Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture by Philip D. Krey & Lesley Smith (review)

BOOK REVIEWS Philip D. Krey & Lesley Smith, eds. Nicholas o f Lyra: The Senses o f Scripture (Studies in the History of Christian Thought, 90). Leiden: Brill, 2000. Pages 344. The editors intend this volume of essays on Nicholas of Lyra as “a continuation to the rediscovery of Nicholas and a beginning of the exploration, not only of his hermeneutics but also of the actual contents of his commentaries” (xiii). The scholars who contributed essays, many of them members of the Society for the Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, provide both a substantial entrée into the works of Nicholas and an account of his significance in the history of biblical exegesis. A broad panorama of Nicholas’ exegesis is represented here with essays which focus on his commentary on Genesis 1-3, Ruth, Samuel and Kings, Psalms, Song of Songs, Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew, John, Romans, Apocalypse, in addition to an essay on Franciscans and Hebrew Scholarship. The Introduction provides an overview of Nicholas of Lyra’s (1270-1349) life and works. Nicholas was born in Lyra in Normandy and grew up in the diocese of Evreux, an important center of Jewish learning. He joined the Franciscans in 1300 and was sent to Paris for study, where he remained until his death. He began the Literal Postili on the whole Bible in 1322, completing it in 1331. He was elected the provincial minister of Burgundy in 1325, attending the General Chapters of 1325, 1328, and 1329 - he was a participant in the chapter which re-elected Michael of Cesena against John XXII’s wishes, and then at the chapter which elected Guriol Ott after Michael’s deposition by the Pope. In 1333 he began to write his Moral Postili on the whole Bible which was completed in 1339. He died in October 1349 and was buried at the Convent of the Cordeliers in Paris where he died. In her essay on Genesis 1-3, Corrine Patton describes Lyra’s exegetical approach as relying on a late medieval scholasticism informed by Aristotle “together with the theology of Augustine read through the lens of Franciscan theology” (19). His reliance on Jewish scholarship, specifically that of Rashi (Patton is convinced that he read Rashi in its full original text) is much stronger in his commentary on Genesis Franciscan Studies, 59 (2001) 271 272 Bo o k Re view s subsequent to chapter three, as it is Nicholas’ conviction that the entire text points to Christ. Lyra engages questions concerning the nature of creation and rejects Aquinas’ explanation of God’s creative act while coming to conclusions similar to John Duns Scotus. Nicholas also attends to questions concerning salvation and justification in the course of his exegesis. In her study of Nicholas’ commentary on Ruth, Lesley Smith comments that he takes the text seriously because the historical sense must be the basis of any other scriptural teaching. Rashi’s commentary on Ruth is the basis for Nicholas’ commentary, and Lyra generally comes down on the side of the Jewish interpretation of questions concerning the meaning of the text. The use of the literal sense allows him to assert that the Jews have missed the point because the letter of the Old Testament is Christological. Smith contributes a second essay on Lyra’s commentary on John. Here again, Lyra charges the Jews with obstinacy that prevents them from seeing and understanding what is literally set before them in Jesus. Also, questions on poverty are treated favoring Bonaventure’s position as outlined in his Apologia pauperum. Two essays deal with Lyra’s commentary on the book of Kings. Frans van Liere provides an overview of approaches to the literal interpretation of this text from Andrew of St. Victor to Nicholas. Van Liere shows how both Andrew and Nicholas used similar interpretive techniques by interpolating brief glosses into the text to explain a difficult word or phrase. At the same time, the intellectual environment changed - Andrew worked on the bible in the cloister as a spiritual exercise; Nicholas worked on the bible in the schools and read it cursorily, using glossaries, distinctions and corrections to the text. Nicholas’ commentaries too, are characterized by developed quaestiones...