Talk:Bible moralisée

Neutrality
There seems to be some biased statements in the Versions section.

For example, "when dealing with the Gospels he did not quote from each evangelist separately, but made use of a kind of confused diatessaron of all four combined"

I understand that the gospels were combined. But what's up with calling it a "confused diatessaron" as if it's a bad thing? The gospels do not contradict one another so such a mixture can hardly be described as "confused". Unless some of the medieval writers messed things up in the process. But if that's the case, (which I doubt,) why not just say that a lot of Bibles moralisées are reputed for their poor execution?

Also, "An attempt was made to establish a connection between the events recorded in the Old Testament and those recorded in the New, even when there does not seem to be any very obvious connection between them"

That's just opinion. Most typology isn't in-your-face obvious to begin with. But it's one thing to say they are not obvious, and another to imply that the medieval writers just made up parallels where none existed.

108.2.120.11 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Slightly amazingly, both these points are direct from the original source for the article, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia]. Typology had really gone out of style in the CC by then! There's a lot wrong with the article - for a start the term is surely defined much too narrowly - what about printed ones? Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Biblia pauperum
Biblia pauperum is something completely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.243.0 (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree completely: Bibles moralisees and Bibliae pauperum are two distinct kinds of picture bibles, of which there are other kinds as well.  Where nearly every Biblia pauperum follows a strict, almost standardized typological theology, the Bible moralisee compares a biblical episode with a scene from the Bible or from medieval life, providing a moral application of the initial scene.  Each of the existing Bibles moralisees is different, due to the wishes of the creators.  Their texts, in French, Latin, or both, are a mixture of scripture and commentary, specifically created to emphasize the moralization desired by the commissioners (to the point where the biblical story is changed so a particular point can be made), so in fact the statement by 108.2.120.11 above is true:  "the medieval writers just made up parallels where none existed"!  And, by the way, the Gospels do occasionally contradict each other. Nonnabede (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)