How Does Paradise Lost Use Biblical Commentaries and Exegetical Traditions?
Paradise Lost draws upon and transforms biblical commentaries and exegetical traditions by incorporating interpretative frameworks from patristic writings, Renaissance biblical scholarship, and Jewish midrashic literature while simultaneously challenging orthodox theological positions. John Milton synthesizes centuries of biblical interpretation—including works by Augustine, Origen, and contemporary Hebraists—to expand the sparse Genesis narrative into an epic poem that explores free will, theodicy, and human nature. Rather than simply reproducing traditional exegesis, Milton selectively adapts, reinterprets, and sometimes contradicts established commentaries to advance his heterodox theological views, particularly regarding predestination, materialism, and the nature of the Son’s begetting.
What Biblical Commentaries Influenced Paradise Lost?
Milton’s engagement with biblical commentaries spans multiple traditions and languages, demonstrating his extensive theological education and deliberate interpretative choices. The poet drew from patristic sources, Renaissance humanist scholarship, and Reformation theology to construct his epic’s theological framework.
The Church Fathers provided Milton with foundational interpretative approaches to the Genesis fall narrative. Augustine’s writings on original sin, free will, and the nature of evil appear throughout Paradise Lost, though Milton notably rejects Augustine’s predestinarian conclusions (Danielson, 1982). Augustine’s concept of evil as privation—the absence of good rather than a positive force—shapes Milton’s portrayal of Satan’s degradation and the cosmic hierarchy in Paradise Lost. Similarly, Origen’s allegorical interpretations and his controversial views on universal salvation and the pre-existence of souls influenced Milton’s more heterodox theological positions. The Alexandrian school’s emphasis on multiple levels of scriptural meaning allowed Milton to explore psychological and philosophical dimensions beyond literal biblical interpretation.
Renaissance biblical commentaries, particularly those emerging from humanist scholarship, provided Milton with linguistic and textual resources unavailable to medieval interpreters. The Protestant emphasis on sola scriptura and return to original Hebrew and Greek texts shaped Milton’s approach to biblical narrative expansion. Annotations from the Geneva Bible, Junius-Tremellius Latin translations, and scholarly commentaries by figures like John Calvin and Theodore Beza inform Paradise Lost’s theological discussions, especially regarding human responsibility and divine foreknowledge (Shawcross, 1993). Milton’s knowledge of Hebrew enabled him to engage directly with Hebraic interpretative traditions, incorporating rabbinical readings that often differed from Christian orthodoxy. This multilingual scholarly foundation allowed Milton to selectively choose interpretations that supported his theological agenda while maintaining plausible biblical grounding.
How Does Milton Transform Traditional Exegetical Interpretations?
Milton’s genius lies not in passive reproduction of biblical commentary but in active transformation of exegetical traditions to serve his poetic and theological purposes. He expands minimal scriptural details into elaborate dramatic scenes while simultaneously advancing controversial theological positions through careful reinterpretation of traditional doctrines.
The Genesis account provides remarkably sparse details about Satan’s rebellion, the creation of the world, and the circumstances of humanity’s fall—mere chapters that Milton expands into twelve books of epic poetry. Traditional exegesis had long filled these gaps through imaginative reconstruction, and Milton draws upon this tradition while pushing it to unprecedented literary and theological heights. For instance, the war in Heaven, occupying Books V and VI of Paradise Lost, elaborates on the cryptic reference in Revelation 12:7-9 through a synthesis of patristic speculation, apocryphal texts like the Book of Enoch, and Milton’s own creative invention (Forsyth, 2003). Rather than accepting standard interpretations of angelic nature as purely spiritual, Milton presents angels with quasi-material bodies capable of eating, making love, and experiencing physical combat—a position reflecting his controversial materialist monism that challenges traditional dualistic theology.
Milton’s treatment of the Son’s generation exemplifies his willingness to depart from orthodox Christology based on alternative exegetical readings. In Book V, the Father’s declaration “This day I have begot whom I declare / My only Son” (5.603-604) presents the Son’s exaltation as a temporal event rather than eternal generation, suggesting an Arian or subordinationist position that contradicts Nicene orthodoxy (Rumrich, 1996). This interpretation, while heterodox, finds support in certain readings of Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 1:5 that emphasize the Son’s begetting. Similarly, Milton’s anthropology rejects traducianist and creationist theories of soul origin in favor of mortalist heresy—the belief that the soul dies with the body until resurrection. These theological innovations demonstrate how Milton uses exegetical flexibility to advance positions condemned by mainstream Christianity while maintaining a veneer of biblical fidelity through selective citation and interpretation.
What Role Does Jewish Midrashic Tradition Play?
Paradise Lost reveals Milton’s substantial engagement with Jewish interpretative traditions, particularly midrashic literature that offered alternative perspectives on Genesis narratives. This engagement reflects Renaissance Christian Hebraism’s growing interest in rabbinic scholarship as a resource for understanding Old Testament texts.
Rabbinic aggadah and midrashim provided Milton with narrative expansions and theological perspectives distinct from Christian patristic interpretation. The portrayal of Satan’s envy at the exaltation of the Son and his subsequent rebellion draws heavily from Jewish legends about Sammael’s refusal to worship Adam, found in texts like Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer and The Chronicles of Jerahmeel (Evans, 1968). These Jewish sources attributed Satan’s fall to pride and envy over God’s favor toward humanity rather than the traditional Christian emphasis on simple pride and self-idolatry. Milton synthesizes both traditions, presenting Satan’s rebellion as triggered by the Son’s elevation but sustained by the egotistical pride more familiar to Christian readers. This blending creates a psychologically complex antagonist whose motivations reflect multiple exegetical traditions.
The dialogue between Adam and Raphael regarding astronomy, free will, and the nature of knowledge in Book VIII reflects rabbinical methods of questioning and debate found in Talmudic discussion. Rather than presenting dogmatic pronouncements, Milton structures these exchanges as intellectual explorations where even angels acknowledge limits to their knowledge—a distinctly rabbinical epistemological humility (Lieb, 2006). Jewish commentaries also influenced Milton’s treatment of Eve’s creation and the marriage relationship, with rabbinic discussions of Genesis 2:18-24 emphasizing companionship and intellectual partnership rather than mere subordination. While Milton’s Eve ultimately occupies a hierarchical position beneath Adam, the poem’s exploration of marriage as “the sum of earthly bliss” and intellectual companionship reflects Hebraic marital ideals more than ascetic Christian traditions that viewed marriage as concession to fleshly weakness.
How Does Paradise Lost Address Theodicy Through Exegetical Frameworks?
Central to Paradise Lost is the theological problem of theodicy—justifying God’s ways to humanity in the face of evil and suffering. Milton engages extensively with exegetical traditions addressing divine justice, human free will, and the origin of evil, ultimately proposing solutions that challenge both Calvinist predestination and Arminian theology.
The invocation to Book I explicitly announces the poem’s theodical purpose: “That to the height of this great argument / I may assert Eternal Providence, / And justify the ways of God to men” (1.24-26). Milton’s justification strategy draws upon libertarian free will arguments found in patristic writers like John Chrysostom and later developed by Jacobus Arminius, while rejecting Arminian prevenient grace in favor of human autonomy. God’s speeches in Book III articulate a defense of divine foreknowledge compatible with creaturely freedom: “They themselves decreed / Their own revolt, not I. If I foreknew, / Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault” (3.116-118). This position synthesizes Boethian philosophy distinguishing foreknowledge from causation with exegetical readings emphasizing conditional divine decrees rather than absolute predestination (Doerksen, 2005). Milton’s God repeatedly insists on human responsibility and freely chosen action, contradicting Calvinist exegesis of Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 that emphasized unconditional election and irresistible grace.
The poem’s treatment of the felix culpa tradition—the “fortunate fall” that resulted in the Incarnation and redemption—demonstrates Milton’s complex engagement with salvation history exegesis. While traditional Christian theology viewed the fall as ultimately providential because it occasioned Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, Milton presents a more ambiguous picture that questions whether the felix culpa adequately justifies human suffering. Adam’s final vision in Books XI and XII shows human history’s violence, disease, and death before culminating in prophetic revelation of Christ’s victory. Michael’s instruction emphasizes that paradise can be regained internally through faith and obedience rather than through external restoration, reflecting Protestant internalization of salvation. This exegetical move transforms traditional apocalyptic eschatology into individual spiritual reformation, suggesting that theodicy’s answer lies not in cosmic restoration but in personal regeneration through grace and free cooperation with divine will.
What Hermeneutical Methods Does Milton Employ?
Milton’s approach to biblical interpretation combines multiple hermeneutical methods drawn from various exegetical traditions, creating a flexible framework that allows for creative expansion while maintaining claims to scriptural authority. His methodology reflects Renaissance humanist philology, Protestant literalism, and allegorical traditions in tension with each other.
The Protestant principle of sola scriptura theoretically governs Paradise Lost’s theology, with Milton repeatedly claiming biblical warrant for his positions. However, his actual practice involves sophisticated typological reading, allegory, and creative gap-filling that goes far beyond strict literalism. The poem employs typological interpretation extensively, particularly in Michael’s prophecy where Old Testament events prefigure Christ’s redemption. The flood, Exodus, and Davidic kingdom become types anticipating Christian fulfillment, following patristic and medieval exegetical traditions (Lewalski, 1966). Yet Milton simultaneously rejects certain traditional typologies, particularly Marian interpretations of Genesis 3:15 that he sees as Catholic eisegesis rather than legitimate exegesis. This selective application of typology reveals Milton’s Protestant commitment to interpretative restraint even while engaging in elaborate imaginative expansion.
Milton’s philological approach reflects humanist textual criticism’s emphasis on original languages and historical context. His De Doctrina Christiana, a systematic theology written contemporaneously with Paradise Lost, demonstrates rigorous engagement with Hebrew and Greek texts, grammatical analysis, and comparative examination of parallel passages. This scholarly foundation undergirds the epic’s theological positions, even when those positions challenge orthodoxy. For instance, Milton’s rejection of the Trinity derives from careful exegetical analysis of passages traditionally cited for Trinitarian doctrine, arguing that terms like “begotten” must be understood literally rather than metaphorically (Hunter, 1992). The tension between poetic license and theological precision creates productive ambiguity in Paradise Lost, where imaginative elaboration coexists with claims to biblical fidelity, allowing readers to engage the text as simultaneously poetry and theological argument.
References
Danielson, D. R. (1982). Milton’s good God: A study in literary theodicy. Cambridge University Press.
Doerksen, D. W. (2005). Reorienting Raphael: Tasso, Milton, and the poetics of accommodation. Modern Philology, 103(2), 162-189.
Evans, J. M. (1968). Paradise Lost and the Genesis tradition. Oxford University Press.
Forsyth, N. (2003). The satanic epic. Princeton University Press.
Hunter, W. B. (1992). Prophetic poetry and the Holy Spirit in Paradise Lost. Milton Quarterly, 26(4), 125-139.
Lewalski, B. K. (1966). Milton’s brief epic: The genre, meaning, and art of Paradise Lost. Brown University Press.
Lieb, M. (2006). Milton and the culture of violence. Cornell University Press.
Rumrich, J. P. (1996). Milton unbound: Controversy and reinterpretation. Cambridge University Press.
Shawcross, J. T. (1993). Rethinking Milton studies: Time present and time past. University of Delaware Press.