Exegesis and the Kingdom of Jerusalem: Breaking the Bond between History and Prophecy

The era between the failure of the Second Crusade (1145-1149) and the fall of Jerusalem (1187) has traditionally been interpreted as one of general disillusionment with the entire crusading enterprise. More recent historians, who tend to view crusading as an activity widespread and popular throughout the Middle Ages, admit nonetheless that a lull in enthusiasm marked these years. One of the key critics of the crusade at this time was Radulfus Niger, a member of the intellectual circle surrounding Henry II of England. Radulfus was the author of several works of biblical exegesis, a lengthy treatise on warfare, and of two histories. In this paper, through an analysis of his unpublished exegesis and his historical worldview, I will suggest an interpretation of Radulfus’s work distinct from models based on the anachronistic question of whether the crusades were popular with the medieval public. Radulfus attempted to elevate the moral significance of biblical passages on warfare. In doing so, he severed the connections between a literal reading of these verses and readings based on prophecy. This stress on literal readings did not by itself represent a condemnation of all prophetic speculation. What Radulfus did instead was argue that prophetic, apocalyptic readings of Jerusalem in the Bible ought to be examined through the prism of allegory rather than history. In this respect, Radulfus was at the forefront of new ideas about both history and prophecy that would prove fundamental to how writers in the thirteenth century approached each subject.