Given the apostles ability to bear accurate witness, demonstrate right teaching and interpret Old Testament scripture in a complex exegetical and typological manner, it would seem to follow that they would be able to do so in an eloquent and skillful way. As regards the eloquence of the apostles, there seems to have been some confusion amongst Anglo-Saxon scholars. In his second letter to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:6), Paul downplays the elegance of his own speech while still underscoring the profundity of his letters, stating: et si inperitus sermone sed non scientia (“For although I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge”). Elsewhere in 1 Cor. 2:13, Paul draws attention to the vulgar style of his nevertheless perspicacious writings:
quae et loquimur non in doctis humanae sapientiae verbis sed in doctrina Spiritus spiritalibus spiritalia conparantes (“Which things we also speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual”).
Acts 4:13 explicitly portrays Peter and John as illiterate (sine litteris) and ignorant (idiotae) men when it comes to formal learning, a notion that is not lost on Bede in his commentary:
Inlitterati mittuntur ad praedicandum ne fides credentium non uirtute dei sed eloquentia atque doctrina fieri putaretur, ut apostolus ait: Non in sapientia uerbi ut non euacuetur crux Christi. Idiotae enim dicebantur qui propria tantum lingua naturalique scientia contenti litterarum studia nesciebant, siquidem Graeci proprium ἴδιον uocant.1
Unlettered men were sent to preach, so that the faith of those who believed would not be thought to have come about by eloquence and teaching instead of by God’s power. As the apostle says,
Not in the wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ be made void [1 Cor. 1:17]. They were called ‘simple men’ who were content with only their own language and natural knowledge, and did not know the study of letters, since for ‘one’s own’ the Greeks used the word ἴδιου.2
1
Bede, Exp. Act., Ch. 4, ll. 37 ff. The source for the first line of Bede’s exposition here has previously been overlooked by scholars. The exegete is here drawing from Jerome’s commentary on Matthew. Cf. Jer., In Matt., Bk. I, ll. 404ff: isti primi uocati sunt ut dominum sequerentur; piscatores et inlitterati mittuntur ad praedicandum ne fides credentium non uirtute dei sed eloquentia atque doctrina fieri putaretur.
2
62
In expositing upon the significance of Peter’s and John’s lack of letters and learning, Bede draws upon yet another interjection of humility made by Paul (1 Cor. 1:17), a statement which lends the passage meaning. Bede is careful to point out the necessity of the apostles’ lack of eloquence, explaining that converts must necessarily be swayed by the truth of Christ’s teachings in their simplest form, unadorned by extravagant rhetoric. This intial interpretation of the apostles’ humble abilities would seem to square soundly with Ælfric’s statement in his homily for the first sunday after Easter (CH I.16):
Crist lufode eac his apostolas. 7 þeahhwæðere ne sette he hi to cynengum ne to ealdermannum; ne to woruldlicere blisse; ac tosende hi geond ealne middaneard to bodienne fulluht. 7 þone geleafan þe he sylf tæhte.3
Christ also loved his apostles and nevertheless he established them not as kings nor as governors nor in worldly bliss; rather he sent them through the entire world to preach baptism and the faith which he himself taught.
As Lawrence T. Martin has pointed out, however, Bede later moderates his stance on the apostles’ lack of letters in his Retractatio in Actus Apostolorum, nuancing the meaning behind
sine litteris and idiotae to denote a lack of rhetorical training as opposed to outright illiteracy or ignorance.4 Bede’s retraction for Acts 4:13 reads:
Sine litteris dicit non quod litteras nescirent, sed quod grammaticae artis peritiam non haberent; namque in Graeco apertius pro hoc verbo
ἀγράμματοι, hoc est inlitterati habetur. Idiotae
autem proprie inperiti vocantur; denique in epistola ad Corinthios, ubi scriptum est, etsi inperitus sermone sed non scientia, pro inperito in Graeco ἰδιώτης habetur.5
‘Without letters’ does not say that they did not know [their] letters, rather that they had no expertise in the art of grammar. In the Greek it is more clear, for in place of this word is used
ἀγράμματοι [i.e. ‘inarticulate’], that is inliterati.
Idiotae, however, are more properly called ‘unskilled.’ Finally, in the epistle to the Corinthians, where it is written, and if [we] be unskilled in speech but not in wisdom, it uses
ἰδιώτης in the Greek for ‘unskilled.’
Bede first takes up the rendering of the Greek term ἀγράμματοι into the Latin sine litteris. He stresses how the original Greek carries with it a sense of being uninitiated in grammar (literally
3 Ælfric, CH I.16, pp. 308-9, ll. 48-51.
4 Martin (1989), p. 54, note 4.
5
63
“ungrammared”) or inarticulate.6 For Bede, sine litteris (“without letters”) is too narrow in meaning and inaccurately connotes that the apostles were unable to read and write altogether. Rather, he prefers the use of inlitterati which can carry the meaning of “illiterate,” but is more general in its meaning of “ignorant” or “uneducated” (in this case, ignorant of rhetorical skill). He also takes issue with the translation of Greek ἰδιώτης into Latin idiotae (“ignorant, uneducated”). Bede notes how the original Greek carries a meaning of “unskilled” or lacking in professional knowledge. He cite’s the Latin translation of 2 Co 11:6 as providing a more accurate notional interpretation by employing the term inperitus (“unskilled”) under similar circumstances. Based on this usage, the exegete argues imperiti gets closer to the essential meaning of ἰδιώτης than does idiotae. By insisting that Acts 4:13 portrays Peter and John as missionaries who are “inarticulate” and “unskilled” rather than outright “illiterate” and “ignorant,” Bede acknowledges that the apostles were “literate” in so far as they could read and write, but “unskilled” in the art of grammar or rhetoric. This nuanced interpretation allows for the apostles’ ability to write their epistles, but to do so in a manner that lacks rhetorical flourish in the classical sense.
Yet when Bede comments on Peter’s preaching to the Israelites in Acts 2:22, the exegete seems to credit the apostle with some degree of rhetorical talent:
Quasi doctus magister prius incredulos commissi reatus admonet ut iusto timore conpunctis consilium salutis postmodum oportunius inpendat, et quia scientibus legem loquitur ipsum Christum esse qui a prophetis esset promissus ostendit. Nec tamen hunc prius auctoritate sua dei filium nominat sed uirum probatum, uirum iustum, uirum a mortuis suscitatum, non usitata cum ceteris atque communi resurrectione, id est in finem saeculi dilatata sed tertia die celebrata, ut singularis et gloriosae resurrectionis assertio
As a learned teacher, he [Peter] first admonishes unbelievers for the crime which had been committed, so that once their consciences had been stung by righteous fear, he might afterward devote [his discourse] more advantageously to the plan of salvation. And because he is speaking to those who know the law, he shows that Christ himself is the one promised by the prophets. Nevertheless, here Peter does not at first give him the name Son of God on his own authority. Rather [he calls him] a man approved, a righteous
6ἀγράμματος
can mean “illiterate” in the sense of being unable to read or write, but is also applied to animals incapable of speech.
64
testimonium aeternae diuinitatis adquireret.7 man, a man raised from the dead—not raised with others in the ordinary and general resurrection (that is, the resurrection which is deferred to the end of the world), but raised in that resurrection celebrated on the third day, so that his assertion of a uniqe and glorious resurrection might acquire [the value of] a testimonial to his eternal divinity.8
Here, Peter is shown to be accutely aware of his audience. Since he is speaking to Jews who are intimately familiar with Mosaic law, he develops his teaching along those lines so as to demonstrate how the prophets were foretelling the coming of Christ. Bede then argues that the apostle exploits rhetorical strategy by first withholding the name of Jesus. Peter does this, according to Bede, “on his own authority.” By taking it upon himself to initially suppress the name of the incarnated Jesus, Peter emphasizes Christ’s divinity over his humanity and allows the mysteries of the resurrection to take precedence in his preaching. This conscious choice represents a selective and oratorical approach on the apostle’s part rather than a straightforward recitation of Christ’s life and suffering. Peter’s acquaintance with law, prophecy and rhetorical manipulation might be interpreted as “literate” in a manner far beyond the mere ability to read and write. Elsewhere, Bede makes note of Peter’s ability to teach “by the testimony of the prophets and the law” (prophetarum legisque testimonio docet), while praising the apostle for being able to preach both “briefly” (breviter) and “clearly” (dilucide).9 Taken in conjunction, these comments seem to express a feeling on Bede’s part that Peter is certainly skilled in the art of preaching. If we define eloquence as the ability to speak “briefly” and “clearly,” as opposed
7 Bede, Exp. Act., Ch. 2, ll. 150 ff.
8 Martin (1989), p. 33-4.
9
65
to addressing an audience with ornate diction, then we may also look upon Peter as “eloquent” in addition to “skillful.”
Even if Peter were considered to be vulgar and unskilled in rhetoric, Paul appears to Bede as a literate apostle in every sense of the word. The exegete makes much of his ability to preach to the Stoics and Epicurians in Acts 17 by referencing their own philosophers rather than the prophets and Judaic law.
His enim qui prophetarum fidem non recipiebant non Moysi, non Esaiae uel alicuius prophetarum, sed auctorum suorum loquitur testimoniis, uersum uidelicet Arati decantans et de falsis ipsorum quibus contradicere non poterant sua uera confirmans. Magnae quippe scientiae est dare in tempore cibaria conseruis et audientium considerare personas.10
To those who did not receive the faith of the prophets he spoke not with the testimony of Moses or Isaiah, or of any of the prophets, but with the testimony of their own authors. He recited a verse from Aratus, and from the falsehoods of those to whom they could not object, he confirmed his own truths. Surely it is the mark of great knowledge to give fellow servants their fare at the proper time (Pr 31:15) and to take into account the particular individuals who are one’s listeners.11
Thus, Paul’s ability to manipulate secular philosophical teachings in a convincing manner speaks for a certain skill and eloquence in preaching that both he and Bede would normally seek to suppress.
Ælfric, on the other hand, seems somewhat less adverse to recognizing the skill of apostolic preaching:
Đa halgan apostolas þurh þone Halgan Gást wurdon swa gelǽrede þæt hi witodlice spræcon mid eallum geréordum úncuðra þeoda, and hí lǽran mihton mancynn on worulde of ðam ealdum bócum þe hí ǽr ne cuðon under Moyses lage, mid micclum andgite gástlicra getácnunga, swa swa him God onwreah.12
Those holy apostles became so learned through the Holy Spirit that they spoke certainly with all the tongues of unlearned peoples and could, with great understanding of allegorical meanings, instruct mankind throughout the world from those ancient [i.e. Old Testament] books which they previously did not know under the law of Moses, just as God had revealed to them.
10 Bede, Exp. Act., Ch. 17, ll. 84 ff.
11 Martin (1989), p. 144-45.
12
66
The apostles’ knowledge and rhetorical ability is attributed by Ælfric to the Holy Spirit, thereby confirming its preperatory role in the proper expression of witness and acceptance of right teaching.13 The precise source of this talent, whether inherent or supernaturally imbued, in no way negates the fact that the apostles, in the end, “spoke certainly” (witodlice spræcon) regardless of the target language. Ælfric seems to attribute to them a level of literacy since their teachings are either derived from or promulgated through the “old books” (ealdum bócum) previously unknown under Mosaic law. Furthermore, they can skillfully apply an understanding of “spiritual significations” (gástlicra getácnunga) in their lessons.
Ultimately, the Anglo-Saxons recognized teaching as an art and, as the Alfredian translator of the Old English Cura pastoralis suggests, the “art of all arts” (cræft eallra cræfta).14 The Old English translator also emphasizes the teacher’s ability to temper lessons such that they are neither overwrought nor underemphasized: Se lareow sceal mid geornful[l]ice ingehygde foreðencean na ðæt an ðætte [he] ðurh hine nan woh ne bodige, ac eac ðæt he nane ðinga ðæt ryht to suiðe & to ungemetlice & to unaberendlice ne bodige ... (“The teacher must, with diligent understanding, take care beforehand not only that he not, through himself, preach error, but also that he not preach anything that is right too exceedingly or too immoderately or too intolerably”).15 The apostles, with their ability to relate sound doctrine and decipher typological meanings within the Old Testament in an unadorned style while still preaching clearly, concisely and convincingly could be viewed as an embodiment of this ideal—an ideal that, by some definitions of the term, may be described as eloquence. The apostles, therefore, while perhaps
13 Cf. above, pp. 40-42.
14OE Cura pastorlis, p. 30, ll.
15
67
not trained in the formal arts of grammar and rhetoric, were nevertheless considered by the Anglo-Saxons to be artists in their own right and imbued with a certain eloquence.
68