How did Catholic Church in the High Middle Ages look at the Bible stories? Were they Bible literalists? Did they approach it the same way the modern Church does?
Bible Literalists or Not?
- Thread starter Alex Zetsu
- Start date
Philip
Donor
They did not approach the Bible as modern Catholics do. Nor did they approach it as modern fundamentalist-literalists do. The Catholic Church has always embraced allegorical readings of certain texts, literal readings of others, and both for some. Their readings were heavily influenced by the traditions of the church as well as classical and contemporary philosophy.
Skallagrim
Banned
A somewhat irritatingly vague way of answering is that they didn't believe all the stuff in the Bible to be literally true. They believed some of it to have happened as described, they believed some of it to be symbolic truth, and they believed some of it to be more than literally true.
Take transubstantiation as an example of how that last bit works. According to the Roman Catholic Church, the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Not metaphorically or symbolically, but actually. However... physically, materially, you'll note that they are still bread and wine. Their substance, their essence, however, truly changes and that is more real than the merely material.
This mindset allows for a view of reality wherein some things don't have to be literal in order to be true. To the Catholic Church, the most important and evident truths of the Bible are far beyond material reality (to which we apply the term "literally true").
Take transubstantiation as an example of how that last bit works. According to the Roman Catholic Church, the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Not metaphorically or symbolically, but actually. However... physically, materially, you'll note that they are still bread and wine. Their substance, their essence, however, truly changes and that is more real than the merely material.
This mindset allows for a view of reality wherein some things don't have to be literal in order to be true. To the Catholic Church, the most important and evident truths of the Bible are far beyond material reality (to which we apply the term "literally true").
Nobody is a Bible literalist, in the truest sense, not because of contradictions (purported or actual) in the texts, nor by piecemeal acceptance or emphasis of parts of Scripture, but because it cannot be understood fully outside of the worldview of its scribes. Even the most fundamental Protestants and Karaites know this, their respective rejection of Catholic or Rabbinic thought aside.
The debate between Literalists and those who believe in "multiple levels of meaning" actually dates back to the Christianity of late antiquity already, where the schools of Alexandria and Antiochia held differing views on the matter.
Augustinus basically tried to reconcile this by saying that many parts should be understood alleogorically, but what they convey can all be found elsewhere literally.
The practice of allegorical interpretation and the model of multiple levels of meaning was very persistent throughout the Middle Ages, as this catchphrase illustrates:
"Littera gesta docet, allegoria quid credas, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia."
(The letters teach us what happened, allegory what we ought to believe, the moral meaning how we should act, and anagogy where we are heading.)
There were medieval critics of this model, most prominent among them Thomas of Aquinus, who stressed the relevance of literally understandable portions of the Bible for the other three presumed levels, too, and criticised mysticising conjectures.
Such criticisms of scholastic allegory-fondness increased in the 15th century and then culminated in the Reformation (Luther and Melanchthon declaring "scripture to be its own guiding light").
Augustinus basically tried to reconcile this by saying that many parts should be understood alleogorically, but what they convey can all be found elsewhere literally.
The practice of allegorical interpretation and the model of multiple levels of meaning was very persistent throughout the Middle Ages, as this catchphrase illustrates:
"Littera gesta docet, allegoria quid credas, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia."
(The letters teach us what happened, allegory what we ought to believe, the moral meaning how we should act, and anagogy where we are heading.)
There were medieval critics of this model, most prominent among them Thomas of Aquinus, who stressed the relevance of literally understandable portions of the Bible for the other three presumed levels, too, and criticised mysticising conjectures.
Such criticisms of scholastic allegory-fondness increased in the 15th century and then culminated in the Reformation (Luther and Melanchthon declaring "scripture to be its own guiding light").
It's worth pointing out that "literal" in the middle ages meant "according to the sense intended by the writer", not "according to the surface meaning of the words". Augustine's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis is concerned to advance what we would call an allegorical interpretation of the Scripture. I can't help but feel that the change in meaning of the word "literal" is significant somehow.
Wait, I'm confused -- is this not the same as how the modern Catholic Church approaches the Bible?
Modern Imperialism
Banned
I would say they are more literalist in the sense that they valued religion above all other identities and allegiances. Notice how they called Europe back then Christendom instead of the western world like now. Christianity back then was more similar to modern fundamentalist Islam then modern western style Christianity. It’s the same as people now valuing being Muslim over being Arab. With the rise of nationalism in the western world you see national and ethnic ties become more important then religious ones to the majority of people in the western world. Even the majority of religion nuts in the US are usually “patriots” first and “good Christians” second even if they say otherwise. Christianity plays second to a lot of stuff in the west now or ties itself to nationalism in a symbolic way. Literalist is a debatable term since religion is often made in a way where it can be interpreted a bunch of different ways. The Abrahamic religions also contradict themselves a lot. One verse will talk about loving your neighbors and others while the next verse will be about killing non believers and enslaving people. It makes it where you have to cherry pick somewhat. The leaders and people often just try to follow their religions as much as possible if they are the religious type. Even fanatics understand people can’t always follow it to the word. It’s also important to remember that in a lot of places even in modern times people are raised to be completely obedient to authority and to do as your told. A large amount of people will trust anything religious figures and political leaders tell them. This is especially true in a society that restricted knowledge and have low literacy rates. If you can’t read and it is against the law for commoners to read the Bible you now have to depend on the priest if you want to hear “god’s words”.
Additionally, religion can get away with using a lot more nuance thinking as justification and reasoning for anything. I would say a better way of thinking of religion is how much a culture and its people value it especially in comparison to other things. This is just my observation and I don’t mean this to be political but medieval and crusader Europe seems comparable to the modern Middle East in some regards. You have all these monarchs with heavy theocratic elements and a large amount of political infighting. I would say crusader mindsets were similar to modern Jihadist. They believed taking the “holy land” would bring them salvation and everlasting happiness. If they win they will be rewarded for their service to god in the afterlife. If they die they become martyrs who will be rewarded in the afterlife for their sacrifice in the name of the faith. Some Muslim terrorist literally have this same mindset now when it comes to Israel or the west. Deus Vult is basically the Christian version of Allah Akbar. Think of it this way, Europeans in the 1000s would support a crusade and rally behind the pope. In the 1800s and after they will only rally behind their nations and empires but not the pope.
Additionally, religion can get away with using a lot more nuance thinking as justification and reasoning for anything. I would say a better way of thinking of religion is how much a culture and its people value it especially in comparison to other things. This is just my observation and I don’t mean this to be political but medieval and crusader Europe seems comparable to the modern Middle East in some regards. You have all these monarchs with heavy theocratic elements and a large amount of political infighting. I would say crusader mindsets were similar to modern Jihadist. They believed taking the “holy land” would bring them salvation and everlasting happiness. If they win they will be rewarded for their service to god in the afterlife. If they die they become martyrs who will be rewarded in the afterlife for their sacrifice in the name of the faith. Some Muslim terrorist literally have this same mindset now when it comes to Israel or the west. Deus Vult is basically the Christian version of Allah Akbar. Think of it this way, Europeans in the 1000s would support a crusade and rally behind the pope. In the 1800s and after they will only rally behind their nations and empires but not the pope.
Philip
Donor
In a global sense, yes. But the traditions of the church and the acceptable philosophies have evolved.
With respect, this is a rambling incoherent rant on your perspective on religion in general. I don't think it actually gets to the core of the matter - exegesis before the modern period.
Pretty much what Skallagrim said.
A huge amount of medieval Christianity was built around the Bible as metaphor. For instance, a famous piece of religio-political thought of the era was the 'Two Swords Doctrine'. Basically, the bit at the last supper (IIRC) where one of the Disciples says 'Lord, here are two swords' and Christ says 'It is enough', this was thought to be a metaphor for how Christendom should be ordered. The two swords were representative of the secular sword, the power of kings and nobles to wage war in defence of Christendom, and the spiritual sword, the power of the Church to excommunicate. Two spheres, separate but equal, complimenting one another (at least until the Papal Reform movement which preached that the Church should be superior to worldly authorities...)
Modern Imperialism
Banned
I’m trying to say the difference between between Europeans then and now on religion might be more about self-identity and level of zeal more so then them be literalist or not. Literalist just seems like it might not be the best term to use especially given the mindset and tradition of the Catholic Church. But Europeans views and religious thinking during medieval era was definitely greatly different from Europeans of later centuries. By the renaissance stuff like the crusaders were already considered outdated and backwards by many in Europe. I’m just trying to figure out the best way to describe the transition and differences to the question of this post. I only use the Islamic world as example because the concept of “Christendom” and crusaders seem very similar to the concept of the “Islamic World” and militant Jihad. I like using comparisons to understand history. History doesn’t repeat itself but many things in it play to a similar rhythm and tune.
Last edited: