In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

A COMPARISON OF THE GLOSSA ORDINARIA, HUGH OF ST. CHER, AND ST. BONAVENTURE ON LUKE 8:26-39 I make three points in trying to determine St. Bonaventure's dependence on earlier authorities, especially on Hugh of St. Cher. First is a comparison of Bonaventure's interpretation1 of "the pigs" mentioned in the story of the Gerasene demoniac with the interpretations of the Glossa Ordinaria2 and Hugh of St. Cher.3 In second place is a comparison of the homiletic style or exegetical applications of each author. Finally, through the lens of the two previous comparisons I will determine to what extent Bonaventure copied the Glossa Ordinaria, other non-biblical authorities, and his contemporary Hugh of St. Cher. In an Appendix I will provide my translations of the commentaries of all three authors, so that interested readers may independently assess my conclusions. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PIGS As a general observation, I state that in St. Bonaventure's commentary the literal interpretation dominates whereas the tropological or moral interpretation prevails in the Glossa Ordinaria and in Hugh of St. Cher. It took considerable determination for Bonaventure to swim against the strong tide of this moral interpretation.4 1S. Bonaventurae Commentarius in Evangelium S. Lucae. Volume VII (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1895) 202-208. In what follows I will refer to Bonaventure's commentary on the Gerasene demoniac by paragraph number. 1SaCrOUm Bibltorum cum Glossa Ordinaria ... Tomus Quintus (Lugduni: 1590) columns 813-816. }Hugoms de Sancto Charo .... Tomus Sextus in Evangelia secundum Matthaeum, Lucam, Marcum ir Joannem (Venice: Nicolas Pezzana, 1732) 179v180v . 4In his interpretation of the pigs in Luke 15:15 Bonaventure does use a moral interpretation. See Opera Omnia 7.392 (#27). In his consideration of how the Latin Fathers interpreted the Gerasene demoniac Jeanne Feliers mainly restricts his study to dieir polemic against dogmatic errors. See his "L'exégèse de la péricope des porcs deGérasa dans la patristique latine" in Studia Patrística Vol. X: Papers presented to the Fifth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1967, Part 121 Franciscan Studies 58 (2000) 122Robert J. Karris, O.F.M. GLOSSA ORDINARIA ON THE MEANING OF THE PIGS From its opening comments about the possessed man we glimpse the direction in which the Glossa Ordinaria will take its interpretation: "That is, the Gentile people itself, who for a long time, that is, almost from the beginning of the world, were being tormented by the demon. Nor did this people use clothing for its nature, that is, the virtues of faith and charity, of which the first parents after their fall are said to have been stripped naked. This garment is offered by the redeeming Son. Nor did this people find rest in the home of its conscience, but dwelt in the dead works of the body as if in tombs."5 And specifically about the herd of pigs in Luke 8:32 the Glossa Ordinaria observes: "The pigs are men and women who are destitute of voice and reason, given to sordid deeds, feeding on the mountain of pride. And unless a person lives like a pig, the devil does not have power over him. Or he receives power to tempt him only, but not, however, to destroy him."6 And this is the moral interpretation of / (ed. F. L. Cross; Texte und Untersuchungen 107, Berlin Akademie, 1970) 22529 . Our three authors limit their dogmatic polemic to their interpretations of Luke 8:28. I let the Glossa Ordinaria (column 813 #d) speak for all three: "Jesus, Son of God. Arius contended that die one whom die demon confessed as the Son of God was a creature. The Jews say that he casts out demons through die power of the prince of demons while die demons deny that he has anything in common with them." See Hugh of St. Cher 179v #m. Bonaventure #50. I call my readers' attention here to a question that will arise with greater vigor in part three below: Who is dependent upon whom? sColumn813 #b. 6CoIUmH 814 #h. The Latin is: "Porci, sunt homines, vocis et rationis expertes, lutulentis acribus dediti, in monte superbiae pascentes. Et nisi quis more...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 121-236
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.