Introduction
One of the most intriguing yet unstudied works of the Venerable Bede (672/73–735) is the Collectio ex opusculis sancti Augustini in epistulas Pauli apostoli.Footnote 1 The Collectio is a compilation of 457 fragments,Footnote 2 all authored by Augustine of Hippo (354–430)Footnote 3 and extracted by Bede to offer a verse-by-verse commentary on the Pauline epistles. The said fragments derive from thirty-eightFootnote 4 different works of the bishop of Hippo. In linking three key authorities from western intellectual history (Paul, Augustine, and Bede), the Collectio is an important document for the transmission of Augustine's Pauline exegesis in the early Middle Ages. The Collectio influenced several Carolingian scholars, such as Florus of Lyon (ca. 785/90–ca. 860), Rabanus Maurus (ca. 780–856), and Sedulius Scottus (fl. ca. 850–860), who used the work in their own Pauline commentaries.Footnote 5 Clear traces of the Collectio can also be found in the Romans commentary preserved in MS Paris, BNF, lat. 11574 (ninth century), traditionally attributed to Helisachar of St.-Riquier († before 840).Footnote 6
The Collectio ex opvscvlis sancti Avgvstini in epistvlas Pavli apostoli
The Collectio among Bede's Works
The Collectio is a commentary on Paul's letters in the form of an Augustinian florilegium. More specifically, Bede selected 457 fragments from Augustine's oeuvre to serve as verse-by-verse explanations of the text of thirteen Pauline Epistles.Footnote 7 Among Bede's biblical commentaries, only the Collectio and the last book of his commentary on the Song of Songs (which consists entirely of excerpts from the works of Gregory the Great) are florilegia. His other exegetical commentaries consist of a combination of Bede's own words with quotations and paraphrases from passages from the works of the Church Fathers.
When commenting on Paul's letters, Bede proceeds in a systematic way. The Collectio’s Augustinian fragments are all arranged according to the order of the Pauline verses. When explaining a Pauline passage, Bede usually starts by quoting the biblical verse that will be explained in the Augustinian fragment (the lemma). He subsequently identifies the source of the Augustinian excerpt by means of a title, followed by the excerpt itself. Bede carefully indicated the source of his fragments, providing above each fragment not only the title of the work the fragment derives from but often also the number of the book and chapter/paragraph where the excerpt is located. Normally, one Augustinian fragment in the Collectio corresponds to one Pauline verse. Sometimes, several Pauline verses are being explained in one Augustinian fragment (as is the case in fr. 315, which will be the subject of this article). Verses of special importance are usually explained via a series of fragments (for example, Rom. 5:12, to which Bede devotes six fragments). Some verses remain uncommented.
The library Bede had at his disposal in the double monastery of Wearmouth-Jarrow, where he lived and worked, was of unparalleled quality and quantity.Footnote 8 The richness of the library's book collection, especially in patristic literature, is reflected in the innumerable (patristic) quotations that can be found scattered throughout Bede's writings.Footnote 9 The Anglo-Saxon monk's library included the works of many pagan and patristic authors, chief among which was Augustine.Footnote 10 Many of the latter's major works as well as various of his lesser known writings were available to Bede,Footnote 11 including some rare texts, such as the sermons from the Mainz-Grande-Chartreuse collection.Footnote 12 Bede, however, did not have access to all of the Church Father's works. Several of Augustine's writings were not available at all to him, others only indirectly — that is, through intermediary sources, such as florilegia. The most important intermediary source for Bede's knowledge of Augustine's oeuvre is Eugippius's Excerpta ex operibus sancti Augustini, which served as the source for several of the Collectio’s fragments.Footnote 13 The Excerpta is a collection of some 348 fragments,Footnote 14 compiled from Augustine's works by Eugippius († after 533), abbot of Castellum Lucullanum (near Naples), to present his readers (primarily his fellow monks) with a succinct but representative selection from the works of the African Church Father.Footnote 15 Eugippius's florilegium offers a wide overview of the main theological and pastoral themes in Augustine's oeuvre. Any serious study of Bede's knowledge and use of Augustine's theology and exegesis needs to take its departure in an analysis of the Augustinian writings available to Bede and the textual channels via which he had access to them, especially Eugippius's Excerpta. For this reason, the following contribution will deal extensively with the value of the Excerpta for Bede's presentation of Augustine's exegesis of Eph. 3:17–18 in the Collectio (cf. infra).
About the Collectio’s genesis, purpose(s), addressee(s), intended audience, and date we know painstakingly little. Unlike most of Bede's other biblical commentaries, the Collectio does not contain a prologue, which would be the ideal place to learn more about the work's genesis and its author's intentions. The Collectio is only once referred to in the rest of Bede's oeuvre, namely, in the list of his own writings Bede attached to the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum: “In apostolum quaecumque in opusculis sancti Augustini exposita inueni, cuncta per ordinem transcribere curaui” (HE 5, 24). The latter passage offers a short description of the method Bede followed when compiling the Collectio, namely, that of selecting passages from Augustine's writings and rearranging them according to the structure of the Pauline letters. Apart from this explicit reference, we have no external information about the Collectio. As the work is mentioned among Bede's other commentaries in the Historia ecclesiastica, it certainly predates 731 (the year Bede finished his magnum opus), although it cannot be excluded that, at that date, the commentary was still unfinished.
Many of Bede's biblical commentaries were conceived as practical introductions to patristic theology and exegesis, intended for readers with varying levels of proficiency in these subjects, who wanted to acquaint themselves with the main patristic thinkers and their writings. The Collectio, with its clear structure, instructive titles (which enable the reader to look up passages easily), and lucid presentation, probably had a similar pedagogical purpose, serving as a useful introduction to Augustinian Pauline exegesis (cf. the Excerpta, which were intended for the instruction of Eugippius's fellow monks at Castellum Lucullanum).Footnote 16
Aim of the Present Contribution
In his biblical commentaries, Bede's primary concern was to follow in the footsteps of the Church Fathers, especially Augustine, Gregory the Great, Ambrose, and Jerome. Bede alludes to his fidelity to the patres on several occasions, stating that he proceeds iuxta uestigia patrum or patrum uestigia sequens.Footnote 17 As the Collectio consists entirely and solely of passages excerpted from Augustine's oeuvre, it differs, at first sight, from the rest of Bede's biblical commentaries (with the exception of the last book of his commentary on the Song of Songs, cf. supra), where we clearly hear the Anglo-Saxon's own authorial voice next to his patristic sources. In his Pauline commentary Augustine is omnipresent and — except for the titles indicating the provenance of the passages and short interjections by means of which Bede links different parts from Augustine's excerpts with each other (for example, et paulo post; et cetera, usque dum ait) — not a single word originates from Bede. However, the fact that Bede's active role in the Collectio was restricted to the act of extracting and rearranging fragments from Augustine's works does not necessarily mean that his Pauline commentary offers merely “copy-paste” work or that it is restricted to a “passive” pastiche of Augustine's Pauline exegesis. On the contrary, Bede's textual choices seem to be well sustained and driven by didactic, theological, and exegetical objectives. Over the past decades, research on patristic florilegia has demonstrated that the ways in which specific fragments are selected, adapted, and combined in florilegia are indicative of the theological/philosophical positions of their authors.Footnote 18 By carefully selecting or ignoring certain phrases or passages from Augustine's texts, Bede was able to place his proper accents, thus emphasizing or obscuring specific aspects of the Church Father's interpretations.Footnote 19 This way of adapting and presenting Augustine's Pauline exegesis in a specific way can also be observed in significant inversions of specific phrases or passages, the length of the fragments, the order in which they follow each other, the frequency with which Bede quotes from certain Augustinian works, etc.
Despite its importance for the study of the early medieval transmission and reception of Augustine's writings and thinking in England, Bede's Pauline commentary has long been neglected by scholars, not in the least due to the lack of a critical edition.Footnote 20 A thorough examination of Bede's Collectio, however, could provide interesting insights into the Anglo-Saxon scholar's theological agenda in general and his approach to Augustine's Pauline exegesis in particular.
The following contribution offers a first step into the examination of the way(s) in which Bede selects, adapts, and presents his Augustinian source texts, constructs his own digest of Augustine's exegesis in the Collectio, and develops his own exegesis of the Pauline epistles through this Augustinian prism. Bede's modus operandi will be evaluated by means of a case study, which focuses on the Anglo-Saxon's presentation of Augustine's exegesis of Eph. 3:17–18 in the Collectio. The first part of this contribution analyzes Augustine's exegesis of this pericope throughout his writings. The second part of the article examines Bede's use of Augustine's interpretation of these verses in the Collectio and in his other biblical commentaries.
In the letter to the Ephesians,Footnote 21 the themes of Christology and ecclesiology are intricately linked with each other via the concept of the Church as body of Christ. God's previously hidden decision to save mankind in Christ is now disclosed and realized through the apostolic preaching of the Gospel, as the (Deutero-)Pauline author of the letter states. The faithful acceptance of this message establishes the Church as Christ's body. Christ gathers the whole of humanity (Gentiles included) “under one head” in and through the Church. For this reason the author of the letter urges his readers to preserve the Church's unity and purity. The broader context of Eph. 3:17–18 is the change in the Gentiles’ eschatological role thanks to Christ. The author explains how Paul was called to become the apostle of the Gentiles, in order to encourage the Gentiles to accept and follow the Gospel's message. The verses 3:17–18 (“habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus uestris, ut in caritate radicati et fundati praeualeatis comprehendere cum omnibus sanctis, quae sit latitudo et longitudo et altitudo et profundum”)Footnote 22 are part of the prayer in Eph. 3:14–19, where God is asked to strengthen the Ephesians in their inner being in order that Christ may dwell in their heart (16–17) so that they may understand the depth of Christ's love (18–19).
Augustine's Exegesis of Eph. 3:17–18
Augustine highly respected Paul, whose epistles are one of the main sources for the Church Father's theology. The image of the Church as body of Christ, central to Ephesians, evidently features in Augustine's (anti-Donatist) emphasis on ecclesial unity. Furthermore, Paul plays a central role in the development of Augustine's doctrine of grace (especially in the debates with the Pelagians), as can already be witnessed from the fact that he honored the Apostle with the title of gratiae magnus defensor.Footnote 23 Augustine's use of Ephesians, too, is to be situated in the context of his writings on divine grace, predestination, and free will.Footnote 24 A search in Brepols's databases shows, for instance, that Augustine refers to Eph. 1:4 in the context of predestination, to Eph. 2:3 and 5:25–27 to reflect upon original sin, to Eph. 2:8–9, 3:17(–18) (cf. infra), and 6:23 to argue that faith is an unmerited, divine gift.
Augustine's use of Eph. 3:17–18 is relatively limited and, moreover, almost entirely confined to his Sermones ad populum, Enarrationes in Psalmos, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus, and Epistulae.Footnote 25 Only on some occasions does Augustine explicitly link Eph. 3:17 and 3:18 with each other. As our main interest will be Bede's exegesis of the two verses together, our analysis concentrates on those passages where both verses occur combined (en. Ps. 103, 1, 14; s. 165, 2–5; s. 53, 15–16; ep. 140, 62–64; ep. 55, 25), leaving out those in which only one of the two verses figures (these latter will be referred to only as an additional illustration of Augustine's use of Eph. 3:17 or 3:18). Furthermore, our analysis is restricted to passages in which Augustine explains Eph. 3:17–18, leaving out all loci that merely quote the pericope, without any further explanation.Footnote 26 In the following presentation we distinguish between, on the one hand, the Enarrationes and Sermones (which both belong to Augustine's pastoral activities as a preacher), and, on the other hand, the Epistulae.Footnote 27
Eph. 3:17–18 in the Sermones and Enarrationes in Psalmos
Three passages in Augustine's Sermones and Enarrationes discuss the combination of Eph. 3:17–18. In the Enarrationes, Eph. 3:17–18 is explained in en. Ps. 103, 1, 14, which was probably preached before the Pelagian controversy.Footnote 28 In this enarratio, the verses occur as part of Augustine's reflections on the relation between divine and human activity in the process of salvation. According to Augustine's exposition in en. Ps. 103, 1, 14, Paul prayed in Eph. 3:17 that Christ might live in our inner person through faith, so that we would be able to understand the four dimensions of the cross upon which Christ was crucified (Eph. 3:18).Footnote 29 Having made this connection between the two verses, Augustine then explains these four dimensions: the breadth of the cross (latitudo) refers to man's good works during his earthly life, the length of the cross (longitudo) refers to perseverance in these works, its height (altitudo) to the elevation of the heart, and its depth (profundum) to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. The first three dimensions are man's responsibility, the depth of the cross, however — which forms the basis of the three previous dimensions — is God's responsibility.Footnote 30 In this way, man's works (the latitudo, longitudo, and altitudo of the cross) are all fundamentally rooted in God's grace. Augustine, however, does not explicitly refer to divine grace on this point; he only describes the profundum as the invisible basis of the rest of the cross and links it with the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist, which form the basis of man's bona opera.Footnote 31
Sermo 165 (417)Footnote 32 is one of Augustine's most polemical anti-Pelagian sermons. In this sermon, Augustine systematically attacks Pelagian doctrine, while referring to the Pelagians in satirical terms (for example, in s. 165, 6, where he designates them by means of the term nouelli).Footnote 33 In this anti-Pelagian context, Sermo 165, 2–5 offers another explanation of Eph. 3:13–18, in which the preacher analyzes the relation between human and divine involvement in the act of faith. Augustine explains that man should open his will in order to receive God's grace and to be strengthened by his Spirit.Footnote 34 For this strengthening he refers to Eph. 3:16–18. It is, however, not clear whether the faith from 3:17, through which man opens his will, is the result of God's grace or of man's own initiative.Footnote 35 As the rest of the Sermo, however, considers faith the result of grace and as Augustine argues that man's ability to understand the four dimensions of the cross in Eph. 3:18 is God's gift, the overall interpretation of Eph. 3:17–18 in this Sermo is that faith is primarily a divine gift.Footnote 36 Man should always bear in mind that charity, love for God, and perseverance (the three visible dimensions of the cross) are based on the profundum crucis. The latter symbolizes the gratuitous character of God's grace and the inscrutability of God's judgment, which makes it impossible for man to understand why some humans are elected by his grace and others not.
In a similar way Augustine discusses the relation between faith and good works in Sermo 53, 15–16 (413), a sermon that reflects on the beatitudes by means of an exegetical commentary on Mt. 5, 3–8.Footnote 37 A person with good faith, he argues, cannot perceive God in a bodily way. Therefore, God must be seen with the heart. To corroborate this point, Augustine partly quotes Eph. 3:17–19 (§15).Footnote 38 During man's earthly life, Christ dwells in the heart through faith, whereas in the hereafter we will see him in full divine presence (“praesentia diuinitatis suae”), when we have reached a complete understanding of the four dimensions of the cross. Again, Augustine clarifies these four dimensions: breadth consists in good works, length in perseverance in these works, and height in the expectation of heavenly rewards. Man should perform good works with perseverance in the expectation of receiving heavenly rewards. The fourth dimension, the profundum crucis, is again identified as God's hidden grace, which cannot be perceived or understood by man.Footnote 39 In short, just as in s. 165, Augustine emphasizes the dependence of human works on divine grace in his exegesis of Eph. 3:17–18 — man should perform good works (“breadth”) in a perseverant way (“length”), with the expectation of earning divine (not earthly) rewards (“height”). Man cannot achieve this without “depth,” God's grace that enables him to do good works and to persevere in them.
Examining these three passages in globo, a distinction can be made between en. Ps. 103, 1, 14 on the one hand, and s. 53, 15–16 and s. 165, 2–5 on the other hand. Whereas the former passage only briefly refers to the fact that faith is rooted in divine grace, s. 53, 15–16 and s. 165, 2–5 explicitly discuss the relation between human and divine intervention in faith.Footnote 40 The main focus in en. Ps. 103, 1, 14 is the identification of faith in Christ with Christ himself. Obviously, this does not mean that en. Ps. 103, 1, 14 denies the fact that faith is a divine gift; it simply does not stress the point, whereas in s. 53, 15–16 and s. 165, 2–5 such emphasis is clearly present.Footnote 41 This shift towards a stronger emphasis on man's dependence on divine grace for receiving faith could perhaps be explained by a chronological difference between these texts. En. Ps. 103, 1 probably predates the Pelagian controversy, which could explain why this text does not explicitly stress the divine character of faith. Sermo 165 (417), alternatively, can be situated after the start of the Pelagian controversy, which could be an explanation for its clear emphasis on the fact that human faith is rooted in divine grace.Footnote 42 An identical focus is present in s. 53, which probably dates from the earliest stages of the debates surrounding Pelagianism (413).Footnote 43
The same characteristic distinction can be observed in sermons that quote Eph. 3:17 without Eph. 3:18. Sermo 174 (411–13),Footnote 44 for example, stresses man's incapacity to live a good life without God's assistance and emphasizes the necessity of Christ's entering man's sick heart in order to heal it.Footnote 45 Referring to Eph. 3:17, Augustine invokes the example of Zacchaeus, who welcomed Christ in his house but in order to do so already carried Christ in his heart. First, Christ placed faith in Zacchaeus's heart. Second, Zacchaeus responded to Christ's initiative. Thus, Zacchaeus welcomed Christ into his heart, while Christ was already there, precisely because he had enabled Zacchaeus to open his heart. Again, the bishop of Hippo emphasizes that grace precedes human works and that Christ lives in the heart of the believer through faith. The same emphasis on grace preceding human works is present in s. 158 (ca. 418).Footnote 46 Faith, Augustine argues in this sermon, is the result of divine intervention prior to the initiative of man, who, with the help of the Holy Spirit, must respond to God's gift.Footnote 47 By contrast, ss. 64A, 81, 105, 361, and Io. eu. tr. 49Footnote 48 quote Eph. 3:17 only to identify faith in Christ with Christ himself, emphasizing that man should keep his faith awake, without overtly discussing the exact relation between human and divine intervention in faith.
Analogous to this difference between en. Ps. 103, 1, 14 and s. 53, 15–16/s. 165, 2–5 is a difference in interpretation of the profundum crucis, the fourth dimension of the cross, as was noted by Hombert.Footnote 49 Whereas the fourth dimension refers to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist in en. Ps. 103, 1, 14,Footnote 50 the profundum crucis acquires a new meaning from the Pelagian controversy onwards as referring both to God's judgments, which are hidden from man, and to the fact that faith is a gratuitous divine gift. This second interpretation, which emphasizes the divine roots of human works, is, apart from s. 53, 15–16 and s. 165, 2–5, also present in ep. 140, 64, ep. 147, 34 (cf. infra), and Io. eu. tr. 118, 5, which also date from the Pelagian controversy.
Eph. 3:17–18 in the Epistulae
Ep. 55 (around 400) offers an analysis of the Paschal Triduum with references to the second part of Eph. 3:17, and 3:18.Footnote 51 Augustine interprets the day of Christ's crucifixion as a symbol for the present life, his burial as referring to faith, and Easter, the resurrection, as indicating hope. When analyzing the meaning of Christ's passion and subsequent crucifixion (ep. 55, 24–25), Augustine describes the four dimensions of the cross, the height of the cross referring to man's expectation of the future reward granted by God, the breadth signifying the joy man experiences when practicing his human duties in the light of this reward, and the length of the cross symbolizing the perseverance he has to exercise when waiting for the divine reward. Augustine perceives the depth of the cross as a reference to the sacramental secret (secretum sacramenti), which is symbolized in the second and third days of the Triduum, both of which respectively refer to faith and hope. In this way, faith and hope are linked — as it seems — to the works man has to perform during his earthly life.
Ep. 140 (411/412) is addressed to Honoratus, a Carthaginian catechumen, and entitled De gratia Noui Testamenti. The letter forms an early response to Pelagianism.Footnote 52 In ep. 140, 62–64 Augustine quotes Eph. 3:17–18 to analyze the exact nature of human responsibilities.Footnote 53 In his exposition of Eph. 3:16–17, Augustine states that Christ's dwelling in the heart is given by God (“ubi fundati quodam modo et radicati [Eph. 3:17] sumus;” §62) and does not result from good works performed by man (“cuius gratia sumus salui facti non ex operibus iustitiae, quae nos fecimus, sed secundum eius misericordiam [Tit. 3:5];” §62).Footnote 54 Good works are the result of love, which comes from Christ and is related to the four dimensions of the cross.Footnote 55 The first three dimensions (good works, perseverance, and the focus on the final reward), which are all human duties, are founded in the fourth, which stands for divine grace and the inscrutability of God's judgment.Footnote 56 Human works are in this way fundamentally dependent on God's grace. Via the combination of Eph. 3:17–18 Augustine is able to stress this point.
As was the case with Augustine's treatment of Eph. 3:17–18 in the Sermones and Enarrationes, a clear distinction can be made between ep. 55 on the one hand and ep. 140 on the other. Whereas Augustine refers to Eph. 3:17–18 in ep. 55 mainly to state that faith in Christ is identified with Christ himself, without manifestly elaborating the fact that human faith is a gratuitous divine gift, ep. 140 uses Eph. 3:17–18 to explicitly demonstrate that human works, patience, and the expectation of the final reward (breadth, length, and height of the cross) are fundamentally rooted in divine grace (the depth of the cross). In contrast to this overtly divine orientation in ep. 140, ep. 55 sees fides rather as a part of man's works. Again, this distinction could be viewed in light of the question of whether these passages belong to or are prior to the Pelagian controversy: ep. 55 (around 400) was written before the debates between Augustine and the Pelagians, whereas ep. 140 (411/412) was composed at the outset of the Pelagian controversy. This distinction is in keeping with the division between en. Ps. 103, 1 on the one hand and s. 53/s. 165 on the other hand. In ep. 140 the profundum crucis is considered to be a clear reference to God's grace, contrary to en. Ps. 103, 1, where the fourth dimension refers to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. The latter interpretation is also present in ep. 55, where Augustine identifies the profundum crucis with the secretum sacramenti.
Conclusion
The essential message Augustine conveys by linking Eph. 3:17 and 3:18 is that human duties (the first, second, and third dimensions of the cross) are all fundamentally the effect of divine grace (the fourth dimension). In this way, ep. 140 can be read together with ss. 53, 158, 165, and 174, which use Eph. 3:17 (and 3:18 in ss. 53 and 165) to stress the necessity of grace in human life. All of these texts likely date from Augustine's anti-Pelagian period. By contrast, the passages considering this verse (probably) in the period prior to 411 (ss. 64A, 81, [105,] 361, [Io. eu. tr. 49,] and en. Ps. 103, 1) use Eph. 3:17 (and 3:18 in en. Ps. 103, 1) especially to identify faith in Christ with Christ himself, without stressing the fact that human works are the result of divine grace, which is also the case for ep. 55. However, concerning the question of whether the passages discussed are prior to or belong to the period of the Pelagian controversy, a methodological caveat should be added: we should be extremely careful so as not to overemphasize the supposed dating of these passages, as these datings may have been based on the (presumed) anti-Pelagian character of the content of the said passages, or, conversely, on the absence of clear references to Pelagianism and/or to the role of divine grace. The proposed datings of the texts analyzed are therefore to be taken with caution.
Bede's presentation of Augustine's Exegesis of Eph. 3:17–18 in the Collectio
In the Collectio Bede offers an exegetical commentary on Eph. 3:17–18 in fr. 315,Footnote 57 one of the thirty-one Augustinian excerpts that together constitute Bede's commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (fr. 308–38).Footnote 58 Bede's exegesis of Eph. 3 is divided over three different excerpts: fr. 314 (Eph. 3:9–10), fr. 315 (Eph. 3:13–19), and fr. 316 (Eph. 3:19), which focus on the central part of Eph. 3 (verses 9–19). The source of fr. 315 is Augustine's ep. 140, 62–65, which Bede refers to only in the Collectio (cf. infra). Within the passage taken from ep. 140, the analysis of Eph. 3:17–18 is enclosed by Augustine's exegesis of Eph. 3:13–19. In this way, fr. 315 offers an explanation of several scriptural verses together. The excerpt is not only by far the longest of the thirty-one fragments from Bede's commentary on Ephesians; it also contains the largest quantity of explained verses within these thirty-one fragments.
As mentioned earlier, Bede compiles his fragments in a systematic way. Usually (but not always) he starts by giving the biblical verse(s) that will be explained in the fragment, followed by an identification of the fragment's source in the title, after which comes the fragment itself as an explanation of the Pauline lemma(ta).Footnote 59 In fr. 315 this procedure is slightly modified. The scriptural verses quoted by Bede before the incipit of the fragment are Eph. 3:14–17a, whereas the text itself presents an explanation of Eph. 3:13–18 and quotes Eph. 3:19, which is, however, not explained in fr. 315 but in fr. 316. Furthermore, Augustine's exegesis does not entirely follow the sequence of the verses in Ephesians. In ep. 140, 62 Augustine starts with an explanation of Eph. 3:18, followed by 3:14–15. In the next paragraph (§63) he proceeds with an analysis of 3:13, followed by 3:16–18, and 3:19 (which is not explained). In §64 Augustine returns once more to the four dimensions of the cross mentioned in 3:18.
Augustine's quotations of Eph. 3:17–18 are, on the whole, relatively uniform in his writings. The part “in caritate radicati et fundati” occasionally appears in an altered form (for example, “fundati quodam modo et radicati sumus” [ep. 140, 62]; “ibi enim radicati, ibi fundati sumus” [ep. 140, 63]). The words “cum omnibus sanctis” are sometimes omitted from Eph. 3:18 (for example, en. Ps. 103, 1, 14). Normally, Augustine reads “possitis comprehendere,” whereas in ep. 140 he gives “praeualeatis comprehendere” (s. 72 auct. [ = Dolb. 16], 3 reads “ualeatis apprehendere”). Sporadically, the altitudo is named as the first of the four dimensions of the cross (for example, Mor. 1, 18, 33; en. Ps. 51, 12). Bede's quotations of the pericope in Coll. fr. 315 do not show any major changes with respect to Augustine's reading of the verses in ep. 140.
As mentioned earlier, Bede selected various of the Collectio’s fragments from Eugippius of Lucullanum's Excerpta ex operibus sancti Augustini. In Eugippius's Augustinian florilegium each fragment is preceded by a short summary of its main theme and an identification of its source. Of the 457 fragments the Collectio contains, 104 (partly or integrally) overlap with fragments from Eugippius's commentary, according to Fransen.Footnote 60 For some of Augustine's works, the Collectio relies entirely upon Eugippius's Excerpta.Footnote 61 For other writings of Augustine Bede used Eugippius as well as the direct Augustinian transmission.
Coll. fr. 315 corresponds to fr. 220 in Eugippius's Excerpta.Footnote 62 Coll. fr. 315 is the only instance in Bede's oeuvre where ep. 140 is quoted.Footnote 63 Furthermore, the incipit and explicit of Bede's fr. are exactly the same as those in Eugippius's excerpt.Footnote 64 It can thus be assumed that Bede did not have direct access to Augustine's ep. 140, but knew this letter only via Eugippius's Excerpta and, by consequence, that Bede's knowledge of ep. 140 was confined to the sections of this letter he found in Eugippius's collection.Footnote 65 If we want to examine Bede's presentation of ep. 140 in the Collectio, it is therefore necessary to analyze Coll. fr. 315 in comparison with both Augustine's ep. 140 and Eug. fr. 220.Footnote 66 We start by comparing Eug. fr. 220 with ep. 140,Footnote 67 to evaluate Eugippius's selection of the material. Subsequently, we will examine Bede's use of Eug. fr. 220 to compile Coll. fr. 315. We end our analysis by evaluating Bede's presentation of the Augustinian material in Coll. fr. 315 and his possible reasons for selecting ep. 140 to present Augustine's exegesis of Eph. 3:17–18 in the Collectio.
Coll. fr. 315 in Comparison with Eug. fr. 220 and Augustine's ep. 140
Eug. fr. 220 is entitled Ex libro de gratia Noui Testamenti ad Honoratum, the same title as the one introducing Bede's fragment.Footnote 68 In Eug. fr. 220, this title is followed by a brief summary of the excerpt's content: “Quae sit latitudo et longitudo et altitudo et profundum, quod ait apostolus.” Eugippius's excerpt is restricted to ep. 140, 62–65 (“merito ergo … societate gaudentium”), the only part of ep. 140 in which Augustine discusses Eph. 3:17–18 and the four dimensions of the cross. The rest of the letter considers other scriptural passages, which Augustine elucidates to the catechumen Honoratus. As Eugippius quotes §§62–65 almost in full (leaving out only a few sentences from the beginning of §62 and the end of §65), his presentation of Augustine's exegesis of Eph. 3:17–18 (and more broadly, 3:13–19) in ep. 140 is exhaustive. Moreover, his selection turns out to be faithful to the original, leaving out nothing from the quoted passages and showing no major variant readings. Given the explicit identification of ep. 140 in the fragment's title and the apt summary of the excerpt's central theme (the four dimensions of the cross), Eugippius clearly intended this fragment as a straightforward presentation of Augustine's interpretation of the four dimensions of the cross in ep. 140, which corresponds to the didactic purposes of his Augustinian anthology.
A comparison between Augustine's text and Eugippius's adaptation shows that the latter's selection is exhaustive and representative of Augustine's exegesis of Eph 3:17–18 in ep. 140. A comparison between Coll. fr. 315 and Eug. fr. 220 leads to the same conclusion. As Bede quotes ep. 140 in his writings only in Coll. fr. 315 and as he selected this fragment from Eugippius's Excerpta (cf. supra), his knowledge of ep. 140 was most likely confined to those sections of the letter quoted by Eugippius. Bede took up Eugippius's fragment in full, leaving out only two passages from Augustine's text as presented by Eugippius. Between profundum and hinc on line 19 in our critical edition (see appendix), the following passus has been omitted:
Altitudo quippe commune nomen est excelso et profundo, sed cum in excelso dicitur, sublimitatis eminentia commendatur, cum autem in profundo, difficultas inuestigationis et cognitionis. Vnde et illud Deo dicitur: quam magnificata sunt opera tua, Domine; nimis profundae factae sunt cogitationes tuae [Ps. 91, 6]. Et iterum: iudicia tua uelut multa abyssus [Ps. 35, 7].Footnote 69
Just before this passage, Augustine elaborately explains the four dimensions of the cross along with their significance (Eph. 3:18). This analysis starts with the latitudo, continues with the longitudo and the altitudo, and ends with the profundum. Augustine then returns to the altitudo, which he contrasts with the profundum (see quotation). Bede leaves out this last passage, which forms in part a recapitulation and a further specification of what has been said before. In order to give a linear and straightforward presentation of Augustine's interpretation of the said dimensions, he omits this last addition, preferring to end the explanation of the cross with the profundum on line 19.
The second omission occurs only a few lines later, when Bede leaves out the following section (line 21--22, between nominatur and quaeris in our edition):
Ut det uobis secundum diuitias gloriae suae uirtute corroborari per Spiritum eius in interiorem hominem, habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus uestris, ut in caritate radicati et fundati praeualeatis comprehendere cum omnibus sanctis, quae sit latitudo et longitudo et altitudo et profundum, scire etiam supereminentem scientiam caritatis Christi, ut impleamini in omnem plenitudinem Dei [Eph. 3:16–19]. Attende omnia diligenter. Huius rei gratia, inquit, flecto genua cordis mea ad Patrem Domini nostri Iesu Christi, ex quo omnis paternitas in caelo et in terra nominatur [Eph. 3:14–15].Footnote 70
The omitted verses 3:16–19 belong to a full quotation of Eph. 3:14–19, from which Bede retains only 3:14–15 (immediately prior to the omission). Since Bede already quoted Eph. 3:14–17a before the incipit of the fragment, there is no need to repeat these verses here in full. Moreover, the omission allows Bede to move directly from the first part of Eph. 3:14 (“huius rei gratia flecto genua mea ad Patrem …”) to Augustine's corresponding question “cuius rei gratia?” immediately after the omitted section. In this way, the omission enables Bede to present the explanations of the different verses from Eph. 3:13–19 in a more linear order: starting with Eph. 3:18 and 3:14–15 (prior to the omission and continuing with “cuius rei gratia?”), he then proceeds to Eph. 3:13, followed by 3:16–19, which follow each other according to their sequence in Ephesians. By omitting Eph. 3:16–19 in the beginning, Bede reinforces the fragment's linear structure, thus rendering the presentation of Augustine's explanations of the different Pauline verses more straightforward. As such, although both of Bede's interventions in the text of Eug. fr. 220 are rather small, they seem to be motivated by the intention to systematize the arrangement of the different Pauline lemmata and their corresponding Augustinian explanations, with the aim of rendering the fragment's overall composition and internal order more transparent and accessible.
From a text-critical point of view, a comparison of Coll. fr. 315 with its direct source, Eug. fr. 220, reveals next to no significant changes. Those instances where there is textual variation between Coll. fr. 315 and Eug. fr. 220 are only smaller differences,Footnote 71 which do not imply significant content-related changes between both texts. Moreover, in cases where Bede's text differs from Eugippius's (which, in Knöll's edition, is primarily based on Vat. lat. 3375; cf. infra), the former's reading can sometimes be found in the critical apparatus of Knöll's edition, which means that Bede in these cases offers a specific reading attested in other witnesses of the Excerpta. These readings (which can be found in the lower critical apparatus of our edition) seem to correspond mainly to three witnesses of the Excerpta: MSS Ambrosianus C 73 inf. (seventh century [Knöll], eighth century [Gorman]) (A); Vercellensis XXX 94 (tenth century) (v), and (partly) Parisinus, lat. 11642 (ninth century) (P).Footnote 72 However, as these variants are on the whole relatively insignificant (cf. supra), they are insufficient to determine more precisely the relation between the text of Eug. fr. 220 as used by Bede and the textual transmission of the Excerpta.Footnote 73 In the CSEL edition, these variants were grouped together in the apparatus, thus forming a group of secondary readings according to Knöll, who based his edition principally on a sixth-century codex, Vat. lat. 3375 (V). Knöll almost gave this manuscript the status of archetype of the Excerpta,Footnote 74 but it proves, in fact, to be a testimony of highly questionable quality, which does not deserve a privileged position in the reconstruction of the archetype.Footnote 75 As such, it is possible that some of the readings mentioned in Knöll's critical apparatus should be considered as constituting the correct text stemming from the archetype, whereas the corresponding readings in Knöll's reconstructed text (based on the Vatican codex) should be transferred to the apparatus. In this case, those readings in our reconstructed text of Coll. fr. 315 that differ from Knöll's reconstructed text of Eug. fr. 220 probably correspond to Eugippius's text as transmitted through the consensus of the manuscripts.Footnote 76 In any case, it is always necessary to evaluate carefully the readings offered in the CSEL edition of the Excerpta.
A comparative analysis of Augustine's ep. 140, Eug. fr. 220, and Coll. fr. 315 reveals an intact transmission from Augustine's exegesis of Eph. 3:17–18 through Eugippius to Bede's Collectio. There are no important changes on the level of the text itself, nor on the level of the particular selection of passages from Augustine's text (Eugippius's selection is exhaustive and Bede's omissions are rather insignificant from theological and exegetical points of view). As such, it is clear that Augustine's interpretation of Eph. 3:17–18 in ep. 140 (as described in the first part of this article) is, on the whole, faithfully represented in the Collectio.
Coll. fr. 315 in Comparison with en. Ps. 103, 1; s. 53; s. 165, and ep. 55
Bede in Coll. fr. 315 faithfully reproduced Augustine's exegesis of Eph. 3:17–18 from ep. 140 (via Eugippius's Excerpta). By consequence, in Coll. fr. 315 Bede emphasizes the fact that faith and human merits are ultimately rooted in and dependent on God's grace, which, according to Augustine, is symbolized by the Pauline profundum crucis. The following part of our analysis explores the possible reasons behind Bede's preference for ep. 140, with its specific and explicit interpretation of the depth of the cross in reference to God's grace, over the other Augustinian texts dedicated to Eph. 3:17–18 and described earlier.
A first step in reconstructing the reasons for Bede's choice for ep. 140, 62–65 consists in considering the Augustinian library that he had at his disposal at Wearmouth-Jarrow in order to establish which of Augustine's interpretations of Eph. 3:17–18 (en. Ps. 103, 1; s. 53; s. 165; ep. 55; ep. 140) could have been known to the Anglo-Saxon monk. Of the five Augustinian texts analyzed above, Bede is certain to have known the following three: en. Ps. 103, 1; ep. 55, and ep. 140 (the latter by means of Eugippius's Excerpta).Footnote 77
En. Ps. 103, 1 is only found once in Bede's works, namely, in Coll. fr. 444, where he quotes en. Ps. 103, 1, 15 to explain Heb. 1:7.Footnote 78 In Augustine's enarratio, this paragraph is immediately preceded by the one in which the Church Father treats Eph. 3:17–18 (en. Ps. 103, 1, 14). En. Ps. 103, 1 was not transmitted to Bede through Eugippius's Excerpta. We can thus assume that he probably knew Augustine's explanation of Eph. 3:17–18 in en. Ps. 103, 1, 14.
Ep. 55 occurs in several of Bede's writings. In Coll. fr. 352 he quotes ep. 55, 26 to explain Phil. 3:12–13. This paragraph (ep. 55, 26) immediately follows on ep. 55, 25, which, as said earlier, constitutes one of the five cases where Augustine explains Eph. 3:17–18. The passage from ep. 55, 26 excerpted as Coll. fr. 352 was not transmitted to Bede by means of the Excerpta, which means that Bede probably also knew §25 (cf. infra). Outside the Collectio, Bede quotes ep. 55 in De natura rerum 20;Footnote 79 De temporum ratione 11,Footnote 80 25,Footnote 81 27,Footnote 82 64,Footnote 83 Expositio actuum apostolorum,Footnote 84 and Expositio apocalypseos 19.Footnote 85
Ep. 140 is quoted only in Coll. fr. 315 (cf. supra). Whether Bede was acquainted with s. 53 and/or s. 165 cannot be determined, as there seem to be no references to these sermons in his works.Footnote 86
It may be safely assumed that Bede knew Augustine's explanations of Eph. 3:17–18 in en. Ps. 103, 1, 14 and ep. 55, 25. The fact that he drew on ep. 55 on several occasions indicates that this letter had value for him. Only for Coll. fr. 315, however, did Bede choose ep. 140, whereas he had the possibility to select similar passages from en. Ps. 103, 1 or ep. 55. Why did he pick out this specific passage from Augustine's writings, whereas he could have chosen from other similar expositions in the Church Father's works?
It is possible that Bede's choice might have been motivated by the more overt elaboration on the theme of grace in ep. 140, in which this letter differs from earlier texts, where Augustine mainly stresses the identification of faith in Christ with Christ himself. This focus on the divine origin of faith and the dependence of human merits on God's grace, symbolized by the profundum crucis, adds an explicit emphasis on divine grace to Coll. fr. 315. We should, however, not overestimate the importance of the differences in emphasis between the various passages where Augustine explains Eph. 3:17–18. Although these shifts in focus and emphasis between Augustine's explanations of Eph. 3:17–18 as sketched in the first part of this contribution are not to be overlooked, the question arises of whether they were as clear or as important to an author like Bede as they are to modern interpreters of Augustine's works. It is possible that to Bede the differences between Augustine's explanations of Eph. 3:17–18 in ep. 140, en. Ps. 103, 1, 14, and ep. 55, 25 were of minor importance or without relevant implications for Augustine's thinking on a more general level. Medieval readers of Augustine's writings such as Bede likely read the Church Father's works from the perspective of continuity, instead of looking for specific differences between Augustine's earlier and later exegetical and theological explanations. The issue of whether some of the shifts in focus between the texts discussed relate to the question of whether they are prior to or belong to the Pelagian controversy, too, was probably of minor interest to Bede, whose primary aim in the Collectio was to present a clear overview of Augustine's most relevant exegetical explanations of the Pauline epistles. In any case, further research on the Collectio’s contents (when a critical edition of the entire commentary will be available) and Bede's Pauline exegesis in general will have to shed more light on the compiler's modus operandi and his intentions in selecting certain Augustinian passages for his Pauline commentary, whether or not because of their explicit emphasis on the theme of grace (or on other relevant theological and exegetical themes).
We would argue that a more probable explanation of Bede's textual choice lies perhaps in a pragmatic and didactic, rather than in a (purely) content-related motivation. Ep. 140, 62–65 offers a concise, well-structured, and transparent exposition of a cluster of biblical verses (Eph. 3:13–19) in merely three paragraphs. This gave Bede the opportunity to concentrate seven lemmata in only one fragment. As such, the passage quoted forms an appealing portion of clear-cut Augustinian exegesis, which could easily fit the didactic purposes of the Collectio, being probably intended as a manageable introduction to Augustinian Pauline exegesis and theology. The fact that the passage selected from ep. 140 contains a considerable portion of exegesis of Ephesians 3 could explain why Bede limited himself to a mere quotation, leaving out almost nothing from his source material, as he did not feel the need to intervene on a large scale in this fragment. In this case, the choice for ep. 140 could have been primarily a pragmatic or didactic one, rather than being guided chiefly by theological or exegetical considerations. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that a combination of both motivations (the pragmatic/didactic and the theological/exegetical ones) was at play in the process of selection. However, we should be cautious in trying to explain Bede's textual choice merely or principally in light of his theological or exegetical preoccupations. That Bede was concerned with presenting his reader with a straightforward, well-structured portion of Augustinian exegesis can also be witnessed in the two passages he omitted from the text of ep. 140 as represented in Coll. fr. 315. As discussed earlier, the first passage omitted by Bede forms a digression and the second contains a long quotation of Bible verses, several of which were already quoted earlier in the fragment. These passages divert the reader from the main argumentation and disrupt the linear presentation of Augustine's exegetical explanations. The first passage in particular forms a very specific digression, discussing the different meanings of the word altitudo (which can refer both to height and to depth), and as such is of no use to Bede. This again seems to suggest that Bede was first and foremost concerned with offering his reader an accessible introduction to Augustinian Pauline exegesis.
Furthermore, apart from offering a concise exposition of several Pauline verses in a well-structured sequence (which is even further improved by Bede's omissions), ep. 140, 62–65 forms an exemplary biblical-hermeneutic lesson, as the passage explores the nature of human duties by analyzing the relation between Eph. 3:17 and 3:18 and as such clearly links the two verses with each other.Footnote 87 Augustine explains Eph. 3:13–19 to illustrate the point that man's works ultimately rely on God's hidden grace, a point that is rhetorically emphasized via the repeated Pauline verse “O altitudo diuitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei, quam inscrutabilia sunt iudicia eius et inuestigabiles uiae eius!” (Rom. 11:33). Augustine explains that everything is rooted in the occultum or profundum (Eph. 3:18) by stating that this profundum consists of the caritas in which man is rooted (Eph. 3:17).Footnote 88 The same link between Eph. 3:17 and 3:18 occurs when the Church Father asserts again that we are “radicati et fundati” (Eph. 3:17) in the profundum (Eph. 3:18), stressing just as before that man's actions are determined by God's hidden grace.Footnote 89 In this way, Augustine does not offer his addressee a mere linear exegesis of succeeding verses. The explanations of Eph. 3:17 and 3:18 (and more globally, Eph. 3:13–19) are intertwined with each other. In this way, Augustine develops an argumentation in which the divine character of man's bona opera is repeatedly accentuated. A culmination is reached near the end of the passage, where the Church Father emphasizes his statement by referring to Rom. 9:20 (“O homo, tu quis es qui respondeas Deo?”).Footnote 90
Eph. 3:17–18 in the Rest of Bede's Oeuvre
Bede's choice for ep. 140, 62–65 in the Collectio becomes all the more interesting when comparing Coll. fr. 315 with other passages in Bede's works that offer an explanation of Eph. 3:17–18. A search in Brepols's online databases enabled us to identify, in total, five allusions to or direct quotations of Eph. 3:17–18 in Bede's oeuvre outside the Collectio. Three of these passages merely quote or allude to Eph. 3:17 and/or 3:18. As the verses are referred to in these passages only to illustrate a particular point, without being further explained, they are left out from the present analysis.Footnote 91 The other two loci, which are found in Bede's commentaries on Luke and Mark, offer a full quotation of Eph. 3:17–18 in combination with an explanation of the four dimensions of the cross.
Eph. 3:17–18 in Bede's Commentary on Luke
In book six of his In Lucae euangelium expositio (Comm. Luc.) Bede explains Lk. 23:33a (“et postquam uenerunt in locum qui uocatur Caluariae, ibi crucifixerunt eum”).Footnote 92 After a topographical description of mount Calvary, the Anglo-Saxon scholar continues with an explanation of Christ's position on the Cross, quoting from Coelius Sedulius's Carmen Paschale (5, 188–95). Bede subsequently adds:
Moralem quoque sacrosanctae crucis figuram describit apostolus ubi ait: In caritatem radicati et fundati ut possitis comprehendere cum omnibus sanctis quae sit latitudo et longitudo altitudo et profundum cognoscere etiam supereminentem scientiae caritatem Christi [Eph. 3:17–19].Footnote 93
In the remainder of his explanation of Lk. 23:33a (1549–1568),Footnote 94 Bede discusses the four dimensions of the cross at length. His interpretation of the said dimensions is entirely in line with s. 53, s. 165, and ep. 140: latitudo refers to good works, longitudo to perseverance in these works, altitudo to hope for eternal rewards, and profundum to the “inscrutabilia iudicia Dei unde ista gratia in homines uenit.”Footnote 95 At first sight, there seems to be no direct Augustinian source for the explanation in Comm. Luc.Footnote 96 In Hurst's apparatus fontium, reference is made only to Io. eu. tr. 118, 5.Footnote 97 This sermon of Augustine on the Gospel of John indeed offers a similar explanation of the cross but is not the source of Bede's passage, as the parallels between these loci are merely content-related. In fact, Bede's entire explanationFootnote 98 is a quotation from Augustine's ep. 147, 34, where the Church Father discusses the dimensions of the cross (cf. supra).Footnote 99 Neither Hurst's edition nor Lapidge's list of Augustinian works quoted by BedeFootnote 100 refer to this passage, but the identification was made by Löfstedt.Footnote 101 We can, therefore, add Comm. Luc. p. 402, 1549–68 to the list of passages in Bede's works that quote from ep. 147. As described in the first part of this article, Augustine's interpretation of the cross in ep. 147, 34 is in keeping with his exegesis of Eph. 3:18 in s. 53, s. 165, and ep. 140, stressing the fact that human merits ultimately depend on God's grace (the profundum crucis). Again, just as was the case for Coll. fr. 315, Bede in his Commentary on Luke emphasizes the dependence of man's bona opera on divine grace.
Eph. 3:17–18 in Bede's Commentary on Mark
In his In Marci euangelium expositio (Comm. Marc.) Bede proceeds in a different way. In Comm. Marc. 4,Footnote 102 Bede explains Mk. 15:24 (“et crucifigentes eum diuiserunt uestimenta eius mittentes sortem super eis quis quid tolleret”). After the quotation of the lemma, Bede allegorizes the division of Christ's clothes, quoting at length from Io. eu. tr. 118, 4. He starts with a comparison of Christ's death on the cross with man's purification from sin, quoting Rom. 6:6: “uetus homo noster simul crucifixus est cruci cum illo ut euacuetur corpus peccati ut ultra non seruiamus peccato” (1376–78). He continues with an explanation of the four dimensions of the cross (1384–98), at the end of which he refers to Eph. 3:17–18 (1396–98).Footnote 103 Again, as for the passage in Comm. Luc. analyzed above, Hurst does not indicate any direct Augustinian source for this passage. In fact, Comm. Marc. p. 630, 1376–631, 1398 was taken entirely, with hardly any changes, from Augustine's ep. 55, 24–25. The quotation is absent from Lapidge's list (201) but was identified by Dolbeau.Footnote 104 Our earlier conclusion that Bede probably knew ep. 55, 25 since he quotes ep. 55, 26 as Coll. fr. 352 becomes thus corroborated by textual evidence. This reinforces our statement that Bede deliberately chose ep. 140 to explain Eph. 3:17–18 in the Collectio and not ep. 55 (or en. Ps. 103, 1), whether or not his motivation in selecting the excerpt from ep. 140 was to stress the dependence of man's faith and good works on grace. As said in the first part of this contribution, Augustine refers to Eph. 3:17–18 in ep. 55 primarily to identify faith in Christ with Christ himself without explicitly stressing the divine origin of faith. We further argued that the interpretation of the fourth dimension of the cross in ep. 55, 25 differs from that in s. 53, s. 165, and ep. 140. Whereas depth refers to God's grace in the latter passages, in ep. 55 the profundum is explained as a reference to the sacramental secret, which is symbolized in the second and third days of the Triduum.
Conclusion
The previous analysis of Bede's treatment of Eph. 3:17–18 in his exegetical writings outside the Collectio demonstrated that Bede had access to both of Augustine's interpretations of the cross and used them in his writings. Did Bede present the two Augustinian explanations in his exegetical works because he was interested in their different theological and exegetical emphases, or were his textual choices determined by other reasons? Again, as was the case for the presence of ep. 140 in the Collectio, his choice for ep. 55 and ep. 147 in his commentaries on Mark and Luke may have been motivated by a theological/exegetical reason, by a pragmatic/didactic one, or by a combination of both.
It is possible that the appearance of ep. 140 and ep. 147 in the Collectio and in Comm. Luc. results from Bede's deliberate choice of passages that reflect an overt orientation on the theme of divine grace. But what, then, were Bede's reasons for presenting the interpretation of ep. 55 in Comm. Marc.? If there are any deliberate choices from the part of Bede in presenting a picture of Augustine's exegesis with a strong emphasis on grace, this can only be the case for Coll. fr. 315 and the passage in Comm. Luc. The passage in Comm. Marc. discussed above, where Bede (intentionally or not) chose an interpretation that does not specifically emphasize the dependence of man's good works on divine grace, indicates that the focus on the latter theme in the Collectio and Comm. Luc. does not necessarily say anything about Bede's general position towards Augustine's doctrine of grace. Rather, we can only conclude that in those particular passages, Bede could have been primarily oriented towards Augustine's later interpretation of the fourth dimension. With respect to the choice for ep. 55 in Comm. Marc. it is noteworthy that Bede's quotation of ep. 55 immediately follows his elaborate reference to Io. eu. tr. 118, 4. In the paragraph immediately after Io. eu. tr. 118, 4, Augustine explains at length the four dimensions according to the interpretation found in s. 53, s. 165, and ep. 140 (Io. eu. tr. 118, 5, cf. supra). Why, then, did the Northumbrian monk prefer to continue with an extract from another Augustinian work, containing another explanation of the cross, while he could have just followed Augustine's explanation of Eph. 3:18 in Io. eu. tr. 118, 5?
In the case of Coll. fr. 315 we argued that it seems likely that the compiler's choice for ep. 140, 62–65 was motivated especially by the fact that Augustine in this passage offers a concise and lucid presentation of a relatively large group of Pauline verses. We would argue that Bede's selection of ep. 55 for Comm. Marc. and of ep. 147 for Comm. Luc. could be viewed in line with our earlier conclusion regarding his choice for ep. 140 in the Collectio. For Bede there were probably no significant differences between Augustine's interpretation of Eph. 3:17–18 in ep. 55 on the one hand and ep. 140 or ep. 147 on the other hand. The fact that he selected the former passage for his commentary on Mark and the latter two for his commentaries on the Pauline Epistles and Luke should therefore not primarily or exclusively be viewed in light of specific theological or exegetical preoccupations but probably results from certain pragmatic and/or didactic motivations such as those discussed earlier. In the excerpt from Comm. Marc. analyzed above, Bede's focus lies on offering an explanation of the meaning of Christ's crucifixion and death, which is connected to a discussion of the necessity of man's inner reform (cf. Rom. 6:6). Bede's analysis of the four dimensions of the cross forms an integral part of this broader explanation that does not, or does not specifically, concentrate on the theme of grace and the relation between human and divine involvement in faith. Therefore, if Bede would have quoted on this occasion from ep. 140 or ep. 147 instead of ep. 55, he would indeed have laid more stress on the dependence of man's works on divine grace, but this would have hardly had any, or any significant, impact on his overall explanation of Mark 15:24, as the specific emphasis on the divine origin of man's works is not at the heart of his exegetical explanation in this passage.
Closing Remarks
The content analysis offered in this contribution considered only one of the Collectio’s 457 fragments. This means that the results presented cannot, currently, be used to make general statements about Bede's use and adaptation of Augustine's Pauline exegesis. The aim of this study was rather to offer a first examination of the contents of Bede's Pauline commentary, while pointing to some interesting avenues for further research. From a methodological point of view, this analysis demonstrated that it is necessary for any content analysis of the Collectio to start with a thorough examination of Bede's library and the Augustinian texts that were (integrally or partly) available to him.
To resume, we formulate some conclusions, albeit with due caution.
Augustine does not explain Eph. 3:17–18 frequently in his oeuvre, and, when he does, this is mainly the case in works with a specific pastoral or didactic purpose (Sermones, Enarrationes, and Epistulae). From this relatively limited corpus of Augustinian explanations of Eph. 3:17–18, Bede can be said to have known several passages, whether from direct Augustinian sources or by means of Augustinian anthologies such as Eugippius's Excerpta. It must be remembered that Bede's acquaintance with Augustinian texts might also derive from anthologies that are now lost.Footnote 105
Bede, following Eugippius's fr. 220, did not alter much in comparison with Augustine's original presentation of Eph. 3:17–18 in ep. 140. From a text-internal point of view, we can conclude that there are no major changes between Coll. fr. 315 and its source texts. On a text-external level, we demonstrated that Bede was acquainted with and used other texts of Augustine discussing Eph. 3:17–18. In the Collectio, he quoted ep. 140, 62–65, a passage with a strong emphasis on divine grace. Whether or not this specific focus was Bede's primary and/or only reason for selecting this excerpt is difficult to ascertain. A broader survey of the Collectio’s full contents will enable us to shed further light on this question.
A comparison with other explanations of Eph. 3:17–18 in Bede's works substantiated our conjectures about Bede's knowledge of some of Augustine's texts, and threw further light on the Anglo-Saxon scholar's use of Augustine's interpretation of the four dimensions of the cross. From a detailed analysis of passages in Bede's commentaries on Luke and Mark, it became clear that Bede quotes and uses different of Augustine's explanations of the considered pericope. While it remains possible that the Anglo-Saxon monk selected these passages specifically for their differences in orientation and emphasis, we argued that his selections should probably not principally be viewed from this perspective, as other reasons may have played an important role in his selection too. This does not mean that Bede had no interest in the specific interpretative nuances and emphases of said passages but rather demonstrates that the Collectio should not be studied only in light of certain theological or exegetical preoccupations of its compiler.
Appendix
Critical Edition of fr. 315 from the Venerable Bede's Collectio ex opvscvlis sancti Avgvstini in epistvlas Pavli apostoli
Nicolas De Maeyer
The following critical edition of Coll. fr. 315 is part of the editio princeps of Bede's Collectio ex opusculis sancti Augustini in epistulas Pauli apostoli, which is in preparation at KU Leuven for the Series Latina of the Corpus Christianorum.Footnote 106
There are twelve extant direct witnesses of the Collectio:Footnote 107
- R
-
Rouen, Bibl. Mun. 147 (A 437) (IX)
- F
-
Florence, Bibl. Med. Laur. San Marco 648 (IX–XI)
- V
-
Vatican City, Bibl. Apost. Vat. Vrb. lat. 102 (between 1474 and 1482)
- C
-
Cologne, Dombibl. 104 (IX1–2/4)
- Sc 1
-
Schaffhausen, Ministerialbibl. 64 (XII1/2)
- Sc 2
-
Schaffhausen, Ministerialbibl. 65 (XII)
- W
-
Würzburg, Universitätsbibl. Mp. th. f. 63 (IX2/3)
- O 1
-
Orléans, Bibl. Mun. 81 (78) (IX1/3)
- O 2
-
Orléans, Bibl. Mun. 84 (81) (IX2/4)
- So
-
St.-Omer, Bibl. Mun. 91 (IX1)
- B
-
Boulogne, Bibl. Mun. 64 (71) (XIIin.) [contains only a selection of fragments]
- M
-
Monte Cassino, Bibl. Abb. 178 (1075–80)
There are four indirect witnesses of the Collectio, which offer a selection of fragments from the commentary:Footnote 108
- hrab
-
Rabanus Maurus, Pauline commentary (PL 111–112)
- hel
-
Helisachar of St.-Riquier (?), Romans commentary preserved in MS Paris, BNF, lat. 11574 (edition in preparation)
- flor
-
Florus of Lyon, Expositio in epistolas beati Pauli ex operibus s. Augustini (CCM 220B [2 Cor.-Philipp.]; other parts in preparation)
- sedul
-
Sedulius Scottus, Collectaneum in Apostolum (H. J. Frede, H. Stanjek, eds., Sedulii Scotti Collectaneum in Apostolum, Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel; aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel 31–32 [Freiburg, 1996–97])
From a text-critical point of view, the Collectio can be divided into three parts, to each of which a specific number of witnesses and/or a specific stemma applies:
Fr. 1–393: R F V C Sc1.2 W O1.2 So B M hrab hel flor sedul [Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Philipp., Col., 1 Thess., 2 Thess. (beginning)]
Fr. 394–395: M [2 Thess. (end)] (later addition)
Fr. 396–457: R (expl. fr. 445a) F V So M sedul [1 Tim., 2 Tim., Tit., Hebr.]
Fr. 394–95 only occur in the Monte Cassino manuscript and are later additions.Footnote 109 Fr. 396–457 have been preserved uniquely in R F V So M (and partly in sedul); a stemma for this part of the commentary has been presented elsewhere.Footnote 110
Fr. 1–393 (to which fr. 315 belongs) have been edited according to the stemma established by G. Partoens and subsequently further developed by myself.Footnote 111 With respect to these fragments, it was possible to divide the Collectio’s direct witnesses into three distinct branches of related manuscripts: R F V – C Sc1.2 – W O1.2 So B M. Whenever possible, I followed the readings of R F C W (and, to a limited extent, So),Footnote 112 which (with the exception of W) Partoens also considered valuable witnesses for the reconstruction of the Collectio’s archetype.Footnote 113 Whenever a specific reading is present in two or more of these manuscripts, distributed over two or more branches of the stemma and confirmed by Augustine's testimony or by one of its branches, I regarded this as the archetype's reading.
These stemmatical results, upon which my text-critical choices have been based, are founded on full collations of ten of the twelve direct witnessesFootnote 114 and all four indirect witnesses for fr. 1–125 (the Collectio’s entire section on Romans). Subsequently, a selection has been made of the most relevant direct and indirect witnesses, based on which fr. 126–393 are currently being edited. These witnesses are: R F C Sc2 W So hrab. Helisachar offers a commentary only on Paul's letter to the Romans. This explains why the fragments he excerpted from the Collectio derive almost exclusively from the Collectio’s section on Romans (fr. 1–125). By consequence, this witness can be left out of consideration after fr. 125. Florus's text is closely related to O 2 and is, moreover, strongly contaminated on the basis of the direct Augustinian transmission. As such, there is no added value in using this witness to reconstruct the Collectio’s archetype. Sedulius has not been included in our edition after fr. 125 since he uses very few of the Collectio’s fragments and manifestly changes the text of Bede's excerpts. The six selected direct witnesses represent either all or the most important witnesses of their branch and can thus be safely used to adequately reconstruct the archetype's text. Since W breaks off in fr. 306a, this witness has been replaced by O 1 from 306b onwards. Consequently, for our edition of Coll. fr. 315 the following witnesses have been used: R F C Sc2 O1 So. Rabanus Maurus did not use Coll. fr. 315 in his own Pauline commentary and has therefore not been considered.Footnote 115
The reader will find consecutively the apparatus fontium, the Bible-apparatus, the traditio textus, the apparatus criticus, and, at the bottom of the page, the apparatibus criticus that compares Coll. fr. 315 with Eug. fr. 220.Footnote 116 This final apparatibus compares my reconstructed text and critical apparatus of Coll. fr. 315 with Knöll's reconstructed text and critical apparatus of Eug. fr. 220. In case of divergence between my reconstructed text and Knöll's, this is indicated as follows: “fecimus nos] nos fecimus eug,” or, in case the reading in the Collectio’s archetype corresponds to certain witnesses of the Excerpta: “uestigantur] inuestigantur eug (uestigantur aliquot Eugippii codd.).”
The Latin orthography of the archetype has been standardized (following Lewis and Short). Significant differences in punctuation between the manuscripts and our edition have been indicated in the apparatus criticus. Identifications of Bible verses are based on the Vulgate.Footnote 117
Conspectus siglorum
- R
-
Rouen, Bibl. Mun. 147 (A 437), fols. 73v–74v
- F
-
Florence, Bibl. Med. Laur. San Marco 648, fols. 82r–83r
- C
-
Cologne, Dombibl. 104, fols. 136v–38v
- Sc
-
Schaffhausen, Ministerialbibl. 65, fols. 84v–85v
- O
-
Orléans, Bibl. Mun. 81 (78), p. 184–85
- So
-
St.-Omer, Bibl. Mun. 91, fols. 93r–94r
- eug
-
Excerpta ex operibus sancti Augustini, fr. 220, CSEL 9/1, p. 701, 12–702, 8; 15–19; 703, 4–705, 8
Conventional signs and abbreviations
- *
-
The reconstructed archetype of the Collectio is erroneous and the edition offers a corrected reading.
- […]
-
Readings enclosed by square brackets belong to the reconstructed archetype but have been removed.
- a.c.
-
ante correctionem
- p.c.
-
post correctionem
- sup. l.
-
supra lineam
- in marg.
-
in margine
- praem.
-
praemisit/praemiserunt
- add.
-
addidit/addiderunt
- ut uid.
-
ut uidetur
Hvivs rei gratia flecto genva mea ad Patrem Domini nostri Iesv Christi, ex qvo omnis paternitas in caelis et in terra nominatvr, vt det vobis secvndvm divitias gloriae svae corroborari per Spiritvm eivs, in interiorem hominem habitare Christvm per fidem in cordibvs vestris.
(315.) Ex libro de gratia noui testamenti ad Honoratum.
Merito ergo istorum qui saturantur, uiuent corda in saeculum saeculi. Vita enim Christus est, qui habitat in cordibus eorum, interim per fidem, post etiam per speciem. Vident enim per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Vnde ipsa caritas nunc in bonis operibus dilectionis exercetur, qua se ad subueniendum quaquauersum potest porrigit, et haec latitudo est. Nunc longanimitate aduersa tolerat et in eo quod ueraciter tenuit, perseuerat et haec longitudo est. Hoc autem totum propter adipiscendam uitam facit aeternam, quae illi promittitur in excelso, et haec altitudo est. Exsistit uero in occulto ista caritas, ubi fundati quodammodo et radicati sumus, ubi causae uoluntatis Dei non uestigantur, cuius gratia sumus salui facti, non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum misericordiam eius. Voluntarie quippe genuit nos uerbo ueritatis et haec uoluntas eius in abscondito. Cuius secreti profunditatem quodammodo expauescens apostolus clamat: O altitudo diuitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei! Quam inscrutabilia sunt iudicia eius et inuestigabiles uiae eius! Quis enim cognouit sensum Domini? Et hoc est profundum. Hinc igitur est apostoli quod requirendum inter cetera* posuisti: Huius rei gratia, inquit, flecto genua mea ad Patrem Domini nostri Iesu Christi, ex quo omnis paternitas in caelo et in terra nominatur. Quaeris: “cuius rei gratia?” Hoc supra dixerat: Propter qvod peto non infirmari in tribvlationibvs meis pro vobis. Hoc ergo eis optat ut non infirmentur in tribulationibus apostoli, quas pro illis sustinebat, et propter hoc genua flectebat ad Patrem. Proinde non infirmari unde illis, sequitur et dicit: ut det uobis secundum diuitias gloriae suae uirtute corroborari per Spiritum eius. Hae sunt diuitiae de quibus dicit: O altitudo diuitiarum! Abditas enim habent causas, ubi nullis meritis praecedentibus quid habemus quod non accepimus? Deinde sequitur et quid oportet* adiungit: in interiore, inquit, homine habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus uestris. Haec est uita cordium, qua uiuimus in saeculum saeculi ab initio fidei usque ad finem speciei. Vt in caritate, inquit, radicati et fvndati praevaleatis comprehendere cvm omnibvs sanctis. Ista est communio cuiusdam diuinae caelestisque rei publicae, hinc saturantur pauperes non sua quaerentes, sed quae Iesu Christi, id est, non commoda priuata sectantes, sed in commune, ubi salus omnium est, consulentes. Nam de ipso pane quo tales saturantur, quodam loco apostolus dicit: Vnus panis, unum corpus multi sumus in Christo. Quid ergo comprehendere? Qvae sit, inquit, latitvdo (sicut iam dixi, in bonis operibus beneuolentia porrigitur usque ad diligendos inimicos) et longitvdo (ut longanimitate pro hac latitudine molestiae tolerentur) et altitvdo (ut pro his aeternum quod in supernis est praemium, non uanum aliquid temporale speretur) et profvndvm (unde gratuita gratia Dei secundum secretum et abditum uoluntatis eius exsistit). Ibi enim radicati et fundati sumus. Radicati propter agriculturam, fundati propter aedificationem, quae quoniam non est ab homine, dicit alio loco idem apostolus: Dei agricultura, Dei aedificatio estis. Hoc totum agitur, cum in hac nostra peregrinatione fides [cum] per dilectionem operatur. In futuro autem saeculo perfecta et plena caritas sine ulla malorum tolerantia non fide credit, quia non uidet, nec spe desiderat quod non tenet, sed in aeternum ueritatis incommutabilem speciem contemplabitur, cuius sine fine quietum opus erit laudare quod amat, et amare quod laudat. De hac consequenter dicit: scire etiam svpereminentem scientiam caritatis Christi, vt impleamini in omnem plenitvdinem Dei. In hoc mysterio [futura] crucis ostenditur figura. Qui enim, quia uoluit, mortuus est, quomodo uoluit, mortuus est. Non frustra igitur tale genus mortis elegit, nisi quod in eo quoque latitudinis huius et longitudinis et altitudinis et profunditatis Magister exsisteret. Nam latitudo est in eo ligno quod transuersum desuper figitur. Hoc ad bona opera pertinet, quia ibi extenduntur manus. Longitudo in eo quod ab ipso ligno usque ad terram conspicuum est. Ibi enim quodammodo statur, id est, persistitur et perseueratur, quod longanimitati* tribuitur. Altitudo est in ea ligni parte quae ab illo quod transuersum figitur, sursum uersus relinquitur. Hoc est ad caput crucifixi, quia bene sperantium superna exspectatio est. Iam uero illud ex ligno quod non apparet, quod fixum occultatur, unde totum illud exsurgit, profunditatem significat gratuitae gratiae, in qua multorum ingenia conteruntur, id est, uestigare conantia*, ut ad extremum eis dicatur: O homo, tu quis es qui respondeas Deo? Viuent ergo corda saturatorum pauperum in saeculum saeculi, hoc est, humilium caritate flagrantium, non sua quaerentium, sed sanctorum societate gaudentium.
