg has mendacio (the most common VL reading), the most common Vg reading is mendacium which is what is also found in Gildas. The final words of 1:26 relating to women is omitted by Gildas – no doubt he saw the reference as irrelevant to his target group: clergy. 477T. Rom 1:28-32 Gildas et sicut non probauerunt Deum habere in notitiam tradidit illos Deus in reprobum sensum ut faciant quae non conueniunt repletos omni iniquitate malitia impuditia fornicatione auaritia nequitia plenos inuidia homicidio … contentione dolo malignitate susurrones detractores Deo odibiles contumeliosos superbos elatos inuentores malorum parentibus inoboedientes insensatos inconpositos sine misericordia sine affectione qui cum iustitiam Dei cognouissent non intellexerunt quoniam qui talia agunt digni sunt morte

et sicut non probauerunt Deum habere in notitia tradidit eos Deus in reprobum sensum ut faciant quae non conueniunt repletos omni iniquitate malitia fornicatione auaritia nequitia plenos inuidia homicidio contentione dolo malignitate susurrones detractores Deo odibiles contumeliosos superbos elatos inuentores malorum parentibus non oboedientes insipientes inconpositos sine affectione absque foedere sine misericordia qui cum iustitiam Dei cognouissent non intellexerunt quoniam qui talia agunt digni sunt morte non solum ea faciunt sed et consentiunt facientibus

The variations from the Vg indicate that Gildas is using a version of the VL. Note that he glosses homicide as spiritual killing: scilicet animarum populi. See Williams, 222-3, extended note. He assumed that the use of prima epistola pointed to something other than the place of the Letter to the Romans among Paul’s letters, but his argument does not follow. Moreover, the sequence of the use of Rom (475T to 484T, before the other letters are cited) by Gildas when he goes through the letters for testimonia demonatrates that Romans was ‘the first epistle’ in his biblical codex (see Appendix 1). 258

328

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB XCVIII 478T. Rom 1:32 Gildas concludes the citation of 1:32; see 477T for comment on his text. 479T. Rom 2:5-6 Gildas

Vg

tu autem secundum duritiam tuam et cor inpaenitens thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae et reuelationis iusti iudicii Dei qui reddet unicuique secundum opera eius

secundum duritiam autem tuam et inpaenitens cor thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae et reuelationis iusti iudicii Dei qui reddet unicuique secundum opera eius

The exact form of Gildas’s quotation is found as a VL reading in several patristic authors, including Augustine. On the basis of this testimonium we can be certain that he used the VL of Rom. 480T. Rom 2:11-3 Gildas’s text departs from the Vg in two minor matters: he has acceptio personarum rather than personarum acceptio, and quicumque in lege rather than et quicumque in lege. However, these variations are not, in themselves, indicative of any particular version.

DEB XCIX 481A. Gen 3:1-4 The allusion to listening to the fierce anguis (not a word used in the scriptures) recalls Eve listening to the serpens. 482T. Rom 6:1-2 In the final phrase of 6:2 Gildas reads quomodo iterum uiuemus in illo (Vg: quomodo adhuc uiuemus in illo). This use of iterum is only found, elsewhere, in some manuscripts of Pelagius’s commentary on Romans. It would appear that iterum was in Gildas’s text and is not simply his own variation. 483T. Rom 8:35 Gildas’s text and that of the Vg are identical.

329

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

484T. Rom 13:12-4 Gildas’s text and that of the Vg are identical, except for the final word of the testimonium: Gildas has concupiscentiis (Vg: desideriis) which is a common VL variant.

DEB C 485T. 1 Cor 3:10-7 Gildas

Vg

ut sapiens architectus fundamentum posui alter superaedificat unusquisque autem uideat quomodo superaedificet fundamentum enim aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod est Christus Iesus si quis autem superaedificat super hoc aurum argentum lapides pretiosos ligna faenum stipulam unumquodque opus manifestum erit dies enim declarabit illud quia in igne reuelabitur et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit ignis probabit si cuius opus manserit qui superaedificauit mercedem accipiet si cuius opus arserit detrimentum patietur nescitis quia templum Dei estis et Spiritus Dei habitat in uobis si quis autem templum Dei uiolauerit disperdet illum Deus

secundum gratiam Dei quae data est mihi ut sapiens architectus fundamentum posui alius autem superaedificat unusquisque autem uideat quomodo superaedificet fundamentum enim aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod positum est qui est Christus Iesus si quis autem superaedificat supra fundamentum hoc aurum argentum lapides pretiosos ligna faenum stipulam uniuscuiusque opus manifestum erit dies enim declarabit quia in igne reuelabitur et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit ignis probabit si cuius opus manserit quod superaedificauit mercedem accipiet si cuius opus arserit detrimentum patietur ipse autem saluus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem nescitis quia templum Dei estis et Spiritus Dei habitat in uobis si quis autem templum Dei uiolauerit disperdet illum Deus templum enim Dei sanctum est quod estis uos

330

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

The first variations alter and super indicate that Gildas is using a VL text. The variation unumquodque … illud is not otherwise attested; while the final variation qui superaedificauit, corrected by manuscript A to quod, must be seen as an early scribal corruption probably due to a misreading of an abbreviation. Gildas’s skill in trimming testimonia of words not needed for his purpose can be seen clearly in this passage. 486T. 1 Cor 3:18-9 Gildas’s one variation from the Vg, apud uos rather than inter uos, is not otherwise attested. This testimonium does not constitute evidence for which version Gildas used. 487T. 1 Cor 5:6-7 Gildas’s addition of igitur in expurgate igitur uetus fermentum is not otherwise attested. This testimonium does not form constitute evidence for which version Gildas used. It is significant that Gildas omits the reason given by Paul for the expulsion of the old leaven, because pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, as he wants to dwell solely on the fact of sinfulness in those he is addressing as becomes clear in his transition to the next testimonium. 488T. 1 Cor 5:8 and 9-11 Gildas introduces this testimonium by converting Paul’s command, expurgate (see 487T), into a rhetorical question: quomodo expurgabitur uetus fermamentum which Gildas now explicitly identifies as sin: id est peccatum. In this identification Gildas tacitly invokes 1 Cor 5:8: itaque epulemur non in fermento ueteri neque in fermento malitiae et nequitiae, but reads Paul in such a way that the old yeast and yeast of wickedness and crimes are identified. The question, thus posed, is then answered by another testimonium from Paul, as if this arrangement reflected the sequence of Paul’s own thought in the letter. The expurgation is effected by excommunication presented as the teaching of 1 Cor 5:9-11, and this is further supported by Gildas’s statement that the wicked support the wicked. The text of 1 Cor 5:9-11 in Gildas differs from the Vg in several details: exire rather than exisse; huiusmodi rather than eiusmodi; and cibum quidem sumere rather that cibum sumere; in each case these are VL readings. The variant nominatur frater et est rather than frater nominatur est is not found elsewhere. We may have in this case a variation due to memory on the part of Gildas because in Fragment VII we have: ut est illud: ‘si quis frater nominatur et est fornicator,’ rel259 which would indicate that the word order of DEB

259

See Mommsen, 88.

331

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

is a unique variant ‘of the moment’ but that he remembered the quotation as having et est – a reading that does make for easier reading.

DEB CI 489T. 2 Cor 4:1-2 Gildas’s text differs in three details from the Vg: (1) he has administrationem when Vg has ministrationem, but this is an unstable item in the text, and so nothing can be inferred from it as to which version he used; (2) he had non deficiamus rather than non deficimus; and (3) he has abiciamus rather than abdicamus. The two latter variants are indicative of the use of a VL text. 490T. 2 Cor 11:13-5 Gildas’s text of 2 Cor 11:13-14 differs in only one detail from that in Vg: the addition of sunt after pseudoapostoli; however, this addition of the verb is not a characteristic of any version as it is regularly omitted in all of them. Gildas’s text of v. 15 presents us with more significant problems: Gildas

Vg

non est magnum igitur si ministri eius transfigurentur ut angeli iustitiae quorum finis erit secundum opera eorum

non est ergo magnum si ministri eius transfigurentur uelut ministri iustitiae quorum finis erit secundum opera ipsorum

The use of eorum presents no problem as it is found in several VL witnesses. Likewise, replacing ergo with igitur is a simple word replacement, both adequately express the sense of the passage; but that said, it involves the use of a word not otherwise attested for this verse. The use of ut angeli (‘like angels’) rather than uelut ministri (‘as if ministers’) presents a greater problem because (1) Gildas alone in the VLD has this reading; and (2) in all the versions the word ministri is used twice in this verse, just as diakonoi is used twice in the original. It would appear that Gildas has deliberately altered the second use of the word diakonoi / ministri to angeli – that it was a deliberate decision, as distinct from the simple substitution of one word for another, can be seen from the fact that what is at issue both in Paul and Gildas is the actions of human beings in the historical creation, not angels in the celestial creation, and Gildas would not have seen an angelus as that into which, unlike the angel Satan

332

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

becoming an apparent ‘angel of light,’ any human being could be changed. So why angelus rather than minister? The answer may lie in Gildas’s own perception of himself as a deacon, a clerical grade whose members were regularly referred to in Latin, following the scriptural translation of diakonos by minister; and which, following from the work given to the deacons in Acts, could allow them to be seen as ministri iustitiae. 260 To have wicked pseudo-apostles masquerading as deacons might have seemed, to the deacon Gildas, just too close an identification between himself as accuser and the accused. If this is the case, then his exchange of ut for uelut may show up a further subtlety in his Latinity: members of the same created order can be similar to one another, those which belong to different orders in creation can only be hypothetically like one another.

DEB CII 491T. Eph 4:17-9 Of the several details where Gildas and the Vg differ, only one is significant: his use of auaritiae rather than in aueritia is indicative of a VL text. 261 The other differences: omitting a cupola, igitur, at the opening, ipsorum rather than eorum, and the inverted word-order omnis inmunditiae are not indicators of which text Gildas used. One further item needs to be noted: Mommsen, followed by Williams, has ‘alienati a via …’ which is a misprint for alienati a uita … . 492T. Eph 5:17-8 Gildas’s text differs in two ways from the Vg: (1) he has Dei rather than Vg’s Domini (other editions of the Vg have Dei) – but these two nomina sacra are interchanged throughout the tradition, and so no inference can be drawn; and (2) Gildas has replemini which is a VL reading – although a rare one. Taking the evidence from 491T and 492T together, we can be confident that Gildas used a VL text of Ephesians.

See O’Loughlin (2010a). Williams, 226, n.1, noted this non-Vg reading.

260 261

333

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB CIII 493T. 1 Thes 2:5-8 Gildas

Vg

neque enim fuimus apud uos aliquando in sermone adulationis sicut scitis neque in occasione auaritiae nec quaerentes ab hominibus gloriari neque a uobis neque ab aliis cum possumus honori esse ut ceteri apostoli Christi sed facti sumus paruuli in medio uestrum uel tamquam si nutrix foueat paruulos suos ita desiderantes uos cupide uolebamus uobis tradere non solum euangelium sed etiam animas nostras

neque enim aliquando fuimus in sermone adulationis sicut scitis neque in occasione auaritiae Deus testis est nec quaerentes ab hominibus gloriam neque a uobis neque ab aliis cum possimus oneri esse ut Christi apostoli sed facti sumus lenes in medio uestrum tamquam si nutrix foueat filios suos ita desiderantes uos cupide uolebamus tradere uobis non solum euangelium Dei sed etiam animas nostras quoniam carissimi nobis facti estis

Williams noted that the manuscripts have honori esse which he was certain should be corrected to oneri esse (as in the Vg).262 However, the form honori is widely found in quotations of this verse263 – and should be probably be seen as a variant in orthography. The variants are a mixture of Vg variations (gloriari; possumus honori; uel; and paruulos) and elements that indicate contact with the VL (apud uos and paruuli) – see Frede (1975-83), 187-93. 494A. Mt 19:28 A recurrence of the theme of the cleric as a judge who sits in the seat of Moses but, like those criticised in the gospel, does not behave appropriately: see 441A, 446A, and 468T, above.

Williams, 228, n. 1. Frede (1975-83), 190.

262 263

334

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

495T. 1 Thes 4:2-8 Gildas

Vg

scitis quae praecepta dederim uobis

scitis enim quae praecepta dederimus uobis per Dominum Iesum haec est enim uoluntas Dei sanctificatio uestra ut abstineatis uos a fornicatione ut sciat unusquisque uestrum suum uas possidere in sanctificatione et honore non in passione desiderii sicut et gentes quae ignorant Deum ut ne quis supergrediatur neque circumueniat in negotio fratrem suum quoniam uindex est Dominus de his omnibus sicut et praediximus uobis et testificati sumus non enim uocauit nos Deus in inmunditia sed in sanctificatione itaque qui spernit non hominem spernit sed Deum qui etiam dedit Spiritum suum Sanctum in uobis

haec est … uoluntas Dei sanctificatio uestra ut abstineatis uos a fornicatione ut sciat unusquisque uestrum uas suum possidere in honore et sanctificatione non in passione desiderii sicut et gentes quae ignorant Deum et ne quis supergrediatur neque circumueniat in negotio fratrem suum quoniam uindex est Dominus de his omnibus non enim uocauit nos Deus in inmunditia sed in sanctificationem itaque qui haec spernit non hominem spernit sed Deum

Some of these variations point to a variant Vg text (dederim; et rather than ut; and sanctificationem), while the others, including differences in word order, all point to VL influence – see Frede (1975-83), 221-9. 496T. Col 3:5-6 Gildas

Vg

mortificate ergo membra uestra quae sunt super terram fornicationem inmunditiam libidinem concupiscentiam malam [see 347C]

mortificate ergo membra uestra quae sunt super terram fornicationem inmunditiam libidinem concupiscentiam malam et auaritiam quae est simulacrorum seruitus propter quae uenit ira Dei super filios incredulitatis

propter quae uenit ira Dei super filios diffidentiae

335

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas’s text is distinctly VL (Frede (1966-71), 459-67); however, see 347C, above, where the words omitted here are cited and the use of simulacrorum at that point indicates a distinctly Vg text (Frede (1966-71), 465. Taken together we can say that we have a Vg text that is significantly influenced by the VL.

DEB CIV 497A. Apoc 19:10 The reference to ‘the spirit of prophecy’ through which the ‘holy apostle’ sets out prophetically the case against such men as Gildas attacks is a reference to Apoc 19:10. This might be seen as setting Gildas’ work within an apocalyptic perspective in an explicit way: he is testifying to the corruption of the ‘End Times’; except it is not followed up with any other apocalyptic image. This then serves to introduce 2 Tim 3:1 with its prediction of the ‘last days.’ 498T. 2 Tim 3:1-5 Gildas’s text differs in some details from the Vg: he has sciote rather than scito (v.1); omits et in et erunt; has semet ipsos rather than se ipsos (v. 2); and omits sine pace criminatores (v.3). The first two variants show definite influence from the VL, but the use of semet ipsos is only found in Gildas (Frede (1975), 751-7).264 499T. Ps 25:5 Gildas

Vg: Iuxta LXX

odiui congregationem malignorum et cum impiis non sedebo

odiui ecclesiam malignantium et cum impiis non sedebo

This is a VL reading, 265 yet when he paraphrases this verse in 319C he used these words ‘consilium malignantium et cum impiis non sedit’ – which suggests that his use of a VL variant here is due to memory. The notion of the author of the psalms, taken as David, being a prophet is a commonplace based on Acts 1:16; 2:25; and 2:31. 264 This verse is also used in the third fragment of Gildas’s letters, but a comparison does not throw light on this text. 265 Williams, 229, n. 3 assumes that this use of the VL is somehow exceptional and due to the fact since Gildas has the epistles open before him, that he cites this appropriate verse from memory and thus in an older version; however, this use of the VL is in no way exceptional, while the notion of looking up texts in the manner of a modern scholar with a conveniently sized printed pandect is anachronistic.

336

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

500T. 2 Tim 3:7-9 Gildas’s text only differs from the Vg in having enim rather than autem in v.8. However, this use of enim points to the influence of the VL; see Frede (1975), 767.

DEB CV 501T. Tit 2:7-10 Gildas

Vg

… te ipsum praebe exemplum bonorum operum in doctrina in integritate in grauitate uerbum sanum habens inreprehensibile ut is qui ex aduerso est uereatur nullum habens malum dicere de nobis

in omnibus te ipsum praebe exemplum bonorum operum in doctrina integritatem grauitatem uerbum sanum inreprehensibilem ut is qui ex aduerso est uereatur nihil habens malum dicere de nobis

The variations all point towards a VL text – see Frede (1983-91), 896-7. 502T. 2 Tim 2:3-5 Gildas

Vg

labora sicut bonus miles Christi Iesu nemo militans Deo inplicat se negotiis saecularibus ut placeat ei cui se probauit nam et qui contendit in agone non coronatur nisi legitime certauerit

labora sicut bonus miles Christi Iesu nemo militans inplicat se negotiis saecularibus ut ei placeat cui se probauit nam et qui certat in agone non coronatur nisi legitime certauerit

Both Deo and contendit are VL readings, while nam et qui is found only in the Vg – see Frede (1975-82), 692-6.

337

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

503T. 1 Tim 6:3-5 Gildas

Vg

si quis aliter docet et non adquiescit sermonibus sanis Domini nostri Iesu Christi et ei quae secundum pietatem est doctrinae superbus est nihil sciens sed languescens erga quaestiones et pugnas uerborum ex quibus oriuntur inuidiae contentiones blasphemiae suspiciones malae conflictationes hominum mente corruptorum et qui ueritate priuati sunt existimantium quaestum esse pietatem

si quis aliter docet et non adquiescit sanis sermonibus Domini nostri Iesu Christi et ei quae secundum pietatem est doctrinae superbus nihil sciens sed languens circa quaestiones et pugnas uerborum ex quibus oriuntur inuidiae contentiones blasphemiae suspiciones malae conflictationes hominum mente corruptorum et qui ueritate priuati sunt existimantium quaestum esse pietatem

The use of superbus indicates that this is a Vg text, but the variations point to contact with the VL – see Frede (1975-82), 594.

DEB CVI Gildas now explicitly turns from seeking testimonia where they might be scattered (sparsim) among any and all of the books, to those testimonia which can be found in the lections used in the ordination of bishops, priests, and deacons. Before proceeding to examine individual texts three points should be noted: (1) Gildas’s use of sparsim confirms what we can infer from his actual use of testimonia throughout the DEB: the scriptures form an undifferentiated quarry of divine truth and revelation. As such, ‘the scriptures,’ as a unit, is identical with the revelation of God’s law. (2) That being the case, Gildas can now proceed to extract the same message in the more confined ambit of the lections as used in the liturgy. The scriptures are homogenous in teaching, and so, presumably, wholly internally coherent. (3) While Williams was confident that he could extract part of a lectionary from the citations – and in his notes he reconstructed what he thought that lectionary contained – there are insufficient clues in this part of the DEB to reconstruct an actual liturgical event. All we can say is this: the texts that are quoted were used, but how they were used and, most significantly, with what other biblical texts they were used, we do not know.266 266

See chapter 3, 4.

338

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

504A. Mt 28:20 The phrase eosque perpetuo doceant, uti ne a mandates, quae fideliter continentur in eis is based on Mt 28:20 where the clergy of Gildas’s day are seen as the successors of the apostles who are commissioned to teach the Church. 505T. 1 Pet 1:3-5 Gildas

Vg

benedictus Deus et Pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui per magnam misericordiam suam regenerauit nos in spem uiuae aeternae per resurrectionem a mortuis Domini nostri Iesu Christi in hereditatem … incorruptibilem inmarcescibilem incontaminatam conseruatam in caelis in uos qui in uirtute Dei custodimini

benedictus Deus et Pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui secundum magnam misericordiam suam regenerauit nos in spem uiuam per resurrectionem Iesu Christi ex mortuis in hereditatem incorruptibilem et incontaminatam et inmarcescibilem conseruatam in caelis in uobis qui in uirtute Dei custodimini per fidem in salutem paratam reuelari in tempore nouissimo

Gildas’s text is VL – see Thiele (1956-69), 72-4. 506T. 1 Pet 1:13 Gildas

Vg

propter quod succincti estote lumbos mentis uestrae sobrii perfecte sperantes in eam quae offertur uobis gratiam in reuelatione Iesu Christi

propter quod succincti lumbos mentis uestrae sobrii perfecte sperate in eam quae offertur uobis gratiam in reuelatione Iesu Christi

Gildas’s text is VL – see Thiele (1956-69), 81. Williams, 242, saw the use of estote as due to the influence of the liturgy in that Gildas was quoting this passage from an ‘ordinal,’ 267 and he supposed the liturgy had adapted the text to make it an imperative addressed to those being ordained. Moreover, he saw the use of imperatives in the two subsequent testimonia – estote in 507T and castificate in 508T268 – as cumulative proof of 267

See chapter 3, 4 for an examination of this claim. See also, 526T, below.

268

339

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

this process. However, since the work of Thiele, it is now clear that this use of estote is a common variant in the VL text. Thiele speculates that this is a result of assimilation to 1 Pet 5:8 – sobrii estote – but it might also be the recognition on the part of the translator who produced that strand of the VL that 1 Pet is itself a sermon and so the formal use of the imperative fits the text very well. 507T. 1 Pet 1:14-6 Gildas

Vg

quasi filii benedictionis non configurantes uos illis prioribus ignorantiae uestrae desideriis sed secundum eum qui uos uocauit sanctos et uos sancti in omni conuersatione estote propter quod scriptum est sancti estote quia ego sum sanctus

quasi filii oboedientiae non configurati prioribus ignorantiae uestrae desideriis sed secundum eum qui uocauit uos sanctum et ipsi sancti in omni conuersatione sitis quoniam scriptum est sancti eritis quia ego sanctus sum

Gildas’s text is VL – see Thiele (1956-69), 82-3. Williams, 242, saw in estote an adaptation produced by the liturgy (see 506T), but Thiele has shown that this is a normal part of the VL text. 508T. 1 Pet 1:22-3 with 1 Pet 2:11 Gildas

Vg

carissimi animas uestras castificate ad oboediendum fidei per spiritum in caritate in fraternitate ex corde uero inuicem diligentes perseuerantur quasi renati non ex semine corruptibili sed incorruptibili uerbo Dei uiui et permanentis in aeternum

animas uestras castificantes in oboedientia caritatis in fraternitatis amore simplici ex corde inuicem diligite adtentius renati non ex semine corruptibili sed incorruptibili per uerbum Dei uiui et permanentis

Gildas’s text is VL – see Thiele (1956-69), 91-3. Williams, 242, saw in carissimi and castificate an adaptation produced by the liturgy (see 506T). But Gildas’s opening word, carissimi, is more probably an assimilation of 1 Pet 2:11 rather than a heightening of the text by a litur-

340

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

gical use in directly addressing a group about to be ordained.269 This device, addressing the letter’s audience as carissimi, is also used in 1 Pet 4:12; and it is used no less that 23 times in the epistles of the New Testament canon, so it is more probable that this represents an assimilation from memory rather than a variant text. As to the use of the plural imperative, castificate, Thiele has shown that this is a normal part of the VL text.

DEB CVII 509T. 1 Pet 2:1-3 Gildas

Vg

deponentes igitur omnem malitiam et omnem dolum et simulationem et inuidiam et detractiones sicut modo geniti infantes rationabiles et sine dolo lac concupiscite ut eo crescatis in salutem quoniam dulcis est Dominus

deponentes igitur omnem malitiam et omnem dolum et simulationes et inuidias et omnes detractiones sicut modo geniti infantes rationale sine dolo lac concupiscite ut in eo crescatis in salutem si gustastis quoniam dulcis Dominus

Gildas’s text is VL – see Thiele (1956-69), 95-8. 510A. Rom 11:8 The image of listening with ‘deaf ears’ (surdis auribus) is based on numerous uses of the image in the Scriptures, but Rom 11:8 in particular is close to the context of Gildas’s argument in that it deals with disciples who do not have the ability to hear what their discipleship demands of them. In this case, the text is itself quoting Scripture, and so underlining its own argument by an appeal to a testimonium by quoting Dt 29:4; and this usage has parallels in Mt 13:15 and Acts 28:27. No one hearing Gildas could have failed to recognise the image and its implications. This is an image Gildas uses elsewhere: 150A and 416A. 511A. Mt 5:13 The image of being ‘trodden under foot’ with the implication of someone being destroyed or ignored because they have become ‘unfit for purpose’ is used on many occasions in the Scriptures, and the uses in such places as Mt 5:13; 7:6 or Is 4:25; 28:3; or 41:2 would probably have first come to mind. 269

On the assumption of the ordination of a group, see chapter 3, 4.

341

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

512T. 1 Pet 2:9 Gildas

Vg

uos autem genus electum regale sacerdotium gens sancta populus in adoptionem ut uirtutes adnuntietis eius qui de tenebris uos uocauit in illud tam admirabile lumen suum

uos autem genus electum regale sacerdotium gens sancta populus adquisitionis ut uirtutes adnuntietis eius qui de tenebris uos uocauit in admirabile lumen suum

Gildas’s text is VL – see Thiele (1956-69), 107-9. The second part of this testimonium is echoed in the following lines which constitute an exegesis of the demands of the text: if one fails to announce the uirtutes Dei, then one has ceased to be part of the gens sancta. The remainder of this section of DEB is devoted to a comparison of the clerics of Gildas’s time with that paradigm failed cleric: Judas, son of Simon Iscariot of whose sacerdotal status Gildas would have had no doubts based on Jn 13:26. In order for the comparison to be effective, Gildas built a composite picture of Judas having first noted his formal replacement by the other apostles in Acts. 513T. Acts 1:15-6 Gildas paraphrases the narrator’s words in v. 15: Gildas

Vg

Petro in medio discipulorum surgente qui dixit

et in diebus illis exsurgens Petrus in medio fratrum dixit erat autem turba nominum simul fere centum uiginti

Gildas’s argument is contained in what Peter said (v.16) and so Gildas curtails the introduction, trimming it of detail unnecessary to his argument. However, when we compare Gildas’s paraphrase with the VL and the Vg we note that Gildas is closer verbally to the VL than the Vg: VL

Gildas

Vg

surgens Petrus in medio discipulorum

Petro in medio discipulorum surgente

exsurgens Petrus in medio fratrum

342

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

The speaker introduced, Gildas proceeds to quote Peter’s statement: Gildas

Vg

uiri fratres oportet scripturam impleri quam praedixit Spiritus Sanctus per os Dauid de Iuda

uiri fratres oportet impleri scripturam quam praedixit Spiritus Sanctus per os Dauid de Iuda

The change in word order of impleri scripturam is only found in Gildas and in one VL witness, however, these are not sufficiently indicative to determine what version of Acts was being used by Gildas at this point; however, these indications need to be considered alongside 514T. 514T. Acts 1:18 Gildas

Vg

hic itaque adquisiuit agrum de mercede iniquitatis

hic quidem possedit agrum de mercede iniquitatis

This is a VL reading; and this confirms that the differences noted in 513T are due to Gildas’s use of a version other than the Vg. 515A. Acts 1:18 Reference to Judas being able to acquire a field (where he would later burst open and die). 516A. Jn 12:6 That Judas was a thief is based on this reference to him. 517A. Mt 26:14 That Judas went to the authorities to obtain money for betraying Jesus is based on this passage in the gospels. 518A. Jn 8:44; and 6:70 The notion that Judas had the devil as his father employs the imagery from John where the devil is the ‘father of lies’; and implies the identification of Judas with the devil in Jn 6:70. Gildas used the image of the devil as the father of the wicked in 531A, below. 519A. Mt 26:15 The reference to Judas’s thirty pieces of silver is based on this text in Matthew’s gospel.

343

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

520A. Mt 5:26 The reference to the wicked clerics in terms of their monetary worth … uos uel uno obolo … is probably a distant allusion to the phrases in the gospels where ‘the last coin’ is held out as either the extremity of poverty or of demand: Mt 5:26; 10:29; Mk 12:42; and Lk 12:59.

DEB CVIII – CIX 521E. Acts 1:15-26; and Mt 10:4 Gildas explicitly invokes the exemplum of Matthias being chosen by lot (vv. 17 and 26) to become an apostle to replace Judas who betrayed Jesus. The text of Acts has the apostles praying for a decision: Tu Domine … (v. 24); which is interpreted here by Gildas as a prayer to the Christ because it is his judgment which is seen to elect Matthias. Such an identification is in no way unusual by Gildas’s time, but the fact that the identification is made without any comment does show how theological assumptions can be so deeply embedded in the reading of scripture as to be invisible. The reference to Judas as traditor reflects Mt 10:4 (qui et tradidit eum) in particular. 522A. Mt 15:14; and 23:16-26 The notion that those who have a God-given task in the church and yet have become blind through failing in that task appeals to imagery seen in its most developed form in Mt 15 and a series of comparisons in Mt 23:16, 17, 19, 24, and 26. The claim that some of his fellow clerics are blind to their duties is a deliberate invocation by Gildas of these condemnations of religious leaders by Jesus. 523A. 2 Cor 11:23 Gildas’s use of the term, Christi ministri, invokes 2 Cor 11:23 (ministri Christi); which he appears to read in conjunction with 2 Cor 12:11-2 and 1 Thes 2:7 (see 493T above). Winterbottom (1976), 136, noted that there was ‘doubtless … a lacuna’ in this ‘highly antithetical passage’ – and he was surely correct in this observation, however, Gildas’s biblical usage does not help us to establish just what was, for Gildas, the antithesis of ‘Christ’s ministers.’

344

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

524A. Mk 8:18 and Ps 113:12-16.270 Gildas’s allusion to wicked clergy as those who act like idols, who non uident neque audiunt, is a complex invocation of a phrase from the gospels: oculos habentes non uidetis et aures habentes non auditis nec recordamini (Mk 8:18) within an allusion to a scene in the psalms: idola gentium argentum et aurum opus manuum hominum os habent et non loquentur oculos habent et non uidebunt aures habent et non audient nasum habent et non odorabuntur manus habent et non palpabunt pedes habent et non ambulabunt nec sonabunt in gutture suo similes illis fiant qui faciunt ea omnis qui confidit in eis In the psalter this foolish behaviour is contrasted with the righteous behaviour of Israel; so Gildas’s comparison can be seen as an extrapolation from the scriptures, such that the scriptural scene fits his own situation exactly. 525T. 1 Tim 1:15 Gildas begins his testimonium with 1 Tim 1:15 which acts as a catchword for 1 Tim 3:1 (both verses begin with the phrase fidelis sermo); therefore, we cannot assume that that the ‘second reading’ to which he refers begins at 1 Tim 1:15 and continues without interruption to 1 Tim 3:1 and beyond. It may be that 1 Tim 3: was the beginning of the ‘second reading’ with 1Tim 1:15 filling it out thus: fidelis sermo [et omni acceptione dignus:]271 si quis episcopatum desiderat bonum opus desiderat … . Gildas’s citation departs from the Vg in two respects: (1) he assumes, demonstrated by his use of inquit, that the text opens with fratres which it does not in the biblical text; and (2) he inserts est after sermo. The addition of fratres as a vocative can be seen as harmonization with the its use elsewhere by Paul (e.g. 1 Thes 5:25 or Gal 6:1), while the addition of est may be simply a matter of Gildas’s style. Neither addition appears to be a significant indicator of the nature of Gildas’s biblical text. 526T. 1 Tim 3:1-5 Gildas rounds off the challenge to his fellow clergy by a line-by-line commentary on 1 Tim 3:1-10 which lists, in succession, the qualities of the ideal bishop and the ideal deacons. However, he does not comment on vv. 6-7 (dealing with a situation where recently baptized men might be made bishops) probably because he realized that the letter’s situation was no longer his own – an 270 Throughout this book all psalm numbers follow the LXX without comment; however, in this case it is worth noting in this part of the psalter the two number systems are particularly divergent, and these verses are to be found in Ps 115:4-8 in the Hebrew numbering. 271 The words in [ ] come from 1 Tim 1:15.

345

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

omission pointing to his reading the scriptures as not being applicable in toto in every situation. So we have a commentary on the qualities needed for bishops (526T) followed by another dealing with deacons (527T). However, we have no evidence in Gildas’s comments that these readings were for separate ordinations to different grades of orders; the text implies that these lections, although split up in DEB for purposes of comment, were continuous. Gildas Fratres, inquit si quis episcopatum cupit bonum opus desiderat oportet ergo huiusmodi irreprehensibilem esse unius uxoris uirum sobrium prudentem hospitalem ornatum non uinolentum non percussorem sed modestum non litigiosum non cupidum domum suam bene regentem filios habentem subditos cum omni castitate si quis autem domui suae praeesse nescit quomodo ecclesiae Dei diligentiam adhabebit

Vg fidelis sermo si quis episcopatum desiderat bonum opus desiderat oportet ergo episcopum inreprehensibilem esse unius uxoris uirum sobrium prudentem ornatum hospitalem doctorem non uinolentum non percussorem sed modestum non litigiosum non cupidum suae domui bene praepositum filios habentem subditos cum omni castitate si quis autem domui suae praeesse nescit quomodo ecclesiae Dei diligentiam habebit

The variations, and the changes in word order, all point to the influence of the VL – see Frede (1975-82), 481, 483, 489, 492, and 495. Williams, 242-3, saw in the variations in this quotation, yet another adaptation (see 506T, 507T, and 508T) to a liturgical setting and, as such saw this as Gildas quoting from an ‘ordinal’ rather than a biblical text. His basis for this claim was the use of fratres to introduce the passage and the use of huiusmodi. However, huiusmodi is standard part of the VL text (see Frede (1975-82), 483). Fratres is not otherwise attested, but since the claim to the existence of an ‘ordinal’ is itself unsound, 272 it is more likely that the introduction of fratres is a silent collation with other Pauline addresses to the brothers in his letters such as 1 Thes 5:25 or Phil 3:13.

272

See chapter 3, 4.

346

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

527T. 1 Tim 3:8-10 Gildas

Vg

diaconos similiter pudicos non bilingues non uino multum deditos non turpe lucrum sectantes habentes mysterium fidei in conscientia pura

diaconos similiter pudicos non bilingues non multo uino deditos non turpe lucrum sectantes habentes mysterium fidei in conscientia pura et hii autem probentur primum et sic ministrent nullum crimen habentes

hi autem probentur primum et sic ministrent nullum crimen habentes

The use of multum and the omission of et point to a VL influence, while hi is a reading common to VL and Vg but not found in Vg – see Frede (1975-82), 500-2. 528T. Mt 6:2 As part of his commentary on the qualities of bishops listed in 1 Tim 3:1-5, and with specific reference to vv. 1-2, Gildas cites this verse from the gospels. While Gildas’s text is identical with the Vg, and most VL witnesses have another word than receperunt, the situation is not clear-cut: therefore this cannot be taken as evidence for the use of the Vg at this point. 529A. Jn 10:15 As part of his commentary on 1 Tim 3:2-3 Gildas mentions the presumed willingness of the bishop, understood here as pastor, to ‘lay down his life’ for those to whom he ministers. In this assertion, he has in mind Jn 10:15. 530T. Mt 16:16 and 17 Gildas cites two verses from a dialogue in Matthew’s gospel. For the text cited by Gildas, the VL is identical with the Vg. (see 532T). 531A. Jn 8:44 Those who reject the saviour by failing to confess him, do so by evil deeds, and in this they act as children of the devil: they become the devil’s progeny: a patre uestro diabolo … . This is an allusion to Jn 8:44 which reads in the Vg: uos ex patre diabolo estis et desideria patris uestri uultis facere ille homicida erat ab initio et in ueritate non stetit quia non est ueritas in eo cum loquitur mendacium ex propriis loquitur quia mendax est et pater eius. The link between the devil, wicked deeds, and the denial of truth has, in all probability, its origin for Gildas in this verse; Gildas had already presented the devil as the father of Judas Iscariot (see 518A, above).

347

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

532T. Mt 16:18 Gildas then cites a third verse from the dialogue in Mt 16 (see 530T). For the text cited by Gildas, the VL is identical with the Vg. 533T. Mt 7:26 (and Mt 7:24) Gildas reads: assimilamini uiro stulto qui aedificauit domum suam super arenam. The opening word, assimilamini, is an echo of 7:24 which opens the comparison in the gospel: omnis ergo qui audit uerba mea haec et facit ea adsimilabitur uiro sapienti qui aedificauit domum suam supra petram. Since there is no difference between the VL and the Vg for those words found in Gildas’s text from 7:26, we cannot infer anything from this as to which version he used. The combination of this text with Mt 16:18 – both involving the imagery of building – does not occur elsewhere in the VLD; however, there are many instances where the uir sapiens of Mt 7:24 is linked Mt 16:18. 534T. Hos 8:4 Gildas cites another verse of Scripture to reinforce his point: Gildas

Vg

fecerunt sibi reges et non per me

ipsi regnauerunt et non ex me principes extiterunt et non cognoui argentum suum et aurum suum fecerunt sibi idola ut interirent

The form here is very similar to that found in a few other places in the VLD which read: fecerunt sibi regem et non per me. However, when Gildas used this text in DEB LII (see above: 240T) while it was a VL text he used, it was far closer to the widely attested form than what we find here. We cannot exclude the possibility that this form – found only here in this precise form – is both a VL reading and a variation due to memory where the phrase fecerunt sibi idola becomes the model for the form fecerunt sibi reges which replaces the VL text sibi regnauerunt et non per me. 535T. Mt 16:18 Gildas’s text differs from the Vg in reading portae inferni for portae inferi. This form indicates contact with the VL. 536T. Mt 7:27 Gildas returns to the simile of the house build on sand, and his text differs from the Vg in reading et impegerunt in domum illam rather than et inruerunt in domum illam. This form indicates contact with the VL.

348

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

537T. Mt 16:19 For the text cited by Gildas, the VL is identical with the Vg. Earlier in the work (DEB LXXIII) Gildas had expressed his views on this aspect of Peter when he described him as ‘clauicularius.’273 538T. Mt 7:23 and Mt 25:31-46 citing 25:41 The testimonium which reads: non noui uos, discedite a me, operarii iniquitatis, ut separati sinistrae partis cum haedis eatis in ignem aeternum would appear to be a jumble of gospel phrases, none quoted exactly, from Mt and Lk but echoing, and set within the context of, the eschatological judgment scene which is found in Mt 25:31-46. This scene, found only in Mt, would supply an appropriate testimonium even if Gildas ‘harmonized’ rather clumsily with a verse from Lk – hence the complex of references found in Mommsen’s and Williams’ apparatus: Lk 13:27; Mt 25:32, 33, and 41. However, this is neither a jumble nor an attempt of harmonization. We should see Gildas’s argument as proceeding in three steps: Step 1. The opening part of the testimonium, non noui uos, discedite a me operarii iniquitatis, is a VL form of Mt 7:23, and so links back to the simile of the house built on sand which has already been used. Since the VL and the Vg differ at this point, and the Vg texts of Mt and Lk 274 also differ from one another, this is a clear case pointing to Gildas using a VL text of Mt at this point. Step 2. The command found in Mt 7:23, discedite a me, is also found Mt 25:41, which reads in the Vg275: tunc dicet et his qui a sinistris erunt discedite a me maledicti in ignem aeternum qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius. And this link brings up in the memory the judgement scene of the elect (sheep on the right) and the damned (goats on the left), and this is expressed thus: ut separati sinistrae partis cum haedis. This phrase is a marker recalling the whole scene in Mt 25:31-46. Step 3. That which is the final condemnation and destination, eternal fire, for those who are told depart in Mt 25 can be seen as that which also awaits those other workers of iniquity who are told to depart in Mt 7:23, and so Gildas concludes with: eatis in ignem aeternum echoing Mt 25:41. The force of the testimonium lies in that it concludes Gildas’s reflection on the significance of Mt 7:21-27, treated as a unit of text, on not only hearing the words of the Lord but following them (cf. Mt 7:24). The Gildas’s sense can be seen more clearly when laid out thus: See 370E above. Lk 13:27 reads in the Vg: nescio uos unde sitis discedite a me omnes operarii iniquitatis. 275 The two texts, VL and Vg, so closely resemble one another in this verse that it is valueless in any argument as to which version Gildas was using. 273 274

349

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Vobis uero: ‘non noui uos, discedite a me, operarii iniquitatis’ ut, separati sinistrae partis cum haedis: ‘eatis in ignem aeternum.’ Near the beginning of DEB Gildas used Mt 7:23 (see 20C above) and the form of the text in both cases is identical; adding weight to case that he was using a VL text rather than this being an accidental survival through memory. 539T. Mt 16:19 Gildas returns (see 537T) to the ‘ligandi et soluendi potestas’ text on apostolic authority. Gildas

Vg

et quaecumque solueris super terram erunt soluta et in caelis et quaecumque ligaueris super terram erunt ligata et in caelis

et quodcumque ligaueris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque solueris super terram erit solutum in caelis

The text cited by Gildas is VL. However, the inversion of the order of the statements (Gildas has loosing before binding) is not found in any extant VL manuscript. Indeed, this inversion is otherwise only attested in two places in Augustine276 (Sermo 232, 3 and Tractatus in euangelium Iohannis 50,12), but there is nothing in the context of DEB to suggest that Gildas has read either of these texts, so the inversion may simply be the result of memory. 540C. Prov 5:22 Gildas

Vg

criniculis peccatorum suorum unusquisque constringitur

iniquitates suae capiunt impium et funibus peccatorum suorum constringitur

As Williams pointed out, 277 the text here is VL. However, the variant found in manuscripts D and P ( funiculis) is, while closer to the Vg, also a widely attested non-Vg reading.278

276 Augustine otherwise always cites these phrases in the order in which they are found in the gospel. 277 Williams, 250, n. 1. 278 See 187C above.

350

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

DEB CX 541A. Mt 10:5 The phrase in die iudicii is found in several places in the Mt’s gospel: Mt 10:5; 11:22 and 24; 12:36. 279 542C. Acts 20:26-27 Gildas

Vg

mundus ego sum ab omnium sanguine non enim subterfugi quo minus adnuntiarem uobis omne mystertium Dei

quapropter contestor uos hodierna die quia mundus sum a sanguine omnium non enim subterfugi quo minus adnuntiarem omne consilium Dei uobis

Gildas’s text is unique in the VLD, however, the phrase ab omnium sanguine is attested elsewhere and shows the influence of the VL. The substitution of mysterium for consilium280 (the variant in manuscripts D and P, ministerium, is surely an attempt to resolve an apparent incoherence) is unique to Gildas, but might be explained by the influence of Apoc 10:7 on his thought. Such an eschatological tone – resulting from a conflation in Gildas’s mind which he then did not check in a book – would certainly fit the context, while explaining why this phrase from Acts came to mind in this context in the DEB in the first place. 543A. Ez 32:27 The phrase terra uiuentium and the desired place of the saints is found in many places in the Old Testament: e.g. Ps 51:7; Is 53:8; and on seven occasions in Ezekiel. 544E. Ez 33:11 Gildas nolo mortem peccatoris sed ut conuertatur et uiuat 279

Vg ego dicit Dominus Deus nolo mortem impii sed ut reuertatur impius a uia sua et uiuat

It is also found in 1 Jn 4:12. Some VL witnesses have uoluntatem rather than consilium.

280

351

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Gildas’s text is VL, but this was such a stock phrase, in virtually the exact form in which Gildas uses it here, that he was undoubtedly using it from memory, and so it has no probative force for his text of Ezekiel. See DEB XXIX (95C), L (228A), LXI (272T) for further information on this text. 545A. 2 Cor 1:3 Gildas in formulating his benediction has, when he uses the phrase Deus totius consolationis et misericordiae, in mind this phrase of Paul: benedictus Deus et Pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi Pater misericordiarum et Deus totius consolationis. The words that actually quote Paul, Deus totius consolationis, are, however, common to the Vg and many strands of the VL (others have omnis), so on the basis of this citation it is impossible to determine which text Gildas was using. 546A. Ps 120:7 The phrase ab omni malo is derived from Ps 120:7; but had become a stock phrase in the liturgy. 547A. Gal 4:25-26 That the Christian final destination was the heavenly Jerusalem was, by Gildas’s time, a stock phrase – it is the basic image underlying Augustine’s De ciuitate Dei; but its roots were traced to the scriptures, and, in particular, Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22; and Apoc 21. 548A. 1 Tim 1:17 The phrase honor et gloria in a benediction can be found in 1 Tim 1:17 and Apoc 5:13. By Gildas’s time it had become a stock phrase in the liturgy.

352

Appendices

Appendix 1 Sequential list of testimonia and exempla found in DEB; excluding those passages quoted because of their place in the liturgy as lections. 3E. 4E. 5E. 6E. 7E. 29E. 37E. 64T. 72T. 77T. 78T. 90T. 91T. 97E. 169T. 170T. 171T. 172T.

Num 20:8. Lev 10:1-2. Ex 14:22; 16:15; 17:11; Num 11:1; 14:43; 21:6; 26:51; 26:65; Dt 32:10; Jn 6:31-2; and Rom 2:25. Jos 3:4; 3:16; 6:1; 6:20; 7:1; 7:10-26. Jos 9:3-20 and 2 Sam 21:1-9. Dt 7:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Ex 4:22; Jer 2:26; Jn 12:6; Jn 13:29; Acts 5:1-5; Is 1:4. Num 22:21-33. Is 1:4-6. Is 22:12-3. Ps 73:7. Ps 78:1. Mt 19:6. Col 3:19. Lk 15:11-32. 1 Sam 13:13-4. 1 Sam 15:20. 1 Sam 15:22-3. 1 Sam 15:28-9.

353

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

177T/E. 179T. 180T/E. 181T/E. 183T. 185T/E. 186T/E. 189T/E. 190T. 192T. 193T. 194T. 197T. 198T. 199T. 200T. 202T. 203T. 204T. 205T. 206T. 207T. 208T. 209T. 210T. 211T. 212T. 213T. 215T. 216T. 217T. 218T. 219T. 220T. 221T. 222T. 223T. 224T. 225T. 229E.

2 Sam 24:12-7; and Jn 15:13. 1 Kgs 11:6 and 11. 1 Kgs 16:2-4. 1 Kgs 21. 1 Kgs 22:19-23. 2 Chr 14; and 15:1-2. 2 Chr 18 – 19:2. 2 Chr 21; with 2 Kgs 2:12. 2 Chr 24. Is 1:2-3. Is 1:8. Is 1:10. Is 1:13. Is 1:15. Is 1:16-7. Is 1:18-20. Is 1:23-4; 1:28. Is 2:11. Is 3:11. Is 5:11-4. Is 5:22-5. Is 13:6-11. Is 24:1-6. Is 24:7-13. Is 24:16-23. Is 59:1-4. Is 59:6-9. Is 59:14-5. Jer 2:1-2 and 4-6. Jer 2:20-22. Jer 2:29-32 and 4:22. Jer 5:3. Jer 5:20-4. Jer 5:26-9, Jer 7:27-8. Jer 8:4-7. Jer 8:21-9:3. Jer 9:13-5. Jer 11:14. Jon 3:4-9; 4:1-2; and 4:11.

354

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

231T. 232T. 233T. 234T. 235T. 236T. 237T. 238T. 239T. 240T. 241T. 242T. 243T. 245T. 246T. 247T. 248T. 249T. 250T. 251T. 252T. 254T. 255T. 256T. 257T. 258T. 259T. 261T. 262T. 263A. 264T. 265T. 269T. 270T. 271T. 272T. 273T. 275T. 277T. 278T.

Jer 13:22-3. Jer 14:10-2. Jer 15:1. Jer 15:5-6. Jer 18:11-5. Jer 22:3-5. Jer 22:24-5. Hab 2:12-3. Hab 1:2-4. Hos 8:1-4. Amos 2:4-7. Amos 5:6. Amos 5:10. Amos 7:14-7. Amos 8:4-5. Amos 8:7-8. Amos 8:10. Amos 9:10. Mic 6:9-12. Zeph 1:14-2:2. Hag 2:12; and 22-3. Zech 1:3-4. Zech 5:2-4. Mal 4:1. Job 21:7-13. Job 21:17-20. Job 24:2-7. Job 24:18 and 20-4. Job 27:14-6. 4 Esd 14:45-7 and Neh 8:1-8. 4 Esd 15:21-7. 4 Esd 16:3-12. Ez 9:9-10. Ez 7:23-5. Ez 14:12-6. Ez 18:20-4. Ez 39:23-4. Wis 1:1. Wis 1:1. Wis 1:2.

355

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

279T. 280T. 282T. 283T. 284T. 285T. 316E. 317E. 318E. 320E. 324E. 325E. 326E. 329E. 330E. 333E. 335E. 337E. 338E. 341E. 345E. 348E. 349T. 350E. 352T. 353E. 354E. 355E. 359E. 360E. 362T. 366E. 367E. 368E. 369E. 370E. 371E. 384T. 385ET.

Wis 1:3. Wis 1:5. Wis 1:7. Wis 5:15-7. 1 Sam 2:30. Wis 6:2-11. Heb 11:1-40. 1 Sam 2:12-7; 22-5; 27-34; 3:12-4; 4:10-8. Gen 4:4 with Heb 11:4. Gen 5:24. Gen 6:13-8:1. Gen 14:1-24; 2 Pet 2:7; and Heb 7:1. Gen 22:1-18; Heb 11:17. Gen 50:15-21. Ex 19-20; 34:29-35; and Heb 11:27. Num 25:5-12. Jos 3:10; Heb 11:9. Jos 13:8-32; and 22:1-34. Jds 11:1-40. Jds 6:25-6; 36-40; and 7:1-22. Jds 16:23-30. 1 Sam 7:5-11; 9:15-10:25; 12:1-25; 15:10-35; and 16:1-13. 1 Sam 12:2-4. 1 Kgs 18:20-40; 19:1; 2 Kgs 1:2-17. 1 Kgs 19:4-10; Lk 4:25 / Jas 5:17; Rom 11:3. 2 Kgs 5. 2 Kgs 6:8-23 (especially 15-7). 2 Kgs 4:8-37 (especially 34-5). 2 Kgs 19:14-35 / Is 37:14-36. Jer 20:1-3; 26 (especially vv. 18-9); 37:11-16; and 38:7-13. Heb 11:37-8. Acts 16:19-23; with Acts 5:41. ‘Quasi Acts’ – Jerome’s De uiris illustribus. Acts 12:1-2. Acts 6:5 and 7:53-9. Mt 16:19. 2 Cor 11:13; 2 Cor 11:23-9; Eph 6:20; Rom 15:19; Acts 9:15; and 1 Tim 2:7. 1 Sam 2:12-7; 22-5; 27-34. 1 Kgs 13.

356

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

386T. 387T. 388T. 389T. 390T. 391T. 392T. 395T. 396T. 397T. 398T. 399T. 400T. 401T. 402T. 403T. 404T. 405T. 406T. 407T. 408T. 409T. 411T. 412T. 413T. 415T. 418T. 419T. 421T. 422T. 424T. 425T. 426T. 427T. 428T. 430T. 431T. 432T. 433T. 434T.

Is 3:11-15. Is 10:1-3. Is 28:7-8. Is 28:14-5. Is 28:17-9. Is 29:13-6. Is 66:1-3. Jer 2:5. Jer 2:7-9. Jer 5:30-1. Jer 6:10. Jer 6:12-5. Jer 6:28-30. Jer 7:11-5. Jer 10:20-1. Jer 11:15-6. Jer 12:9-10. Jer 14:10. Jer 14:13-6. Jer 23:1-2. Jer 23:11-20. Joel 1:5; 9-12. Joel 2:17. Hos 5:1-2. Amos 5:21-3. Amos 8:11-2. Mic 3:1-12. Mic 7:1-3. Zeph 3:1-2. Zeph 3:3-5. Zech 7:9-12. Zech 10:2-3. Zech 11:3-6. Mal 1:6-9. Mal 1:13 – 2:3. Mal 2:5-7. Mal 2:2-10. Mal 3:1-3. Mal 3:13-5. Ez 7:26.

357

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

435T. 436T. 437T. 438T. 439T. 448T. 449T. 451T. 453T. 454T. 455T. 456T. 457T. 458T. 459T. 461T. 466T. 467T. 468T. 469T. 471T. 474T. 475T. 476T. 477T. 478T. 479T. 480T. 482T. 483T. 484T. 485T. 486T. 487T. 488T. 489T. 490T. 491T. 492T. 493T.

Ez 13:8-10. Ez 13:18-9. Ez 22:24-6. Ez 22:30-31. Ez 33:1-9. Mt 5:13. Mt 5:14-5. Mt 5:16. Mt 5:16. Mt 5:19. Mt 7:1-2. Mt 7:3-4. Mt 7:6. Mt 7:15-7. Mt 7:21. Mt 10:16. Mt 10:28. Mt 15:14. Mt 23:2-3. Mt 23:13. Mt 24:49-51. 1 Cor 11:1. Rom 1:21-2. Rom 1:25-6. Rom 1:28-32. Rom 1:32. Rom 2:5-6. Rom 2:11-3. Rom 6:1-2. Rom 8:35. Rom 13:12-4. 1 Cor 3:10-7. 1 Cor 3:18-9. 1 Cor 5:6-7. 1 Cor 5:8 and 9-11. 2 Cor 4:1-2. 2 Cor 11:13-5. Eph 4:17-9. Eph 5:17-8. 1 Thes 2:5-8.

358

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

495T. 496T. 498T. 499T. 500T. 501T. 502T. 503T.

1 Thes 4:2-8. Col 3:5-6. 2 Tim 3:1-5. Ps 25:5. 2 Tim 3:7-9. Tit 2:7-10. 2 Tim 2:3-5. 1 Tim 6:3-5.

Appendix 2 The canon lists of Augustine (De doctrina christiana 2,8,13) and Cassiodorus (Institutiones 1,1-9). Augustine

Cassiodorus

Group 1: pre-kings history

The First Codex: The Octateuch

Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth Group 2 / 1: orderly history

The Second Codex: On Kings

Kings (x 4), Chronicles (x 2) Group 2 / 2: other history

The Sixth Codex: The Hagiographa Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, Maccabees (x 2), ‘Esdras’ (x 2)

359

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Group 3 / 1: prophets

The Third Codex: The Psalter

Psalms,

Psalms The Fourth Codex: Solomon’s Works

Proverbs, Song, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, Sirach

Proverbs, Song, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, Sirach

Group 3 / 2: minor prophets

The Fifth Codex: Prophets (implicitly in two groups: major and minor)4

Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, ‘and the 12 minors’ Hosea, Obadiah, Amos, Joel, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, Micah, Malachi

Group 3 / 3: major prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel Group 4: gospels

The Seventh Codex: The Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

360

Database of the Use of Scripture by Gildas in the DEB

Group 5: epistles

The Eighth Codex: The Epistles of the Apostles

Romans, Corinthians (x 2), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians (x 2), Colossians, Timothy (x 2), Titus, Philemon, Hebrews

Romans, Corinthians (x 2), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians (x 2), Colossians, Timothy (x 2), Titus, Philemon, Hebrews

Peter (x 2), John (x 3), Jude, James

Peter (x 2), John (x 3) [Jn 3?], Jude [?] James

Group 6: [no designation can be inferred]

The Ninth Codex: [no designation given]

Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John

361

Bibliography

1.  The Works of Gildas De excidio Britanniae The text as given in T. Mommsen’s edition (MGH AA 13, 25-88) has been compared at every point with that of H. Williams (Gildae De Excidio Britanniae [Cymmrodorion Record Series III-IV] (London 1899-1901)); and further compared with that of Winterbottom (1978) where he indicates (p. 160) that he departs from Mommsen. Fragmentary Epistola As found in Williams, 255-71. Praefatio de penitentia Bieler (1975), 60-4.

2.  Other Ancient and Medieval Authors1 Augustine, De ciuitate Dei (B. Dombart and A. Kalb eds, CCSL 47 and 48). — De doctrina christiana (J. Martin ed., CCSL 32). Cassian, Conlationes Patrum (M. Petschenig ed., CSEL 13). Cassiodorus, Institutiones (R.A.B. Mynors ed., Oxford 1937). Cyprian, Ad Quirinum (R. Weber ed., CCSL 3). Jerome, Commentarii in Hiezechielem (F. Glorie ed., CCSL 75).

The bibliographic details for editions of biblical materials can be found in the appropriate section of the list of abbreviations. 1

363

Bibliography

— Commentariorum in Amos prophetam (M. Adriaen ed., CCSL 75, 211-348). — De uiris illustribus (E.C. Richardson ed., Leipzig 1896; and A. Ceresa-Gastaldo ed., Florence 1988). — Prologus in libro Hieremiae prophetae, Vg, 1166. — Prologus in libro Iob, Vg, 731. — Prologus in libro Paralipomenon, Vg, 546-7. Lucifer of Cagliari, De Athanasio (G.F. Diercks ed., CCSL 8, 3-132). — De non conueniendo cum haereticis (G.F. Diercks ed., CCSL 8, 16592). — De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus (G.F. Diercks ed., CCSL 8, 195-261). — De regibus apostaticis (G.F. Diercks ed., CCSL 8, 135-61). — Moriundum esse pro Dei filio (G.F. Diercks ed., CCSL 8, 365-300). Muirchú, Vita Patricii (L. Bieler ed., The Patrician Texts in the Book of Armagh, Dublin 1979, pp. 59-123). Patrick, Confessio (L. Bieler ed., Libri Epistolarum Sancti Patricii Episcopi, Dublin 1952). — Epistola militibus Corotici (L. Bieler ed., Libri Epistolarum Sancti Patricii Episcopi, Dublin 1952). Salvian of Marseilles, De gubernatione Dei (G. Lagarrigue ed., SC 220). Tyconius, Liber regularum (F.C. Burkitt ed., The Book of Rules of Tyconius, Cambridge 1894).

3.  Modern Authors Achtemeier, P.J. (1990) ‘Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity,’ JBL 109, 3-27. À Lapide, C. (1875) Commentarii in Scripturam Sacram IV: In Ecclesiasten, Canticum Canticorum, in Librum Sapientiae, Paris. Aland, K. (1972) Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare, Berlin and New York, NY. Albl, M.C. (1999) “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections, Leiden. Anon, (2005) ODCC, ‘Ordinal,’ 1197-8 [third rev. ed.]. Auwers, J.-M. and Jonge, H.J. de (2003) The Biblical Canons, Leuven. Avery, M. (1947) ‘The Beneventan Lections for the Vigil of Easter and the Ambrosian Chant banned by Pope Stephen IX at Montecassino,’ SG 1,433-58.

364

Bibliography

Becker, K. (2002) From the Treasure-House of Scripture: An Analysis of the Scriptural Sources in De imitatione Christi, Turnhout. Beckwith, R.T. (1985) The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism, Grand Rapids, MI. Bensly, R.L. (1895) The Fourth Book of Ezra: The Latin Version edited from the MSS, Cambridge [= J.A. Robinson ed., Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, III, 2: The Fourth Book of Ezra]. Berchman, R.M. (2005) Porphyry Against The Christians, Leiden. Bieler, L. ed. (1975) The Irish Penitentials, Dublin. Bloch, M. (1992) The Historian’s Craft [ET: P. Putnam}, Manchester. Boling, R.G. and Wright, G.E. (1982) Joshua, Garden City, NY. Bradshaw, P.F. (1971) The Anglican Ordinal: Its History and Development to the Present Day, London. Breeze, A. (2010) ‘Gildas: Renewed Approaches,’ NH 47, 155-62. Brooks, W.E. (1970) ‘The Perpetuity of Christ’s Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews,’ JBL 89, 205-14. Burkitt, F.C. (1910) ‘Saint Augustine’s Bible and the Itala,’ JTS 11, 25868 and 447-58. — (1934) ‘The Bible of Gildas,’ RB 46, 206-15. Burton, P. (2000) The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of their Texts and Language, Oxford. Carey, J., Herbert, M., and Ó Riain, P. eds (2001), Studies in Irish Hagiography: Saints and Scholars, Dublin. Chadwick, O. (1954) ‘Gildas and the Monastic Order,’ JTS ns 5, 78-80. Charlesworth, J.H. (1983) The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, London. Chatillon, F. (1954) ‘Tria genera hominum: Noe, Daniel et Iob,’ RMAL 10, 169-76. Chilton, B. and Neusner, J. eds (2001) The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, Louisville, KY. Cobb, W.F. (1918) ‘Nicolaitans’ in Hastings (1918), 90-1. Cohn, N. (1970) The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, London [revised ed., originally: 1957]. Collins, J.J. (1984) Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, Grand Rapids, MI. — (1987) The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity, New York.

365

Bibliography

Crehan, J.H. (1978) ‘Medieval Ordinations’ in Jones, Wainwright, and Yarnold (1978), 320-31. Cross, F.M. (1975) ‘A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,’ JBL 94, 4-18. De Bruyne, D. (1912) Préfaces de la Bible latine, Namur [this work was published anonymously]. Deanesly, M. (1957) ‘The Implications of the Term Sapiens as Applied to Gildas’ in D.J. Gordon ed., Fritz Saxl 1890-1948: A Volume of Memorial Essays from his friends in England, London, 53-76. Delcor, M. (1971) ‘Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews,’ JSJ 2, 115-35. Draper, J.A., (2006) ‘The Apostolic Fathers: The Didache,’ ET 117, 17781. Duchesne, L. (1923) Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution – A Study of the Latin Liturgy up to the time of Charlemagne, London [fifth English ed. based on fourth French ed.; originally published in 1889; ET by M.L. McClure]. Dumville, D. (1984) ‘General Editor’s Foreword’ in Lapidge and Dumville (1984), viii-ix. Ehrman, B.D. and Holmes, M.W. (1995) The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Grand Rapids, MI. Ellard, G. (1933) Ordination Anointings in the Western Church before 1000 A.D., Cambridge, MA. Evans, C.D. (1992) ‘Asa’ in Freedman (1992), 1,468-70. Evans, G.R. ed., (2000) A History of Pastoral Care, London. Finan, T. and Twomey V. eds (1995) Scriptural Interpretation in the Fathers: Letter and Spirit, Dublin. (1998) Studies in Patristic Christology, Dublin. Fischer, B. (1972) ‘Das neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache. Der gegenwärtige Stand seiner Erforschung und seine Bedeutung füf die griechische Textgeschichte’ in Aland (1972), 1-92. Fitzmyer, J.A. (1981) The Gospel according to Luke I-IX, New York, NY. Follis, E.R. (1992) ‘Zion, Daughter of ’ in Freedman (1992), 6,1103. Frede, H.J. (1966-71) Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 24/II (Epistulae ad Philippenses et ad Colossenses), Freiburg. — (1975-82) Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 25/I (Epistulae ad Thessalonicenses, Timotheum, Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos), Freiburg.

366

Bibliography

— (1983-91) Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 25/II (Epistulae ad Thessalonicenses, Timotheum, Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos), Freiburg. Freedman, D.N. (1961) ‘The Chronicler’s Purpose,’ CBQ 23, 432-42. Freedman, D.N. ed. (1992) ADB, New York, NY. Frend, W.H.C. (2003) From Dogma to History: How Our Understanding of the Early Church Developed, London. Fuchs, E. (1989) ‘Marginalization, Ambiguity, Silencing: The Story of Jephthah’s Daughter,’ JFSR 5, 35-45. Gameson, R.G. ed. (2012) The Cambridge history of the Book in Britain (Volume I: c.400-1100), Cambridge. George, K. (2009) Gildas’s De Excidio Britonum and the early British Church, Woodbridge. Grabmann, M. (1909) Die Geschichte der scholastichen Methode, Freiburg-im-Breisgau. Gray, L.H. (1943) ‘Brythonic Christianity,’ JR 7, 8-31. — (1952) ‘Biblical Citations in Latin Lives of Welsh and Breton Saints differing from the Vulgate,’ Traditio 8, 389-97. Greenberg, M. (1983) Ezekiel, 1-20, Garden City, NY. Grosjean, P. (1958) ‘La Bible de “Gildas”,’ AnB 65, 203-11. Gryson, R. (1987-93) Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 12/I (Esaias), Freiburg. — (1993) Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 12/II (Esaias), Freiburg. — (2000) Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 26/II (Apocalypsis Johannis), Freiburg. Gutiérrez, G. (1991) The God of Life, London. Hadden, A.W., and Stubbs, W. (1869) Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, Oxford [volume 1]. Hare, D.R.A., and Harrington, D.J. (1975) ‘“Make Disciples of All the Gentiles” (Matthew 28:19),’ CBQ 37, 359-69. Harris, J.R. (1916) Testimonies, Cambridge [volume 1]. — (1920) Testimonies, Cambridge [volume 2]. Hastings, J. (1915) Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Edinburgh [volume 1]. — (1918) Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Edinburgh [volume 2]. Hengel, M. (2000) The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, London. Hennig, J. (1946) ‘Abel’s Place in the Liturgy,’ TS 7, 126-41. Hillers, D.R. (1984) Micah, Grand Rapids, MI.

367

Bibliography

Holmen, T. and Porter, S. eds, (2010) Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Leiden. Houghton, H.A.G. (2009) ‘A Newly Discovered Old Latin Gospel Manuscript: Würzburg Universitätabibliothek M.p.th.f.67,’ JTS ns 60, 1-21. — (2010) ‘The St Petersburg Insular Gospels: Another Old Latin Witness,’ JTS ns 61, 110-27. — (2011) ‘Chapter Divisions, Capitula Lists, and the Old Latin Versions of John,’ RB 212, 316-56. Howard, G. (1988) ‘A Note on the Shorter Ending of Matthew,’ HTR 81, 117-20. Howorth, H.H. (1909) ‘The Influence of St Jerome on the Canon of the Western Church,’ JTS 10, 481-496 [and see 11(1910)321-347 and 13(1911)1-18 for parts 2 and 3 of this article]. Illich, I. (1993) In the Vineyard of the Text: A Commentary on Hugh’s Didascalicon, Chicago and London. Jones. C.W. (1969) ‘Some Introductory Remarks on Bede’s Commentary on Genesis,’ SE 19, 115-98. Jones, C., Wainwright, G., and Yarnold, E. eds (1978) The Study of Liturgy, London. Jonge, M. de (2003) ‘The Authority of the “Old Testament” in the Early Church: The Witness of the ‘Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament” in Auwers and de Jonge (2003), 459-86. Kerlouégan, F. (1987) Le De excidio Britanniae de Gildas: Les destinées de la culture latine dans l’ ile de Bretagne au VIe siècle, Paris. Kelber, W.H. (2005) ‘ The Works of Memory: Christian Origins as MnemoHistory – A Response’ in Kirk and Thatcher (2005), 221-48. Kirk, A. (2005) ‘Social and Cultural Memory’ in Kirk and Thatcher (2005), 1-24. — (2007) ‘Tradition and Memory in the Gospel of Peter’ in Kraus and Nicklas (2007), 135-58. — (2010) ‘Memory Theory and Jesus Research’ in Holmen and Porter (2010) 1, 809-42. — (2011) ‘Orality, Writing, and Phantom Sources: Appeals to Ancient Media in Some Recent Challenges to the Two Document Hypothesis,’ NTS 58, 1-21. Kirk, A. and Thatcher, T. (2005) Memory, Tradition and text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, Atlanta, GA. Knoppers, G.N. (1996) ‘“Yhwh Is Not with Israel”: Alliances as a Topos in Chronicles,’ CBQ 58, 601-26.

368

Bibliography

Kraft, R.A. (1979) ‘”Ezra” Material in Judaism and Christianity,’ ANRW 2,19,1, 119-36. Kraus, T.J. and Nicklas, T. eds (2007) Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontexte, Berlin / NY. Kreitzer, L.J. and Rooke, D.W. eds (2000) Ciphers in the Sand: Interpretations of The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7.53-8.11), Sheffield. Lapidge, M. (1984) ‘Gildas’s Education and the Latin Culture of SubRoman Britain’ in Lapidge and Dumville (1984), 27-50. Lapidge, M. and Dumville, D. (1984) Gildas: New Approaches, Woodbridge. Laistner, M.L.W. (1935) ‘The Library of the Venerable Bede’ in 237-66. Lapidge, M. ed. (1997) Columbanus: Studies in the Latin Writings, Woodbridge. Leo XIII (1896) Apostolicae curae, London [ET by J.D. Smith, 1959]. McDonald, L.M. (2007) The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, Peabody, MA. Mackenzie, R.A.F. (1951) ‘Deuteronomy’ in Orchard, et al. (1951), 26173. McNamara, M. (1975) The Apocrypha in the Irish Church, Dublin. Marshall-Cornwall, J. (1972) Foch as Military Commander, London. Meier, J.P. (1977) ‘Nations or Gentiles in Matthew 28:19?’ CBQ 39, 94102. Metzger, B.M. (1968) The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Oxford [second ed.]. — (1975) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, London [first ed. 1971]. — (1977) The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations, Oxford. — (1983) ‘The Fourth Book of Ezra’ in Charlesworth (1983), 516-59. — (1987) The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Oxford. North, J.L. (1995) ‘The Use of the Latin Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism’ in Ehrman and Holmes (1995), 208-23. O’Donnell, J.J. (1979) Cassiodorus, Berkeley. O’Loughlin, T. (1989) ‘Who is Anselm’s Fool?’ NS 63, 313-25. — (1992a) ‘Adam’s burial at Hebron: some aspects of its significance in the Latin tradition’, PIBA 15, 66-88. — (1992b) ‘“Aquae super caelos” (Gn 1:6-7): The First Faith-Science Debate,’ MS 29, 92-114.

369

Bibliography

— (1993) ‘Julian of Toledo’s Antikeimenon and the Development of Latin Exegesis,’ PIBA 16, 80-98. — (1994) ‘The Latin Versions of the Scriptures in Use on Iona in the Late Seventh Century’, Peritia 8, 18-26. — (1995a) ‘The Controversy over Methuselah’s Death: Proto-Chronology and the Origins of the Western Concept of Inerrancy,’ RTAM 62,182-225. — (1995b) ‘Adomnán the Illustrious’, IR 46,1-14. — (1995c) ‘The Symbol gives Life: Eucherius of Lyons’ Formula for Exegesis’ in Finan and Twomey (1995), 221-52. — (1995d) ‘Newman on Doing Theology’, NB 76, 92-8. — (1995e) ‘Seeking the Medieval View of the Song of Songs,’ PIBA 18, 94-116. — (1996a) ‘“The Gates of Hell”: From Metaphor to Fact,’ MS 38, 98114. — (1996b) ‘Tyconius’ Use of the Canonical Gospels’, RB 106, 229-33. — (1996d) ‘The Text of Cyprian’s Ad Quirinum III, lviii: An Emendation,’ Manuscripta 40, 49-53. — (1996e) ‘Biblical Contradictions in the Periphyseon and the Development of Eriugena’s Method’ in Steel, McEvoy, and van Riel eds (1996), 103-26. — (1997) ‘Individual anonymity and collective identity: the enigma of early medieval Latin theologians,’ RTAM 64, 291-314. — (1998a) ‘Medieval church history: Beyond apologetics, after development: the awkward memories,’ The Way 38, 65-76. — (1998b) ‘Christ as the focus of Genesis Exegesis in Isidore of Seville,’ in Finan and Twomey (1998), 144-62. — (1998c) ‘Christ and the Scriptures: The Chasm between Modern and Pre-modern Exegesis,’ The Month 259, 475-85. — (1999a) Teachers and Code-Breakers: The Latin Genesis Tradition, 430-800, Turnhout. — (1999b) ‘The Eusebian Apparatus in some Vulgate Gospel Books,’ Peritia 13, 1-92. — (1999c) The Scriptures and Early Medieval Ireland: Proceedings of the 1993 Conference of the Society for Hiberno-Latin Studies on Early Irish Exegesis and Homilectics, Turnhout. — (1999d) ‘Tradition and Exegesis in the Eighth Century: The Use of Patristic Sources in Early Medieval Scriptural Commentaries’ in O’Loughlin ed. (1999c), 217-39. — (2000a) ‘Penitentials and Pastoral Care’ in Evans (2000), 93-111.

370

Bibliography

— (2000b) Journeys on the Edges: The Celtic Tradition, London. — (2000c) ‘The Plan of the New Jerusalem in the Book of Armagh,’ CMCS 39, 23-38. — (2000d) ‘A Woman’s Plight and the Western Fathers’ in Kreitzer and Rooke (2000), 83-104. — (2001) ‘The Tombs of the Saints: Their Significance for Adomnán’ in Carey, Herbert, and Ó Riain (2001), 1-14. — (2004) ‘Early Medieval Introductions to the Holy Book: Adjuncts or Hermeneutic?’ in Swanson (2004), 22-31. — (2005a) Discovering Saint Patrick, London. — (2005b) ‘Map and Text: A Mid Ninth-Century Map for the Book of Joshua,’ IM 57:1, 7-22 and pl. 1. — (2007a) Adomnán and the Holy Places: The Perceptions of an Insular Monk on the Locations of the Biblical Drama, London. — (2007b) ‘Division systems for the gospels: the case of the Stowe St John (Dublin, R.I.A. D.ii.3),’ Scriptorium 61, 150-64. — (2009a) ‘Inventing the Apocrypha: The Role of Early Latin Canon Lists,’ ITQ 74, 53-74. — (2009b) ‘Another post-resurrection meal, and its implications for the early understanding of the Eucharist’ in Rodgers (2009), 485-503. — (2009c) ‘The Biblical Text of the Book of Deer (C.U.L. Ii.6.32): Evidence for the Remains of a Division System from its Manuscript Ancestry,’ Scriptorium 63, 30-57. — (2009d) ‘Eusebius of Caesarea’s conceptions of persecutions as a key to reading his Historia ecclesiastica,’ in Twomey and Humphries (2009), 91-105. — (2010a) ‘The Perception of the Diaconate in the Early Middle Ages: Some Evidence from Canon Law,’ NDR 4, 40-7 and 5, 34-8. — (2010b) ‘Harmonizing the Truth: Eusebius and the Problem of the Four Gospels,’ Traditio 65, 1-29. — (2010c) ‘St Augustine’s view of the place of the Holy Spirit in the formation of the gospels,’ in Twomey and Rutherford (2010), 86-95. — (2010d) The Didache: A window on the earliest Christians, London. — (2012a) ‘Divisions in Christianity: The Contribution of “Appeals to Antiquity”’ in Oliver, Kilby, and O’Loughlin (2012), 221-41. — (2012b) ‘The library of Iona at the time of Adomnán’ in Gameson (2012), 570-9. — (2012c) ‘Jerome’s De uiris illustribus and Latin Perceptions of the New Testament’s Canon’ in Rutherford and Woods (2012), 55-65.

371

Bibliography

— (2012d) ‘“Latina veritas!” – language a guarantor of truth?’ TF 63, 343-7. O’Loughlin, T. and Conrad-O’Briain, H. (1993) ‘The “baptism of tears” in early Anglo-Saxon sources,’ ASE 22, 65-83. Oliver, S., Kilby, K., and O’Loughlin T. eds, (2012) Faithful Reading: New Essays in Theology and Philosophy in Honour of Fergus Kerr OP, London. Omanson, R.L. (2006) A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, Stuttgart. Orchard, B., Sutcliffe, E.F., Fuller, R.C., and Russell, R. eds (1951) A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London. Osburn, C.D. (2005) ‘Methodology in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism,’ NovT 47, 313-43. O’Sullivan, T.D. (1978) The De Excidio of Gildas: Its Authenticity and Date, Leiden. Palazzo, E. (1998) A History of Liturgical Books from the Beginning to the thirteenth Century, Collegeville, MN. Parker, D.C. (2008) An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts, Cambridge. Reis, P.T. (1994) ‘Vindicating God: Another Look at 1 Kings XIII,’ VT 44, 376-86. Rodgers, Z, Daly-Denton, M., and Fitzpatrick-McKinley, A. eds, (2009) A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne, Leiden. Rutherford, J.E. and Woods D. eds (2012) The Mystery of Christ in the Fathers of the Church: Essays in Honour of D. Vincent Twomey SVD, Dublin. Schaff, P. (1883) History of the Church: History of Apostolic Christianity, A.D. 1–100, revised ed., Edinburgh 1883. Skehan, P. and Di Lella, A. (1987) The Wisdom of Ben Sira, New York, NY. Schneiders, M. (1990) ‘On The Use Of The Label Apocryphon In Recent Studies Of Medieval Irish Texts,’ TFT 51, 314-23. Sharpe, R. (1984) ‘Gildas as a Father of the Church’ in Lapidge and Dumville (1984), 191-206. Smith, J.Z. (2001) ‘A Twice-Told Tale: The History of the History of Religion’s History,’ Numen 48, 134-46. Stancliffe, C. (1997) ‘The Thirteen Sermons Attributed to Columbanus and the Question of their Authorship’ in Lapidge (1997), 93-202. Stanton, G. (1977) ‘5 Ezra and Matthean Christianity in the Second Century,’ JTS n.s. 28, 67-83.

372

Bibliography

Steel, C., McEvoy, J., and Van Riel, G. eds, (1996) Iohannes Scottus Eriugena and the Scriptures, Leuven. Stone, M.E. (1990) Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Minneapolis, MN. Sutcliffe, E.F., (1948) ‘The Name “Vulgate”,’ Biblica 29, 343-52. Swanson, R.N. ed. (2004) Studies in Church History 38: The Church and the Book, Woodbridge. Thiele, W. (1956-69) Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 26/1 (Epistulae Catholicae), Freiburg. — (1977) Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 11/1 (Sapientia Salomonis), Freiburg. — (1987) Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 11/2 (Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)), Freiburg. Thompson, A.H. ed. (1935) Bede: His Life, Times, and Writings – Essays in Commemoration of the Twelfth Centenary of his Death, Oxford. Twomey D.V., and Humphries, M. eds (2009) The Great Persecution, Dublin. Twomey, D.V., and Rutherford, J.E. eds (2010) The Holy Spirit in the Fathers of the Church, Dublin. Van Bavel, T. (1998) ‘The “Christus Totus” Idea: A Forgotten Aspect of Augustine’s Spirituality’ in Finan and Twomey (1998), 84-94. Van Winkle, D.W. (1989) ‘1 Kings XIII: True and False Prophecy,’ VT 39, 31-43. — ‘1 Kings XII 25 – XIII 34: Jeroboam’s Cultic Innovations and the Man of God from Judah,’ VT 46, 101-14. Walsh, J.T. (1989) ‘The Contents of 1 Kings XIII,’ VT 39, 355-70. Westermann, C. (1985) Genesis 12-36, Minneapolis, MN. Willard, L.C. (1970) ‘A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus,’ unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Williams, H. (1912) Christianity in Early Britain, Oxford. Winterbottom, M. (1976) ‘Notes on the Text of Gildas,’ JTS ns 27, 13240. — (1976b) ‘Variations on a Nautical Theme,’ Hermathena 120, 55-8. — (1978) Gildas: The Ruin of Britain and Other Works, Chichester. Wright, N. (1984) ‘Gildas’s Geographical Perspectives: Some Problems’ in Lapidge and Dumville (1984), 85-105. Zeichmann, C.B. (2010) ‘Papias as Rhetorician: Ekphrasis in the Bishop’s Account of Judas’ Death,’ NTS 56, 427-9.

373

Indices

The Scriptures This index, in addition to the usual function of being a guide to locations in this book, is intended to provide an overview of the use of the scriptures by Gildas. As such, his actual use of texts in the form of quotations (either as testimonia or citations) should be seen as primary, followed by his use as materials for exempla, because in both of these cases there can be little of no doubt that he intended to use the scriptures. The case of allusions is more complex for while in some cases it is certain that he had a specific scriptural text in mind, in others cases it may simply be that he was using phrases with which he was so thoroughly familiar that they had become part of his thinking and language. All the texts that have been associated with the scriptures in Latin in the western churches are listed here because all have been used in searching for Gildas’s usage, therefore, when a books occurs for which we have no evidence for its use by Gildas (e.g. Judith or Jude), this also is indicated. Moreover, it should be noted that there are books (e.g. Esther) where there are references cited here as part of this study but which do not constitute evidence for their use by Gildas – this are the references which are bare page numbers; in other words, to see his usage, discount all database references with an asterisk (*) while proceeding with caution in the case of references to allusions. References designated with the letters T, C, E, and A refer to entries in the database. When such a reference also includes an asterisk (e.g. 423C*) it refers to a passage mentioned in that entry in the database, but which itself does not occur at that point in the text of Gildas. Note that references are arranged in this order: T, C, E. A, *, and page references refer to the text of the book. 6:13-8:1 324E, 33, 79 8:6464A 8:20318E* 10115 14:1-24 325E, 34, 79 15:16 73A, 33 19:1-29 315A, 195A,  33, 86 22328C* 22:1-18 326E, 34, 79 44:4429A*

Genesis Whole book 33-4, 37,  77, 79 2:1380A 3:1-4481A 3:19137Cbis* 4:4 318E, 33, 79 4:8318E* 5:24 320E, 33, 79 5:27 103A, 33 6:61A

377

Indices

49:8-999A 49:9 126A, 33 50:15-21 329E, 34, 79 50:19329E*

25:11332A* 26:515E 26:655E Deuteronomy Whole book 34 1:16-782 1:17 297A, 82 4:3444A 5:10147C* 6:14174A 7:1335E* 7:5341E* 7:6 29E, 34 7:995 12:10116 14:229E* 17:2-382 17:2-7 294A, 82 17:8-1382 29:4510A* 29:18174A 30:14-8 301A, 82 31:13116 31:22148C* 32:105E 32:28-32 148C, 34 32:32 92C, 124A, 34 32:39 105C, 34 34:1099A*

Exodus Whole book 34, 79 3:821 4:2229E 14:225E 14:23161A 15:19161A 16:155E 17:115E 19-20 330E, 79 19:16115 20:6147C* 29:25318E* 32:31-2 331C, 34 34:9-3579 34:13341E* 34:29-35330E Leviticus Whole book 34 1:13318E* 10:1-2 4E, 34 16:27470A 19:37147C* 20:8147C* 22:9147C*

Joshua Whole book 34 3:1-1752A 3:46E 3:10 335E, 79 3:166E 6:16E 6:20 6E, 82 6:20-482 6:27-7:2682 7:16E 7:10-26 6E, 82

Numbers Whole book 34 11:15E 14:435E 20:83E 2173A* 21:65E 22:21-33 37E, 34 25334C* 25:5-12 333E, 79, 82 25:10-382

378

Indices

7:2134 9:3-20 7E, 34 1073A* 13:8-32 337E, 79 17:1485A 22:1-34 337E, 79 22:13333E* 22:30-1333E* 24:1-31336A

9:15-7164A* 9:15-10:25 348E, 79 9:27423C* 10:1-8164A* 10:8169T* 10:17-25164A* 11:12345E* 11:14-5164A* 12:1-25 348E, 79 12:2-4 349T, 35, 79 12:6-18164A* 12:16-8167A 13170T* 13:8169T* 13:13-4 169T, 168A, 78 15:1164A* 15:10-35 348E, 79, 84 15:12-584 15:17 63A, 84 15:17-9 168A, 84 15:20 170T, 78, 84 15:22-3 171T, 35, 78, 84 15:23 173C, 84 15:28-9 172T, 78, 85 16:1-1379 23:376A* 24-1-10176A 24:11176A* 24:17429A* 25:21429A*

Judges Whole book 34 2:2283A 3:183A* 6:11-8:35341E* 6:25-6 341E, 34, 79 6:36-40 341E, 79 7:1-22 341E, 79, 82 11:1-40 338E, 79 16:23-30 345E, 79 20:28333E* Ruth Whole book

35

1 Samuel = I Regum Whole book 35, 62,  77-8, 80 1-15164A* 1:11165A 2:12-7 384T, 317E, 77-9 2:22-5 384T, 317E, 77-9 2:27-34 384T, 317E,  35, 77-9, 82 2:30 284T, 35,  78, 82, 86 3:12-4 317E, 78-9 3:20 166A, 35 4:10-8 317E, 78-9, 84 6:1-13348E 7:5-11 348E, 79 7:9-10167A 8:4-21164A

2 Samuel = II Regum Whole book 35, 62, 78, 80 14:14 228A, 94C*, 35 21:1-9 7E, 35 24:12-7 177T/E, 35, 78 1 Kings = III Regum Whole book 22-3, 35, 62-4,  77-8, 80, 95 3:14147C* 8:23408T* 8:40116

379

Indices

2 Kings = IV Regum Whole book 35, 62, 79 1:2-17 350E, 79 2:12 189TE, 35 2:16-24189TE* 4:8-37 355E, 79 4:34-5355E 5 353E, 79 5:1353E* 6:8-23 354E, 79 6:15-7 354E, 35 7:13161A* 9:14-3579 9:21-37 181TE, 182A 13:14189TE* 17:13147C* 18-1976A* 18:1076A 18:1376A* 18:15-676A 18:33174A 19:14-35359E 19:15359E* 19:20-34359E* 19:35359E* 21116 21:1117 21:1-17111A* 21:12-5117 21:18118 23:26-7111A* 24:3-4111A*

10:155E 11:6 179T, 35, 78, 85 11:11 179T, 35, 78, 85 11:26-40180TE* 11:34147C* 11:38147C* 12:22423C* 12:26-30180TE* 12:31180TE* 12:32-4180TE* 13 385T, 77 13:21-4 385T, 35 14:11180TE* 14:1964 15:162 15:1-9 185TE*, 62 15:862 15:9-24185TE* 15:1662 15:24 186TE*, 62 15:3385 15:34 180TE*, 85 16:1186TE* 16:2-4 180TE, 35, 85 16:2-678 16:6180TE* 16:25-685 18:20-40 350E, 79 19:1 350E, 79 19:4-10 352T, 79 19:10332A* 21 181TE, 78, 85 21:8-1485 21:9-1085 21:17-2485 21:19 181TE, 35 21:2085 22:1-50 186TE*, 62 22:19-23 183T, 35, 78 22:21184A 22:2662 22:4285 22:5062

1 Chronicles = I Paralipomenon Whole book 19, 22-3,  36, 62-4 2 Chronicles = II Paralipomenon Whole book 19, 22-3, 36,  62-4, 78, 80,  95, 112 2:776A 6:31116

380

Indices

14 185TE, 78 15:1-2 185TE, 736, 8 17186TE* 18-19:2 186TE, 34, 78 19:2186TE* 19:7297A* 21 189TE, 36, 78 21:2-4189TE* 21:3189TE* 21:6189TE* 21:8-10189TE* 21:11-5189TE* 24 190T, 78 24:21190T* 3276A* 32:20-1359E* 32:3276A* 33:1-20 111A*, 117 34:31 275T, 276A, 289A 35-657

Tobit Whole book 36 14:4423C* Judith Whole book

36

Esther Whole book 38 3:1097E* Job

Ezra = I Esdras Whole book 36, 57-8 5:1 253A, 36 6:14253A*

Whole book 36, 58,  78, 80-1 13:532A 18:20-4261T 21:7-13 257T, 78 21:17-20 258T, 78 24:2-7 259T, 78 24:16-7260A 24:18 261T, 78 24:19261T* 24:20-478 27:14-6 262T, 78

Psalms Whole book 37 2:11277T* 2:13 108C, 37 7:11128A* 7:13104A 9:28109A 18:5 343C, 440A, 37 21:7 378C, 37 25:4 321A, 319C* 25:3-585 25:5 499T, 319C,  37, 76, 85 25:9319C* 26:576 31:967A 32:5 25A, 275T*/276T* 33:9 98C, 108C*, 37

Nehemiah = II Esdras Whole book 36, 58 7:38-8:1257 8:1-8 263A, 78 9:16-7 136A, 36 9:3229E* 12:16253A* 4 Esdras = IV Esdras Whole book 36, 55, 57-8,  74, 78, 80 1:3658A 14:45-7 263A, 78 15:21-7 264T, 36, 78 16:3-12 265T, 36, 78

381

Indices

33:15-8 114C, 37 34:12429A* 36:8118A 37:20429A* 39:7-9171T* 43:12 82C, 37 44:8275T*/276T* 50:19115A 51:7543A* 54:22 184A, 37 54:22127C 64:640A 68:1038A 73:7 77T, 37 78:1 78T, 37 78:371A 83:13 108C, 408T* 96:10 188C, 37, 85 99:2277T* 105333E* 105:28-31 334C, 37 106:40 66C, 37 108:5429A* 113:12-6524A 113:14150A 118:1408T* 118:34289A, 275T*/276T* 120:7546A 121:255A 127:5 147C, 37 133:3447A 134:1173A 134:17150A 135:1973A 141:6114C*

11:4155C 11:31155C 17:1070C 17:13429A* 17:2832A* 18:11452A 21:3 171T*, 25A* 24:11 154C, 155C*, 85 24:24-5 152C, 85 26:11 133A, 85 29:4142C 29:12141C 29:19 69C, 70C* 30:5423C* Qoheleth = Ecclesiastes Whole book 38 3:734C 4:17171T* [5:1171T*] 6:371A Song of Solomon = Canticum canticorum Whole book 38 2:1157A 4:1543A* 5:11464A Wisdom of Solomon = Sapientia Whole book 38, 55, 78, 80-1 1:1 275T, 277T,  276A, 38, 78 1:1-7 275T, 276A 1:2 278T, 38 1:3 279T, 38, 78 1:5 280T, 282T*,  38, 78 1:62A 1:7 282T, 38, 78 1:1395C* 5:15-7 283T, 38, 78, 86

Proverbs Whole book 37, 100 3:1147C* 4:4147C* 5:22 187C, 540C, 72 7:1147C*

382

Indices

6:2-11 285T, 38,  78-9, 86 11:248A 15:1538

5:11-4 205T, 39, 78 5:20 159C, 39 5:22-5 206T, 78 6:6-7 358A, 39 6:9-10416A 10:1-3 387T, 77, 86 10:11179T* 11:653A 13:6-11 207T, 78 14:12373C 14:13-4 375C, 373C*, 39 14:2071A* 19:11 74C, 39 19:1374C* 22:12-3 72T, 39 24:1-6 208T, 78 24:2385T* 24:7-13 209T, 78 24:1380A 24:16-23 210T, 78 26:1452A 27:13230A 28:2511A* 28:7385T* 28:7-8 388T, 389T*, 77 28:13-677 28:14-5 389T, 77 28:17-9 390T, 77 28:22-3267A 29:13 460C, 39 29:13-6391T 30:1587 33:1 129C, 39 36-3776A* 37:14-36359E 37:16-20359E* 37:21-35359E* 37:25 376C, 39 37:36359E* 40:1241A 41:2511A* 41:25511A* 42:20150C*

Sirach (Wisdom of) = Ecclesiasticus Whole book 37-8, 55, 98 4:27-8 153C, 38 5:487 5:8-9 140C, 38 8:14-938 10:9 381C, 38 17:28 287C, 38 17:31381C 21:1 139C, 38 21:2-3 286C, 38 22:8-9 143C, 38 34:23196A 41:11-3137Cbis, 38 46:1-12316E* 48:20-2359E* Isaiah Whole book 32, 38-9,  77-8, 80 1:1191A 1:2-3 192T, 78, 86 1:429E 1:4-6 64T, 39 1:8 193T, 78, 86 1:10 194T, 78, 86 1:11-2 196A, 86 1:12470A 1:13 197T, 78, 86 1:15 198T, 78, 86 1:16-7 199T, 78, 86 1:18-20 200T, 39, 78, 86 1:23-4 202T, 39, 78 1:28 202T, 78 2:11 203T, 78 3:1410A* 3:11 204T, 78 3:11-5 386T, 77, 86

383

Indices

43:8150C* 48:22 184A, 39 50:4 422T, 39 52:2 96C, 106A,  39, 87 53:8543A* 53:1229E* 56:3102A* 56:10 151C, 87 58:1 151C, 342C,  417A, 230A*, 39 59:1-4 211T, 78 59:6-9 212T, 78 59:14-5 213T, 39, 78 61:1042A 65:14 1A, 45A 65:2553A 66:1-3 392T, 77

5:26-9 220T, 78 5:30-1 397T, 77 6:10 398T, 40, 77 6:12-5 399T, 77 6:14 184A, 399T*, 39 6:28-30 400T, 77 7:11-5 401T, 77, 87 7:27-8 221T, 78 7:3271A* 8:129E* 8:271A* 8:4-7 222T, 78 8:11 184A, 399T* 8:21-9:3 223T, 78 9:1, 137C 130A, 39 9:5, 313C 39, 87 9:13-5 224T, 78 9:2425A* 10:20-1 402T, 77 10:21394A 11:14 225T, 227A, 78 11:15-6 403T, 77 12:9-10 404T, 77 13:1329E* 13:18231T* 13:22-3 231T, 78 14:10 405T, 406T*, 77 14:10-2 232T, 233T*, 78 14:13-6 406T, 40, 77 14:1671A 15:1 233T, 78 15:4111A 15:5-6 234T, 78 16:1-2393A* 16:2393A 16:471A* 16:671A* 18:7 145C, 40 18:8 146C, 40 18:11-5 235T, 39, 78 18:17278A bis 18:20429A* 19:1171A*

Jeremiah Whole book 32, 39, 77-8, 80-1 1:5 214A, 393A* 1:8214A 2:1-2 215T, 78 2:2-3215T* 2:4-6 215T, 78, 87 2:5 395T, 77 2:7394A* 2:7-9 396T, 77 2:1343A 2:19 123C, 39 2:20-2 216T, 78 2:26 29E, 87 2:29-32 217T, 78 4:5230A* 4:10290C* 4:14 144C, 39 4:22 217T, 214A, 78 5:3 218T, 78 5:20-4 219T, 78 5:21 214A, 150C* 5:25 214A, 220T*

384

Indices

20:1-3 360E, 79 20:8393A* 22:3-5 236T, 39, 78 22:18237T* 22:24-5 237T, 39, 78 23:1-2 407T, 77 23:381A 23:9 124A, 39 23:11-2077 24:2228A* 23:11394A* 23:11-20 408T, 39 25:11-277T* 25:3371A* 26360E 26:18-9359E* 32:3229E* 32:39 147C, 39 34:14150C* 37:11-6 360E, 79 38:7-13 360E, 79 43:971A* 48:10 328C, 39

7:14230A* 7:23-5 270T, 78 7:26 434T, 77 9:8-9268A 9:9-10 269T, 78 10:14266A 12:2150C* 13:8-10 435T, 77 13:18-9 436T, 77 14:12-6 271T, 78 14:13410A* 17:24102A 18:19147C* 18:20-4 272T, 78 18:21147C* 18:23 95C*, 99, 119 18:32 95C*, 228A* 20:16 322A, 408T* 20:24322A 20:39322A 20:47102A* 22:24-6 437T, 77 22:27315A* 22:30-1 438T, 77 29:571A* 32:27543A 33:1-11 439T, 77 33:5-6440A 33:11 95C, 544E,  228A*, 272T*,  40, 87 34 298A, 385T* 34:2300A 34:5-6443A 34:8300A 36:35-884A 38:8-9299A 38:19332A 39:23-4 273T, 78

Lamentations Whole book 40 1:1 10C, 40, 97, 107 3:1-66291C* 3:33228A 3:40-1 291C, 40 4:1 11C, 40 4:2 12C, 40 4:5 12C, 40 4:7 13C, 40 Baruch Whole book

40

Ezekiel Whole book 40, 58, 77-8, 80-1 1:5-11266A 5:8-11269T*

Daniel Whole book 22-4, 40 6:1797E*

385

Indices

14:1197E* 14:1497E*

Jonah Whole book 41, 78 3:4-9 229E, 78 4:1-2229E 4:9-1187 4:11 229E, 78, 87

Hosea Whole book 40, 74, 77-8, 80 5:187 5:1-2 412T, 40, 77, 87 5:4 138A, 40 5:8230A* 6:6171T* 8:1230A* 8:1-4 240T, 40, 78 8:4 534T, 40

Micah Whole book 41, 77-8, 80 3:1-12 418T, 41, 77 3:8 151C, 417A*, 41 4:1 452A, 41 6:9-12 250T, 41, 78 7:1 80A, 41 7:1-2 290C, 41 7:1-3 419T, 80A*, 41, 77 7:16150C*

Joel Whole book 40, 77, 80 1:5 409T, 40, 77, 107 1:9-12 409T, 40, 77, 107 2:1230A* 2:12 107A, 40 2:15230A* 2:17 411T, 40, 77 Amos Whole book 40, 77-8, 80 2:4-7 241T, 78 3:6230A* 5:6 242T, 78 5:10 243T, 242T*, 78 5:1332A* 5:21-3 413T, 77 7:10-3244A 7:14-7 245T, 78 8:4-5 246T, 78 8:7-8 247T, 78 8:10 248T, 78 8:11 410A, 414A* 8:11-2 415T, 77 9:10 249T, 78 Obadiah Whole book

Nahum Whole book

41

Habakkuk Whole book 1:2-4 1:8 2:12-3

41, 74, 78, 80 239T, 41, 78 315A, 41 238T, 41, 78

Zephaniah Whole book 77-8, 80 1:4420A 1:14-2:2 251T, 78 3:1420A* 3:1-587 3:1-2 421T, 77, 87 3:3315A 3:3-5 422T, 77 3:14420A* 3:16420A* Haggai Whole book 2:12 2:22-3

38

386

41, 78, 80 252T, 41, 78 252T, 41, 78

Indices

Zechariah Whole book 41, 77-8, 80 1:1 253A, 41 1:3-4 254T, 41, 78 4:5255T* 5:2-4 255T, 41, 78 5:5255T* 7:9-12 424T, 41, 77, 87 7:11 150C*, 87 7:1387 10:2-3 425T, 41, 77 11:3-6 426T, 41, 77

Matthew Whole book 42, 59-61, 63 1:8 189T/E*, 62 2:16-8368E* 2:18472A 3:2172T* 3:10132A 4:4162A 5-7109 5:6-788 5:13 448T, 511A, 42, 75 5:14452A 5:14-5 449T, 42, 75 5:14-6106 5:16 451T, 453T, 42, 75 5:19 454T, 42, 75, 88 5:2088 5:21-288 5:22-388 5:23-488 5:26520A 5:29 328C*, 327E 5:43-888 6:2 528T, 42 7:1-2 455T, 42, 75, 88 7:288 7:3-4 456T, 42, 75, 88 7:3-588 7:6 457T, 175A,  511A*, 42, 75 7:9-11444A 7:13 226A, 88 7:13-4 35A, 68A, 365A 7:15315A 7:15-688 7:15-7 458T, 42, 75, 88 7:16314A* 7:16-2188 7:17-9132A 7:21 459T, 42, 75 7:21-7538T* 7:23 538T, 20C, 42

Malachi Whole book 42, 74, 77-8, 80 1:6-9 427T, 42, 77 1:1042 1:13-2:3 428T, 42, 77 2:2-10 42, 77 2:4430T* 2:5-7 430T, 42, 77 2:5-10105=6 2:8430T* 2:8-10431T 2:17429A 3:1-3 432T, 42, 77 3:13-5 433T, 42, 77, 87 4:1 256T, 42, 78, 87 4:4430T* 1 Maccabees Whole book 42 5:54332A 7:41359E* 2 Maccabees Whole book 42 8:19359E* 9:841A Prayer of Manasseh Whole book

111A*

387

Indices

7:24 533T, 538T*,  72, 88 7:24-6 445A, 88 7:24-788 7:26 533T, 42, 72, 88 7:27 536T, 42, 72, 88 8:288 8:11 19C, 42, 88 8:12 16C, 42, 88 9:13 49A, 171T* 10:4521E 10:5541A 10:1588A 10:16 461T, 42, 75 10:28 466T, 295A,  42, 75 10:29520A* 10:32-3284T* 11:10432T* 11:22 470A*, 541A* 11:24 470A*, 541A* 11:28 94C, 42, 87 11:28-9 149C, 42 12:7171T* 12:32122A* 12:36 470A, 541A* 12:39-41229E 13:1-993A 13:11472A 13:13-5160C 13:14-5 416A, 42 13:15 150C*, 510A* 13:46310A 14:24293A 15:7-8 460C, 42 15:14 467T, 315A,  522A, 42, 75 15:19 100A, 110A 15:24 15C, 42 15:26 17C, 42 16:396 16:4229E* 16:9472A

16:1372 16:16 530T, 26A,  309A, 42 16:16-972 16:17 530T, 42 16:18 532T, 535T, 314A,  533T*, 42 16:19 537T, 539T,  370E, 96C*,  119A*, 42 16:2072 17:9190T* 19:6 90T, 42 19:28 441A, 494A 21:13-972 22:19-2146A 23:2446A 23:2-3 468T, 42, 75 23:4 274C, 42 23:13 469T, 18C, 42, 75 23:14-5469T* 23:16-26522A 23:30-1364A 23:34364A* 23:35-6190T* 23:37364A* 24:16315A 24:20113A 24:31440A 24:45 442C, 42 24:49-51 471T, 42, 75 25:10-2 22C, 42 25:31-46 538T, 42 25:32538T* 25:33538T* 25:41 538T, 72 26:14517A 26:14-16 26A, 309A 26:15519A 27:529E 28:19114 28:20504A

388

Indices

12:8-9131A 12:42442C 12:59520A* 13:23226A* 13:27 20C*, 538T* 13:34364A 15:798C* 15:11-3297E 16:2279A 16:24311A 17:11-9357A 17:28-30315A 18:30122A* 21:21315A* 22:30441A 23:28268A 23:29 21C, 43 24:27 19, 55, 95

Mark Whole book 43, 60 1:2432T* 1:1596 2:1749A* 4:3-893A 7:5408T* 7:6460C* 8:1-10109 8:18 524A, 150C* 9:43116A 9:45116A 9:47116A 10:990T* 10:30122A* 12:42520A* 1322 13:14315A* 13:2244A 16:16 23C, 43 16:18101A

John Whole book 37, 43, 60-1 1:29318E* 2:1738A* 4:42447A 5:30 379C, 43 699 6:27414A 6:31-25E 6:38 339C, 338E*, 43 6:70518A 8:44 307A, 518A, 531A 10:11-6443A 10:12299A 10:15 51C, 529A, 43 10:16 26A, 309A 11:44119A 12:4-6 26A, 309A 12:6 29E, 516A 13:26512T* 13:2929E 14:17281A 15:13177T/E

Luke Whole book 43, 60-1 1:17432T* 1:3895 1:70 364A, 383A 1:76432T* 1:7914A 3:9132A* 4:25352T 5:1423C 5:3249A* 6:39315A* 6:43132A* 7:27432T* 8:1423C* 8:5-893A 10:18373C 10:19463A 11:29-32229E* 11:46274C* 11:47-50364A*

389

Indices

15:26281A 16:13281A 21:15-726A 21:15-7309A

1:21-2 475T, 43, 76 1:25-6 476T, 43, 76 1:28-32 477T, 43, 76, 88 1:32 478T, 43, 76 2:225A 2:4-688 2:5-6 479T, 43, 76, 88 2:625A 2:11297A* 2:11-3 480T, 43, 76 2:255E 6:1-2 482T, 43, 76 6:2-13346A 6:9-11356A 6:11296A 6:13 134C, 43 8:32326E* 8:35 483T, 43, 76 9:3 288C, 43 9:586A 11:3 352T, 43 11:8510A 11:17-2224A 11:18150C* 13:12-4 484T, 43, 76 15:12179T* 15:1629E* 15:19371E

Acts of the Apostles Whole book 43 1:8 40A, 29E*, 120 1:15-6 513T, 43 1:15-26 521E, 69-70 1:16 118A*, 499T* 1:18 514T, 515A,  43, 69 1:20 26A*, 70 1:2670 2:25499T* 2:31499T* 3:21364A* 4:32 27C, 43 5:1-11 29E, 118 5:9 28C, 43 5:29 382C, 43 5:41366E 6:2423C* 6:5 26A, 369E, 309A 7:2-60 26A, 309A 7:53-9369E 8:9-24305A 8:20 308C, 43 9:15371E 10:287A 10:34297A* 12:1-2368E 16:19-23366E 20:26-7 542C, 43 21:13363A 28:26-7416A 28:27 150C*, 510A*

1 Corinthians Whole book 43 2:4374A 2:8162A 3:10-7 485T, 43, 76 3:18-9 486T, 43, 76 4:16 302A*, 377A* 5:1 61C, 43, 88 5:5-7 487T, 43, 76 5:7318E* 5:8 488T, 76 5:8-1143 5:9-11 488T, 76, 88 6:9117A

Romans Whole book 43 1:1117E* 1:18-31160C*

390

Indices

10:1-298 10:33 340C, 43 11:1 474T, 50A, 302A,  377A, 43, 75 11:3462A 12:12-2730A 12:15-633A 15:2298-9 15:3272T* 15:4598 15:52440A*

4:15-659A 4:17-9 491T, 44, 76, 89 4:1989 5:1 302A*, 377A* 5:17-8 492T, 44, 76 5:23462A 6:9297A* 6:17351A 6:20371E Philippians Whole book 44 1:8 292C, 44 1:23346A* 3:13526T* 3:17 302A*, 408T* 3:17-989

2 Corinthians Whole book 44 1:3545A 1:960A 4:1-2 489T, 44, 76 4:7 344C, 44 6:2 112A, 157A 11:13371E 11:13-5 490T, 76, 89 11:14 62C, 89 11:23523A 11:23-9 371E, 44 12:11-2523A*

Colossians Whole book 44 3:5 347C, 44 3:5-6 496T, 44, 76 3:13158A 3:19 91T, 44 3:25297A*

Galatians Whole book 44 1:19367E* 4:494 4:25-6 547A, 44 4:26 472A, 44 5:21117E* 6:1525T*

1 Thessalonians Whole book 44 1:6 302A*, 377A* 2:5201A 2:5-8 493T, 76 2:7523A* 2:14 302A*, 377A* 4:2-8 495T, 44, 76 4:16440A* 5:15429A* 5:25 525T*, 526T*

Ephesians Whole book 44 1:625A 1:8372A 1:1225A 1:21122A 3:5162A 4:15 462A, 89

2 Thessalonians Whole book 45 3:7 302A*, 377A* 3:9377A*

391

Indices

1 Timothy Whole book 45, 68 1:929E* 1:15 525T, 45, 70 1:17548A 2:1-489 2:4 48C, 95C*,  45, 89 2:7 303A, 361A,  371E, 473A 373 3:1 306A, 525T* 3:1-5 526T, 528T*, 45 3:1-10 526T*, 71, 73 3:2 304A, 45 3:2-3529A* 3:8-10 527T, 45 4:1-289 6:2-589 6:3-5 503T, 45,  76, 89 6:15125A 6:17-9 120C, 45 6:20 30A, 31A

Philemon Whole book

45

Hebrews Whole book 45 2:7 36A, 45 2:17178A 4:11-389 4:12 351A, 89 5:1465A 6:12 88A, 377A* 7:1 325E, 79 10:28-9 163C, 45 11:1-40 316E, 64, 78-9, 101-2 11:4 318E, 79 11:5320E* 11:7324E* 11:9 335E, 79 11:17 326E, 79 11:21329E* 11:27 330E, 79 11:32 338E*, 345E* 11:37-8 362T, 45 12:1575A 12:24318E* 13:7377A*

2 Timothy Whole book 45 1:1189A 1:1230A 2:3 39A, 56A 2:3-5 502T, 45, 76 3:1-5 498T, 497A*,  45, 76, 89 3:7-9 500T, 45, 76 3:1655 3:16-719 4:8128A

James Whole book 45 2:1297A* 2:1325A* 4:4346A* 5:17352T 1 Peter Whole book 32, 45, 68 1-273 1:3-5 505T, 45 1:3-1667-8 1:4291C* 1:13 506T, 45 1:14-6 507T, 45

Titus Whole book 45 1:12 312C, 45 2:789 2:7-10 501T, 45, 76, 89

392

Indices

1:15-2173 1:17297A* 1:19318E* 1:22-3 508T, 45, 68 2:1-3 509T, 45, 69 2:9 512T, 29E, 45,  69, 114-5 2:11 508T, 45 3:11-2114C* 3:20-1 323A, 465A, 107 4:12508T* 4:18155A* 5:8 315A, 506T*, 89 5:8-989

2 John Whole book

46

3 John Whole book

46

Jude Whole book

46, 55

Apocalypse of John Whole book 22-3, 46 1:18 315A, 95 2:1-7 26A, 309A 2:14-5 26A, 309A 3:1330A 3:1730A 4:6-10266A* 5:13548A* 6:17432T* 7:9 26A, 54A, 309A 7:11266A* 7:14 54A, 309A 10:7542C* 12:8-9373C 14:1247A 17:14125A* 18:23450A 19:10497A 19:11281A* 19:16125A* 21:242A 22:14 55A, 88A

2 Peter Whole book 46 1:4346A* 2:4 85A, 135A, 156A,  314A, 315A, 46 2:7 325E, 46, 79 2:20364A* 2:22133A 3:995C* 1 John Whole book 46 2:2178A 2:15-6346A* 3:16177T/E* 4:10178A 4:12541A 5:6281A* 5:20121A

393

Ancient and medieval authors Adomnán 14, 81, 109 Ailerán244 Ambrose 17, 131, 280 Ambrosiaster180 Augustine 17, 18, 20, 25, 29,  30, 33, 53, 57, 58, 63,  81, 93, 98, 103-5, 109,  114, 118, 120, 132, 146,  156, 168, 203, 244, 247,  273, 329, 350, 352, 359 Pseudo-Augustine147 Basil of Caesarea 103 Bede 25, 109, 114 Benedict1 Boethius 1, 17 Cassian 104, 120, 133, 147,  170, 174, 250, 257, 273 Cassiodorus 1, 17, 53, 57, 81, 93,  98, 151, 196, 359 Columbanus 1, 17, 25, 53 Cyprian 26, 185, 190 Eucherius of Lyons 53, 104 Eusebius 14, 20, 58-61,  63, 75, 77, 91, 118,  133, 136, 154, 163,  309, 320, 324 Euthalius257 Faustus of Riez 93, 170 Gildas passim Gregory the Great 247

Gregory of Tours 1, 25, 114 Irenaeus 135, 244 Isidore of Seville 17, 131, 244 Jerome 15, 17, 23, 29, 33,  36, 53, 55-6, 59, 62,  79, 102, 104-5, 109,  122, 129, 131-2, 135-6,  151, 227, 234, 236-7,  244, 256, 263, 282-5,  287, 298 John Cassian see Cassian Julian of Toledo 14 Lucifer of Cagliari 81-9, 145,  186, 253, 289-91 The Master of the Regula Magistri  17, 131, 273 Muirchú 25, 114, 257 Origen 105, 107, 195, 298 Orosius 20, 25, 147 Patrick 16, 25, 27, 187, 203 Paul of Tarsus 2, 204, 328 Pelagius 1, 120-1, 329 Porphyry56 Priscillian203 Prosper of Aquitaine 120 Rufinus 136, 283 Salvian 25, 93, 114 Tyconius 26, 59 Virgil122

394

Modern authors Achtemeier, P.J. 49 À Lapide, C. 252 Albl, M.C. 26 Avery, M. 73 Becker, K. 18 Beckwith, R.T. 55 Bensly, R.L. 240, 2 Berchman, R.M. 56 Bloch, M. 22 Boling, R.G. 272 Bradshaw, P.F. 67 Breeze, A. 122 Brooks, W.E. 268 Burkitt, F.C. 29-32, 42, 51, 74,  81-2, 84-5, 89, 186,  236, 253, 289-90, 312 Burton, P. 31 Ceresa-Gastaldo, A. 283 Chadwick, O. 23-4, 135 Chatillon, F. 247 Chilton, B. 102 Cobb, W.F. 135 Cohn, N. 22 Collins, J.J. 22 Conrad-O’Briain, H. 166, 217 Crehan, J.H. 67 Cross, F.M. 63 De Bruyne, D. 59, 77 Delcor, M. 268 Di Lella, A. 169 Draper, J.A. 258 Duchesne, L. 65-6 Dumville, D. 24, 53 Ellard, G. 67 Evans, C.D. 191 Fischer, B. 126 Fitzmyer, J.A. 278 Follis, E.R. 156 Frede, H.J. 138, 154, 164, 177,  261, 268, 275, 282, 334,  335, 336, 337, 338, 346, 347

Freedman, D.N. 63 Frend, W.H.C. 54 Fuchs, E. 272 George, K. 1, 73 Grabmann, M. 112 Gray, L.H. 31 Greenberg, M. 247 Grosjean, P. 31 Gryson, R. 125, 141, 145,  148, 149, 156, 159, 166,  189, 197, 198, 199, 200,  201, 202, 205, 207, 208,  209, 210, 274, 281, 285,  286, 297 Gutiérrez, G. 112 Hadden, A.W. 30-1, 48 Hare, D.R.A. 114 Harrington, D.J. 114 Harris, J.R. 26 Hengel, M. 58, 244 Hennig, J. 265 Hetzenhauer, M. 217, 223 Hillers, D.R. 255 Houghton, H.A.G. 59, 126 Howard, G. 114 Howorth, H.H. 54 Illich, I. 33 Jones. C.W. 114 Jonge, M. de 104 Kelber, W.H. 48 Kerlouégan, F. 1, 30-3, 50,  54, 67, 81 Kirk, A. 48 Knoppers, G.N. 63 Kraft, R.A. 58 Lapidge, M. 24, 93, 122 Leo XIII 65, 319 McDonald, L.M. 54, 56 Mackenzie, R.A.F. 172 McNamara, M. 54 Marshall-Cornwall, J. 100

395

Indices

Martène, E. 66 Meier, J.P. 114 Metzger, B.M. 29, 48, 58, 60,  137, 240, 326 Mommsen, T. 31, 125, 127-8,  132-4, 138, 142, 146,  149, 151, 154, 155, 156,  163, 164, 165, 167, 168,  174, 176, 189, 194, 197,  201, 202, 207, 215, 217,  229, 232, 233, 241, 243,  255, 262, 269, 270, 272,  274, 275, 283, 307, 309,  312, 319, 325, 326, 331,  333, 349 Neusner, J. 102 North, J.L. 31 O’Donnell, J.J. 53 O’Loughlin, T. 14-5, 26, 30,  51, 53-6, 59, 61, 65,  70, 81, 91, 93, 95,  99-100, 102, 104, 112,  114, 118, 121, 134-5, 147,  156, 159, 166, 169, 187,  190-1, 203, 214, 217,  244, 249, 258-9, 261,  263, 271, 283, 311, 333 Omanson, R.L. 326 Osburn, C.D. 17 O’Sullivan, T.D. 24, 31-2, 82,  111, 115 Palazzo, E. 67 Parker, D.C. 31 Reis, P.T. 290 Richardson, E.C. 283 Sabatier, P. 30 Schaff, P. 244 Schneiders, M. 54 Skehan, P. 169 Sharpe, R. 28, 109 Sparks, H.D.F. 126 Stancliffe, C. 53

Stanton, G. 58 Stone, M.E. 58 Stubbs, W. see Haddon, A.W. Sutcliffe, E.F. 29 Thiele, W. 32, 38, 153, 168,  169, 174, 251, 252,  253, 254, 287, 339,  340, 341, 342 Van Bavel, T. 114 Van Winkle, D.W. 290 Walsh, J.T. 290 Westermann, C. 267 White, H.J. 126, 132-3 Willard, L.C. 257 Williams, H. 12, 26, 31-2,  37, 39, 44, 51, 55,  66-7, 69, 89, 107,  113, 125-6, 128, 136,  138, 140, 145, 151, 152-5,  159, 164, 165, 166, 167,  168, 169, 172, 173, 174,  175, 176, 181, 185, 189,  191, 192, 196, 197, 199,  202, 203, 206, 207, 211,  215, 216, 217, 226, 229,  230, 232, 233, 234, 235,  236, 237, 240, 241, 244,  249, 252, 254, 255, 256,  257, 259, 260, 261, 262,  266, 269, 270, 271, 272,  274, 275, 283, 285, 289,  298, 302, 304, 305, 307,  309, 313, 314, 317, 319,  320, 322, 325, 326, 327,  328, 333, 334, 336, 338,  340, 346, 349, 350 Winterbottom, M. 137, 196,  216, 257, 344 Wordsworth, J. 126, 132,  137, 320 Wright, N. 13, 272 Zeichmann, C.B. 137

396