in Irish hands is of considerable interest for the Irish
role in the preservation of patristic texts, particularly
texts of questionable orthodoxy. However, Theodore’s
Antiochene exegesis, though known and used in Ireland,
never gained advantage over allegory.
While it is true that Irish scholars were intensely
engaged in the study of the scriptures, they seem to have
been more interested in preserving patristic authorities
in florilegia or epitomes than in creating original com-
mentaries themselves. Laidcenn of Clonfert-Mulloe in
the seventh century wrote an epitome of Gregory the
Great’s Moralia in Iob(Ethics in Job). Sedulius Scottus
in the ninth century compiled two florilegia on biblical
texts: one on the epistles of Paul (using primarily
Pelagius and Jerome), another on Matthew. The so-called
Bibelwerk (c.800) is also in the format of a florilegium.
An exception is John Scottus Ériugena, who wrote a truly
original commentary on the Gospel of John (as well as
a famous homily on the same subject). Another original
commentary, assuming it to be Irish and of the seventh
century, is of contested authorship. This is the commen-
tary on Mark which has been attributed to a certain
Cummean. The work raises a number of theological and
ecclesiological questions that were of interest to the Irish
in the seventh century: the role of grace versus free will,
the idea of a “first grace” (baptism) and a “second grace
or mercy” (forgiveness through penance), and the inverse
formula of the Eucharist (i.e., Christ’s transfiguring him-
self into bread and wine, as opposed to a change of
substance). The commentary on Mark stands out both
for its theological interest and the fact that it is a line-
by-line exegesis of a biblical text in the tradition of Jer-
ome, Augustine, and Gregory.
Arguably the most interesting and challenging of all
early Irish scriptural works of scholarship is the De
mirabilibus sacrae scripturae(On the Miracles of Holy
Scripture), composed in Ireland in 655 (as dated by a
computistical formula). The author refers to himself as
Augustine and claims to be addressing the monks of
Carthage. The work addresses the question of miracles
as presented in both Testaments as related to the scrip-
tural claim that God rested after creation. “Augustine”
ingeniously explains that there is a distinction between
the “opus,” which God perfected, and “labor,” from
which he need not cease. Nor does God’s labor interfere
with nature. For example, when Lot’s wife was turned
into a pillar of salt, God did not distort nature, for salt
was already present in the human body (in the form of
tears, for example). In his preface, “Augustine” point-
edly attacks allegorical exegesis and states his prefer-
ence for the letter of scripture.
Curiously, Pseudo-Augustine’s work made only
limited use of the real Augustine. The author shows a
general familiarity with the great bishop’s ideas, but
rarely cites him verbatim. Such neglect of Augustinian
texts is exhibited in other Irish works and compilations
prior to the ninth century. The favored authorities of
Irish exegesis were Jerome, Pelagius, Gregory the
Great, and Isidore. In the earliest period (the time of
Columba and Columbanus), the British saints Gildas
and Uinniau were treated with special reverence
(though more for their pronouncements on the monas-
tic life than for scriptural exegesis).
The use of the Irish vernacular in scriptural scholar-
ship is at least as old as the eighth century, and probably
older. Not only is it prominent in the two great gloss
collections mentioned above, it was also employed in
what might be called “free-standing” works: the “Old
Irish Treatise on the Psalter” (c.800?) and the macaronic
“Lambeth Commentary on the Beatitudes” (eighth cen-
tury?). Irish was also employed by John Scottus Ériugena
in his scholia to different books of the Old and New
Testaments. The vernacular held a virtual monopoly in
Ireland in the tenth and eleventh centuries, when Latin
scholarship was in sharp decline. It was the language of
numerous new works that found their inspiration as often
in biblical apocrypha as in the canonical scriptures. In
the ninth century, the Irish on the Continent were noted
for their ability to employ Greek in scriptural study. This
is shown especially in three manuscripts in Irish hands
from the mid-ninth century that contain word-by-word
interlinear Latin translations of the Greek texts: St. Gall
48 (Gospels), the Basel Psalter, and the Dresden Pauline
Epistles (destroyed in World War II).
Much recent discussion of Irish biblical scholarship
has centered on an article by Bernhard Bischoff that
attributed a significant number of writings about the scrip-
tures (some commentaries, others not) to Irish scholars
active in the early Middle Ages. Bischoff assembled a set
of criteria, consisting mostly of verbal formulae and the
use of particular writers (especially Pelagius and Virgilius
Maro Grammaticus) as indicators of Irish provenance.
The validity of these criteria was much debated during
the latter half of the twentieth century. However, when
suchMerkmalecan be combined with other types of
evidence, such as the use of scriptural lemmas of the Irish
type, “Hibernian” spellings, or misreadings of established
Irish manuscript abbreviations, they gain in validity.
MICHAELW. HERRENReferences and Further Reading
Bischoff, Bernhard. “Irische Schreiber im Karolingerreich.” (Irish
Authors in the Carolingian Empire.) In Mittelalterliche Studien:
Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturge-
schichte(Medival Studies: Selected Essays on Paleography
and Literary History), edited by B. Bischoff, 3:39–54. 3 vols.
Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1966–1981.
———. “Wendepunkte in der Geschichte der lateinischen Exe-
gese im Frühmittelalter.” (Turning Points in the History of
Latin Exegesis in the Early Middle Ages.) In Mittelalterliche
Studien(cited above), 1:205–274.BIBLICAL AND CHURCH FATHERS SCHOLARSHIP