Interpretation of the Bible came in a number of forms. Jerome and Augustine, almost
exact contemporaries, were foundational for Christian biblical interpretation, and yet their
surviving writings show us the range of possibilities for the work of an exegete. Jerome
was even in his lifetime acknowledged as the supreme linguist and translator, whose
knowledge of the biblical text was unparalleled. Apart from his translation, he is known
for his letters on theological issues but also for his series of commentaries on the whole
Bible. Augustine had different gifts. He did not have Jerome’s linguistic skills; his direct
commentaries on biblical books are few. Rather, his biblical interpretation comes out in
his sermons (which are largely exegeses of texts), treatises on theological issues, and
works that respond directly to issues of the day. Augustine uses the Bible and exegesis in
his work as a bishop, whereas Jerome expounds the Bible in a more detached and
scholarly fashion.
Jerome and Augustine are just two of the fathers of the church whose biblical
interpretation was crucial for the Middle Ages. Other common Latin and Greek patristic
authors were Gregory the Great, Gregory Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan, Cassiodorus,
Origen, John Chrysostom, John Damascene, Bede, Isidore of Seville, and later Rabanus
Maurus. The work of those who had gone before was crucial to the medieval method. In
the worldview of the Middle Ages, truth was attained by accretion rather than by the
overthrow of one system by another. Truth must also have stood the test of time—the
very fact of longevity was important. Continued approbation over generations of the
church was in itself a test of rightness. Thus, one was on safe ground in using the
interpretations of the fathers.
Classical authors, such as Cicero and Seneca, were also utilized to support arguments,
but not without reservations. Plato and Aristotle had the biggest influence of any non-
Christian sources. The lexicographical interests of some Christian scholars and the
stubborn opacity of some Old Testament texts led to consultation with Jews, but this was
never a widespread practice; for most people, Jerome was enough of a source for the
Hebrew meaning. However, Philo Judaeus, Josephus, Rashi, and Maimonides were
known and used. Although Arabic scientific work circulated from the 12th century
onward, it had little direct influence on biblical interpretation.
Biblical interpretation could take a variety of forms, from a commentary to be read
alongside the text of a whole book or set of books, to a sermon explaining and
expounding a few verses. Extended commentaries often appear under such generally
interchangeable titles as Expositiones, Commentaria, Glossa, or Postilla. Titles are not a
medieval notion—these tend to be later additions—and the usual medieval description for
such a work is, for example, In Genesim (“On the Book of Genesis”).
Perhaps the biggest medieval innovation in biblical exegesis was a matter not of
content or style but of layout, culminating in the production of biblical texts with
integrated commentary known as the Glossa or Glossa ordinaria (the “Gloss” or
“Ordinary Gloss”). From the Carolingian period onward, we have books of the Psalms
and the Epistles with marginal glosses. The style itself was not new—it was also used for
ancient texts—but it was adapted to the Bible with great success. Between 1140 and
1170, a large number of Bibles were produced, made with a planned page layout for
integrated patristic interlinear and marginal glosses that are remarkably standardized.
Sometime between the Carolingian books and these planned, mass-produced volumes,
the text of the glosses and the page format had been decided upon. We know little about
The Encyclopedia 231