| Summary: | This article discusses why twelfth-century theologians were particularly interested in examining Exodus 32 and the event of Moses’s intercession for the Israelites. Although it had not markedly troubled earlier commentators, scholastic masters such as Robert of Melun and Peter Comestor were wary of the fact that Moses had appeared to offer up his own salvation in exchange for the salvation of the sinful Israelites. On one reading, this could suggest that Moses was willing to risk his own salvation and challenge the divinely ordained order of salvation and damnation. A number of strategies were thus devised to explain Moses’s actions and account for his words, clarifying how his act of intercession could be reconciled with a medieval vision of soteriological justice. Moreover, considering the reasons why this passage caused such interpretative difficulties, and the multiple strategies by which scholastic masters sought to overcome those difficulties, offers insight into one of the central concerns of twelfth-century theology: namely, to identify the difference between biblical examples to be imitated and those to be avoided. There is a clear parallel between scholastic examination of Moses’s behaviour and twelfth- and thirteenth-century anxieties over scriptural justification of the judicial ordeal.
|
|---|