The Biblical Interpretation of William of Alton by Timothy Bellamah (review)

636 BOOK REVIEWS The Biblical Interpretation of William of Alton. By TIMOTHY BELLAMAH. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Pp. 368. $74.00 (cloth) ISBN: 978-0-19-975360-4. With the wealth of information now widely accessible online, one might be led to believe that what remains to the scholarly enterprise is not so much discovery of the new as synthesis of the known. Yet much medieval biblical interpretation is found in manuscript form and so accessible only to the expert few. Timothy Bellamah, O.P., takes a step toward expanding our knowledge in this area. In this book, he sets out to identify William of Alton’s “authentic commentaries and to examine them in comparison with those of other thirteenth-century regent masters, particularly those of Hugh of St. Cher, Bonaventure, Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas” (vii). This is an ambitious book. In addition to the main study, it contains a comparison of biblical commentaries attributed to William, editions of the prologues to his authentic commentaries, exhaustive citation of contemporary U.S. and European scholarship, a lengthy bibliography, and an index. It reveals an author with an impressive grasp of his field. Little is known of William of Alton except that he was an early English Dominican who studied at St. Jacques in Paris and may well have succeeded Thomas Aquinas in one of the Dominican chairs at the University of Paris. In addition to sermons, some twenty-five biblical commentaries have been attributed to him. Following an introduction to this medieval figure, Bellamah devotes a chapter to developing a set of criteria for determining the authenticity of the many commentaries attributed to him. He bases the criteria on the style of the four commentaries William almost certainly wrote—on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, and John. From these four and from a careful reading of seventeen other contemporary commentaries, Bellamah identifies several elements of style, including the prologues, the use of textual division, vocabulary, length, types of interpretation (e.g., literal and spiritual), sources, and use of the question format. These elements form a matrix that permits him to identify three additional commentaries (on Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, and Ezekiel) as authored by William. He dedicates the thirty-eight-page Appendix I to a careful review of the evidence for and against the authenticity of the twenty-five commentaries. He devotes the sixteen-page Appendix II to his editions of six of the authentic prologues. Having established the authentic commentaries, Bellamah dedicates a chapter to their exegetical character, including their prologues and literal and spiritual senses. He next studies the different sources William uses and how he uses them. Finally, he examines the commentaries’ theological themes including their accounts of prophecy, divine condescension, Christ’s works, preaching, contemplation, spiritual sensation, and evangelical poverty. Bellamah concludes with an epilogue that is both retrospective and prospective. He acknowledges that his findings are provisional. His BOOK REVIEWS 637 identification of some commentaries as authentic and others as not is based on assumptions that might prove to be false in the future. Despite his thorough analysis, Bellamah readily admits that much remains to be done on William’s commentaries themselves, on his sermons, and on other medieval exegetical material, so much of which remains in manuscript form. Bellamah’s work represents a foundation and example that others can build on and emulate in their research on William and medieval exegesis in general. If success equates to influence, then Bellamah has faint praise for this “interesting commentator” (166). A later Dominican cited a discussion in William’s commentary on Ecclesiastes and another borrowed from his commentary on Lamentations. Thomas Aquinas may have borrowed from his commentary on John. His commentary on Wisdom survived under the name of Bonaventure, and Bonaventure seems to have borrowed material from Albert the Great who identifies a William, perhaps William of Alton, as its source. But there is more to this study and more to William of Alton than his modest influence. As noted above, the study increases access to medieval exegesis. It provides a foundation and example for further study. Moreover, it illuminates not only William’s exegetical practices but those of his sources and contemporaries. It also raises...