-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
/
SSEph.htm
4109 lines (2087 loc) · 189 KB
/
SSEph.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<!DOCTYPE html>
<title>Thomas Aquinas: Ephesians: English</title>
<meta http-equiv="content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ((gAgent.indexOf("win") != -1) || (gAgent.indexOf("16bit") != -1))
var gIE = (gAgent.indexOf("msie") != -1)
var bInlineFloats = (gWindows && gIE && (parseInt(navigator.appVersion) >= 4))
var floatwnd = 0
var WPFootnote1 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Beryl Smalley, <i>The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, <\/i>2nd revised edition (New York: Philosophical\
Library, 1952), pp. xv, 41, 263, 292-94, 300 ff., where she stresses the novelty of Aquinas’ position. Against her\
analysis, Henry de Lubac, S.J., endeavors to demonstrate St. Thomas’ traditionalism, cf. <i>Exégèse médiévale, les\
quatre sens de l’Ecriture, <\/i>2e partie, t. II (Paris: Aubier, 1964), pp. 272-W2.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote2 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>A similar distinction between exegetical presuppositions and techniques has been made on the philosophical level\
by Bernard Lonergan, S.J., in <i>Insight, A Study of Human Understanding, <\/i>2nd edition (New York: Philosophical\
Library, 1958), pp. 577-79.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote3 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>For an accurate and profound methodological explanation of meaning and expression, cf. Lonergan’s <i>Insight<\/i>, pp.\
357-59, 549-94. Alonso Schokel’s <i>The Inspired Word <\/i>(N.Y.: Herder, 1965), pp. 134-72, 255-79 shows how modern\
literary and linguistic studies can deepen our appreciation of the Bible.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote4 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>For a fuller treatment of these processes in theological and dogmatic development, cf. B. Lonergan, <i>De Deo Trino\
<\/i>(Rome: Gregorian, 1964), vol. I, pp. 5-112, vol. II, pp. 7-61.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote5 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>For the technical significance of <i>Begrifllichkeit <\/i>in R. Bultmann, cf. A. Malet, <i>La Pensée de Rudolf Bultmann\
<\/i>(Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1963), pp. 277 ff. Also S. Ogden, <i>Christ without Myth <\/i>(London: Collins, 1962), pp. 65-66.\
For its use here, cf. F. Crowe, “Method in Theology,” <i>T.S.<\/i> 23 (1962), pp. 637-42.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote6 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>On Origen, cf. H. de Lubac, <i>Histoire et Esprit <\/i>(Paris: Aubier, 1950), pp. 92-194, 278-94; J. Daniélou, <i>Origen <\/i>(N.Y.:\
Sheed and Ward, 1955), pp. 73-98; H. Crouzel, <i>Origène et la “connaissance mystique” <\/i>(Paris: Desclee, 1961), pp.\
47-84. On St. Augustine, cf. H.-I. Marrou, <i>S. Augustin et la fin de la culture antique <\/i>(Paris: Boccard, 1958–4<sup>th<\/sup> ed.),\
pp. 302-27, 357-85. Concerning the vast influence of Origen on western exegesis, cf. Smalley, op. <i>cit. <\/i>pp.<i> <\/i>14-20.\
Y. Congar has described briefly the main differences between the Augustinian and Thomist positions, cf. his\
“Théologie,” <i>D.T.C. <\/i>15a, col. 386-88; and <i>La foi et la théologie <\/i>(Tournai: Desclée, 1962), pp. 230-33, 246-48.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote7 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Smalley, op. <i>cit., <\/i>p. xv; she is referring to the thirteenth century biblical scholar. The platonism of the Origenist-Augustinian approach can be traced through the early Middle Ages up to the time of the twelfth century Paris\
masters, cf. R. McNally, S.J., <i>The Bible in the Early Middle Ages <\/i>(Md.: Newman, 1959), pp. 53-61, and Smalley,\
op. <i>cit.<\/i>, p. 262; also C. Spicq, O.P., “Histoire de l’interpretation au moyen Age en occident,” <i>S.D.B. <\/i>IV, pp. 609-615.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote8 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Athenagoras’ <i>Presbeia peri ton christianon, <\/i>7 and 9 (P.G. 6, 904 and 908); he is followed by Pseudo-Justin’s\
<i>Cohort. ad Graecos, <\/i>8 (P.G. 6, 257) and Hippolytus of Rome, <i>Peri tou Antichristou, <\/i>2, (P.G. 10, 728). St. Thomas\
was to utilize the concept of instrumentality in his analysis, giving it greater precision.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote9 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. de Lubac, <i>Histoire et esprit,<\/i> pp. 296 ff.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote10 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Smalley, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 21-22, and St. Jerome’s <i>Epist. <\/i>70, 7 (P.L. 22, 627). St. Augustine also uses this\
expression, <i>De Cons. Evang.,<\/i> I,<i> <\/i>25-54 (P.L. 34, 1070).<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote11 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>In Psalm. <\/i>90, 2; 149, 5 (P.L. 37, 1159, 1952). In his <i>Confess.,<\/i>12, 31 Augustine sees God’s action as allowing the\
author to perceive all the truths which can be drawn from his words. But in the <i>De Doct. Christ., <\/i>3, 27 it is the Holy\
Spirit who makes provision for these meanings even if the human author may not know them—“<i>forsitan<\/i> vidit et certe\
Dei Spiritus.” De Lubac’s statement in his <i>Exégèse médiévale,<\/i> 2-2, p. 285 note 1, needs modification.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote12 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Moralia in Job, praef. <\/i>I,<i> <\/i>2 (P.L. 75, 517).<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote13 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>This is evident from the fact that all the currents which were to make up the Bible are discussed under prophecy.\
The Legal stream is represented in Moses who was the greatest of prophets since, among other reasons, he\
proclaimed the Law to the people in the name of God, cf. <i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 14; <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 174, 4. The prophetic stream\
is obviously mentioned; following St. Jerome, St. Thomas includes Judges, Ruth and Kings in the prophetic books,\
cf. <i>De Com. et Part. S. Scrip. <\/i>The Sapiential stream, termed the “hagiographa,” makes up the rest of the Old\
Testament and is clearly included within his analogically conceived notion of the prophetic mission; those who wrote\
these books were aided by the “lumen divinum” which is the formally unifying factor in all prophecy, cf. <i>De Ver.\
<\/i>12, 12 ad 10; S.T. II-II, 174, 2 ad 3; 171, 3 ad 3. The writings of the New Testament trace their origin to the truly\
prophetic experience of the Apostles, cf. <i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 14 ad 5; <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 173, 2c; <i>In Matt. <\/i>10, n.2, v.20; <i>In loan. <\/i>18,\
Lect. 4, n.2; <i>In Rom. <\/i>12, Lect. 2. Thus the canonical Scriptures are sometimes attributed to “the Apostles and\
Prophets,” cf. <i>In 1 Tim.<\/i> 6, Lect. 1; <i>S.T.<\/i> 1, 1, 8 ad 2.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote14 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Charismatic graces are the <i>gratiae gratis datae <\/i>discussed in <i>S.T.<\/i> I-II 111, 4-5. St. Thomas’ final position is to\
include all of these related to knowledge within his analogical conception of prophecy, cf. Prologue to II-II, 171.\
The unifying factor in the analogous reality is the “lumen divinum” or “lumen propheticum,” <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 171, 3 ad\
3, which can vary in degree, <i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 13; S.T. 174, 3; it can also penetrate to almost every level of reality, <i>S.T.<\/i>\
II-II, 171, 3. The expression “lumen” must be understood within the context of Aquinas’ use of it in his analysis of\
man’s natural intellectual consciousness, cf. B. Lonergan, S.J., “The Concept of <i>Verbum <\/i>in the Writings of St.\
Thomas Aquinas,” <i>T.S.<\/i>, vol. 8 (1947), pp. 64-73. By it the prophet is enabled to judge events and issues in a\
supernatural manner. (<i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 173, 2). The “lumen fidei,” in its turn, enables men to assent voluntarily to the truths\
enunciated by the prophets (<i>ibid., <\/i>171, 3 ad 2; 5c; <i>D.V. <\/i>12, 2 <i>sed con.; In Boet. de Trin. <\/i>3, 1 ad 4). These two\
“lumina” are forms of the “lumen gratiae” (S.T. I-II, 109, 1c) but they differ in that the prophetic light is directed\
toward a supernatural judgment itself while the light of faith prepares the mind to assent to what God reveals through\
the prophets (D.V. 12, 1 ad 4 bis). On the importance of correctly understanding Aquinas’ concept of <i>lumen <\/i>cf.\
Frederick Crowe, S.J., <i>De Verbo Dei cum Hominibus Communicato <\/i>(Toronto: Regis College, mimeographed, 1963),\
pp. 83-99.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote15 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The analogical concept of prophecy is differentiated according to <i>content <\/i>into four general categories. One class,\
termed most properly prophetic in <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 171, 3, deals with future events which the prophet knows with divine\
assistance, cf. <i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 2c, ad 1, ad 4; 3c; 10c; 11; <i>S.C.G.<\/i> III, 154; <i>In Hebr. <\/i>6, Lect. 4; <i>In Rom. <\/i>3, Lect. 1; 12,\
Lect. 2; <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 171, 3, 6 ad 2; 172, 1c; 174, 1c ad 1. A second category of prophecy occurs when the existence\
of supernatural mysteries is made known to a prophet; in <i>S.C.G.<\/i> III, 154, this was designated as “sapientia” but by\
the time of his writing the prologue to <i>S.T.<\/i> 11-11, 171, St. Thomas had reverted to his position in <i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 2c and\
<i>In Rom. <\/i>12, Lect. 2 where he incorporates this within an analogical notion of prophecy, cf. also <i>S.T.<\/i> 171, 3c and 174,\
3c; <i>In I Cor. <\/i>14, Lect. 1; for this prophecy in action cf. <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 174, 6; <i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 14 ad 1. The third class has\
to do with a supernaturally acquired knowledge of the existence of what is otherwise knowable by natural means.\
It is prophetic because these natural objects are seen “in lumine divino,” i.e., in reference to God and his plans, cf.\
<i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 13; S.T. 11-11, 174, 3c. Finally, a scarcely recognized fourth category, not yet noticed when he was\
composing <i>De Ver. <\/i>12, deals with the interpretation and propagation of the truths revealed in the other forms of\
prophecy. In <i>S.C.G.<\/i> III, 154 and <i>In I Cor. <\/i>12, Lect. 2, St. Thomas saw the need of men supernaturally equipped to\
interpret what others had written; it was termed “interpretatio sermonis.” In commenting on I Cor. 14 he deepened\
his understanding of this grace, regarding it as a real type of prophecy, cf. <i>In I Cor. <\/i>14, Lects. 1, 2, 3, 5; also <i>In Rom.\
<\/i>12, Lect. 2. He grasped the broad dimensions prophecy had for St. Paul: “Someone is also termed a prophet solely\
by the fact that he proclaims the prophetic words in the Church, or expounds or chants them there.” <i>In I <\/i>Cor. 14,\
Lect. 1; also <i>ibid., 11, <\/i>Lect. 2; 14, Lect. 6; <i>In Tit. 1, <\/i>Lect. 3. Cf. note 18 below for further remarks.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote16 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The difference between charismatic graces and sanctifying grace is that the latter concerns man’s personal relations\
or union with God, whereas the former enable him to cooperate with other men in bringing them to God, cf. S.T. 1-11, 111, 1. Thus the “utilitas Ecclesiae” is the motive force in prophecy, cf. <i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 2, 3 ad 11 & 15; 5c; 13c;\
<i>In I Cor. <\/i>14, passim; In <i>Rom. <\/i>12, Lect. 2; S.T. 11-11, 171, Ic. P. Benoit, O.P., in his <i>Prophecy and Inspiration <\/i>(New\
York: Desclée, 1961) pp. 103-111 tries to distinguish between the prophet and the sacred authors by saying that in\
the former the speculative judgment predominates and in the latter the practical judgment. This can find no support\
in St. Thomas who conceived of Prophecy—taken analogously—as directed toward assisting men in their total\
response to God in faith and morality, cf. <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 173, 2c; 174, 6c (note how be says “prophetica revelatio” is concerned with both faith and morals). It is possible to trace this dual aspect of supernatural knowledge, its speculative\
and practical qualities, from its origin in God’s knowledge though prophecy and Scripture to theology, cf. <i>S.T.<\/i> I, 14,\
16; I, 4c; 1, 3c. For the practical judgments involved in writing a book, cf. notes 17 to 23 below.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote17 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>This is one of the key distinctions in Aquinas’ analysis; he terms the first aspect or moment the prophetic “donum”\
and the seeond its “usus.” It runs throughout all of his analysis, cf. <i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 2c; 3 ad 15; 4c, ad 1 & 3; 5c, ad 3;\
9c; 12 ad 4; 13c; <i>In I Cor. <\/i>14, 1 ff.; <i>S.C.G.<\/i> III, 154; <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 171, 1c; 172, 3 ad 1; 4 ad 4; 173, 3c, ad 4; 4c; 174,\
2 ad 3; 3 ad 3; 4c. A revelation is always involved in the encounter in which the “donum” consists, <i>ibid., <\/i>171, 1 ad\
<i>4. <\/i>Benoit, op. <i>cit.<\/i>, pp. 109-11 departs front Aquinas by seeking to distinguish sharply between revelation and\
inspiration. For the Angelic Doctor revelation, like prophecy, was analogous. Benoit, on the other hand, is influenced\
by today’s tendency to think of passive revelation in the cut and dried terms of the manuals; we tend to regard a truth\
as either clearly and explicitly revealed or not revealed at all. But for St. Thomas man’s knowledge of the faith\
grows, truths are revealed slowly over a period of time (cf. notes 26 and 27 below). The Bible communicates this\
organic development of salvation-history to men up to its definitive apex in the revelation of the Word Incarnate\
himself. The whole of the Bible must be approached with faith; this does not mean that every sentence is a definable\
dogma.<\/p>\
<p>Much of the Scriptures deal with otherwise, naturally knowable subjects, such as Israel’s history, but as Aquinas\
points out (<i>S.T.<\/i> I, 1, 7) these are related <i>in the light of <\/i>God’s plans for salvation-history. To initially perceive and\
judge this to be true required some type of revelation, and to assent to it requires faith. If biblical inspiration did not\
terminate in this analogous revelation why is it necessary to even posit a supernatural action in the formation of the\
Bible? Why must we approach all of Scripture with faith if only portions of it contain passive revelation and most\
of it does not? Benoit seems to overlook the fact that between the natural and the supernatural no medium area exists\
in which to fit a knowledge whether speculative or practical which is neither one nor the other. Nor is there a truly\
supernatural knowledge which is not also to some degree a revelation, at least in that it views and expresses some\
fact—otherwise knowable to reason perhaps—within the light of salvation-history.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote18 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>At first, St. Thomas did not connect the “interpretatio sermonis” (mentioned as the fourth class of prophecy in note\
15 above) with the prophetic mission. But in <i>In I Cor. 14, <\/i>Lect. 6 he began to understand this as an “usus prophetiae”\
and in <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 173, 2c and 176, 2 ad 4 be speaks of the corresponding “donum prophetiae.” The prologue to II-II,\
171 indicates in what this “donum” consists. It is the charismatic gift of faith which “grants a certain supereminent\
certitude of faith by which a man is fit to instruct others in what pertains to the faith.” <i>S.T.<\/i> I-II, 111, 4 ad 2. Benoit\
chose to develop Aquinas’ concept of instrumentality in applying his analysis of prophecy to the sacred writers. I\
think St. Thomas’ more frequently repeated insight into the difference between “donum” and “usus,” with their\
analogous nature, might prove more fruitful.<\/p>\
<p>For example, today the complex origin of the biblical books is well known; they were not, for the most part,\
composed by single authors, as was formerly held, but by various traditions. Cf. J. McKenzie, S.J., “The Social\
Character of Inspiration,” <i>C.B.Q.<\/i> vol. 24 (1962) pp. 115-24. Utilizing St. Thomas’ fourth category of prophecy we\
can claim that the men who perpetuated the Old and early New Testament traditions had a deeper bond uniting them\
to the messages than the ordinary people. The latter accepted it as coming from God through the <i>virtue <\/i>of faith. This\
may also have been the personal response of the men who perpetuated the traditions, but their social responsibility\
required more. Those who originated the various prophetic, legal, sapiential, and New Testament traditions usually\
experienced the deep prophetic encounter and consequent active revelation needed to grasp and affirm supernatural\
mysteries. But these were perpetuated, and applied to changing times, by disciples in whom the prophetic “donum”\
was normally the charismatic grace of faith. Since this “gratia gratis data” clearly consists in a “prophetica revelatio”\
(cf. II-II, 171, prol.) there can be no doubt that the communication, whether oral or written (cf. II-II, 174, 6 obj. 2),\
flowing from it is really inspired in the sense in which “biblical inspiration” is used today.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote19 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>For the differentiation of prophecy according to the <i>manner <\/i>of its experience, cf. De <i>Ver. <\/i>12, 7, 12, 13; <i>In I Cor.\
<\/i>14, 1; <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 173, 2, 3; 174, 2-4. Also Benoit, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, p. 37. As Benoit himself admits, his distinction between\
prophecy and inspiration on the basis of “lumen et species” and “lumen solum” cannot be supported by St. Thomas\
who expressly states concerning this “lumen”: “from the reception of which someone is constituted a prophet.” <i>(De\
Ver. <\/i>12, 1c; also <i>S.T.<\/i> 171, 3 ad 3; 173, 2c). The “lumen propheticum” is a passing impression on the prophet’s mind\
(11-11, 171, 2); yet St. Thomas does speak of an “habilitas” resulting from its reception (<i>ibid., <\/i>ad 2), indicating that\
there is a variation in degree. This “habilitas” must especially be remembered when discussing the prophetic\
“donum” operative in the charismatic gift of faith mentioned in note 18 above.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote20 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>De Ver. 12, <\/i>4c; <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 174, 3 ad 3; 173, 3 ad 4. For further references, cf. those given in note 17 above. This\
contrasts with the “donum”: “The gift of prophecy, which exists beyond the capacity of man, is given by God and\
not through the power of some created cause,” <i>ibid. <\/i>It seems to me that Benoit’s theory of inspiration, op. <i>cit.<\/i>, pp.<i>\
<\/i>88-132, would profit from this distinction between “donum” and “usus.” Fixing attention on the communication or\
“usus,” and this precisely under the form of writing, he conceives of inspiration as some sort of created “supernatural\
impulse” flowing from God to the sacred author, taking “the form of an immediate physical motion.” (<i>op. cit.<\/i>,<i> <\/i>p.\
120). This manner of explaining the divine action has already been shown as not that of St. Thomas, cf. B. Lonergan,\
“St. Thomas’ Theory of Operation,” <i>T.S.<\/i> vol. 3 (1942), pp. 375-401, and his “St. Thomas’ thought on <i>Gratia\
Operans,” ibid., <\/i>pp. 533-78. As a result, Benoit’s idea of the author’s instrumentality is much stricter than that of\
Aquinas. Cf. notes 21 to 23 below.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote21 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>That inspiration, for St. Thomas, pertains to the “donum” is evident from <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 171, 1 ad 4; also cf. Benoit,\
<i>op. cit., <\/i>pp. 68-69. So in <i>De Comm. et Part. S. Scrip.<\/i> he can distinguish the prophets, who often spoke in God’s\
name, and the hagiographers who: “inspired by the Holy Spirit [the <i>donum<\/i>]<i> <\/i>spoke, not on the part of the Lord, but\
as it were from themselves [<i>usus<\/i>].” Note that I say God’s “governance” was not immediate. His providence\
immediately extends to every detail in salvation-history ordering each to its end, but the carrying into effect—the\
“gubematio”—of these plans is mediated by secondary causes, cf. <i>S.C.G. <\/i>III<i>, <\/i>76, 77, 83, 94; <i>S.T.<\/i> I, 22, 3; 103, 6.\
Of course the “what” which the <i>donum <\/i>imparts shares in the latter’s analogical character as briefly sketched in note\
15 above. Even the most “natural” books of the Old Testament deal with their material in the light of Yahweh and\
his plans for his people; e.g. Numbers treating of the communal organization of the people centered about God’s\
abode, the ark and tabernacle, and the need to submit to their God-given leaders; or Proverbs seeking to implement\
“the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” with down-to-earth practical advice. Note also that the deficiency\
mentioned in <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 173, 4 deals with the <i>quid, <\/i>the “what” imparted by the <i>donum. <\/i>Inspiration will effect the usus\
by means of the <i>donum <\/i>which can modify, profoundly or slightly, the recipients mental and imaginative “species”cf.\
references given in note 19 above. Should any dispositions be positively contrary to the communication of the\
message, God, as Universal Cause, can alter them when imparting the <i>donum, cf. De Ver. <\/i>12, 4 ad 1, ad 2 and 6; <i>S.T.<\/i>\
I, 105, 1, 3-4; II-II, 172, 3 ad 1. But normally these dispositions are impartial from the viewpoint of <i>what is <\/i>to be\
communicated, cf. <i>ibid., <\/i>and the following note.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote22 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>This was Thomas’ insight expressed in S.T. II-II, 172, 3c. To appreciate its implications one must read the writings\
of Lonergan referred to in note 20 above; for a contemporary statement of the same basic idea, cf. his <i>Insight, p. <\/i>664.\
It discloses the major weakness in Benoit’s theory of inspiration (which he is trying to remedy) and those of others.\
They are worked out within the framework of either a Bañez or a Molina who both agreed in the presupposition that\
God controls all events because he controls each. For Benoit the whole Bible is inspired because the Almighty\
controlled every single writer and literary piece. St. Thomas’ concept of instrumentality, as Lonergan has\
demonstrated, affirms that God controls each event because he controls all. Applied to Scripture this means that each\
and every part of it is authored by God because he originated (cf. “Deus origo eius est” of <i>De Comm. et Part. <\/i>S.\
Scrip.) the whole process of the Bible’s formation. Thus he could state: “Furthermore, God also at the moment of\
his creation can create a subject that he might dispose the soul <i>in its very creation for <\/i>prophecy, and would grant\
it the prophetic grace.” S.T. II-II, 172, 3c. The difference between the instrumentality operative in the composing\
of the Scriptures and the Universal Instrumentality discussed by Lonergan, <i>T.S.<\/i> 1942, pp. 391-95, is that the\
Providence guiding the genesis of the Bible is an essential element in the special Providence concerned with\
salvation-history; cf. <i>S.C.G.<\/i> III, 111-113. Note the affinity this has with K. Rahner’s thesis: God’s willing of the\
Scriptures as a constitutive element in his willing of the Church, cf. his <i>Inspiration in the Bible <\/i>(N.Y.: Herder &\
Herder, 1961). For valid criticisms and modifications of Rahner’s Theory, cf. Y. Congar, O.P., <i>Sainte Eglise <\/i>(Paris:\
Ed. du Cerf, 1963), pp. 187-200; and especially F. Crowe, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 85 and 90. B. Benoit is also broadening his\
conception of inspiration, cf. “Les Analogies de l’inspiration,” <i>Sacra Pagina, <\/i>Vol. I (Paris: Lecoffre, 1959), pp. 86-99. This is even more pronounced in his most recent article “Révélation et inspiration,” in the <i>Revue biblique<\/i>, Vol.\
72 (1963), pp. 321-370, where he knits revelation and inspiration more closely together than in his previous works.\
Failing to grasp the importance of Aquinas’ distinction between <i>donum <\/i>and <i>usus<\/i> (pp. 325-336), he ends by defining\
revelation and inspiration in terms which approach those two aspects of the prophetic mission (pp. 367-368).<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote23 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 4 ad 1; also <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 172, 3 ad 1. This is emphasized in 171, 6c where divine veracity is predicated\
of both prophetic knowledge and communication.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote24 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>De Doct. Christ. <\/i>3, 6-9; McNally, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 44-46; Smalley, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, p. 24.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote25 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>“... for faith supposes natural knowledge in the same way grace does nature, and as perfection presupposes what\
can be perfected.” <i>S.T.<\/i> I, 2, 2 ad 1. Growth is indispensable to human knowledge, <i>ibid., <\/i>85, 1c; for some passages\
where Aquinas speaks of the development of supernatural knowledge, cf. I-II, 98, 3 ad 2; 99, 6c; 101, 2 ad 1; II-II,\
1, 7c, ad 2; <i>In Matt. <\/i>3, n.l.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote26 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 1, 7 ad 2. In <i>De Ver. <\/i>14, 11c, St. Thomas quotes St. Gregory in support of this view; “With the passing\
of time the growth in divine knowledge has increased.” <i>Hom. 16 in Ezech. <\/i>The Old Testament leaders have a more\
explicit knowledge of the mysteries of faith since they are to instruct the people, <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 2, 6. Father de Lubac is\
not quite correct in saying that Aquinas’ analysis of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments is linked\
with the passing from literal meanings to spiritual ones, cf. <i>Exégèse médiévale, <\/i>2-2, p. 287. <i>In II Cor. <\/i>3, Lect. 2 is\
not at all concerned with the senses of Scripture; what St. Thomas is affirming is that the Old Law was primarily a\
written law whereas the New Law is primarily a law of the Spirit; the fact that it is written down in the New\
Testament scriptures is only a secondary aspect of it, cf. S.T. I-II, 106, 1; nor do the senses of Scripture enter into\
the lengthy comparison of the Old and New Laws in <i>ibid., <\/i>107, 1-4.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote27 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 174, 6; <i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 14 ad 1; <i>In I Cor. <\/i>14, Lect. 2.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote28 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 6; <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 173, 1. On the imperfection inherent in man’s growth in faith, cf. <i>ibid.<\/i>, I, 7 ad 3.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote29 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 171, 6c; also 172, 6 ad 2; <i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 10 ad 7 & 11. It is interesting to compare scriptural revelation and\
the theories on teaching proposed in <i>De Ver. 11, 1. <\/i>Some maintain that in education everything depends on the\
teacher; in biblical perspectives these would be the fundamentalists who consider the human authors as no more than\
the puppets of God. Others maintain that education consists in the student recalling what he already knew, the teacher\
only appears to cause the knowledge; these would be the rationalists for whom revelation is dependent entirely on\
human genius—if there is a God he is not needed. Finally, Aquinas holds that education is a process in which the\
teacher actualizes the potentialities of the students as regards knowledge and virtue, both God and man are essential\
to the Bible.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote30 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. S.T. I, 1, where “sacra doctrina” and “sacra scriptura” are often interchangeable, cf. G. Van Ackeren, <i>Sacra\
Doctrina, The Subject <\/i>of <i>the First Question of the Summa of St. Thomas <\/i>Aquinas (Rome: 1952).<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote31 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>De Ver. <\/i>11, 1 ad 6.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote32 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Daniélou, <i>Origen,<\/i> pp. 14 ff., 133-38; also H. de Lubac’s introduction to <i>Origène: homélies sur la Genèse, S.C.\
<\/i>VII, pp. 5-55.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote33 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Smalley, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 44-46, points out how St. Augustine’s program was realized only over a period of centuries.\
Yves Congar, O.P., makes the same point when he discusses the three stages theology went through up until the\
thirteenth century; it was successively under the regime of grammar, then dialectics, and finally metaphysics. <i>D.T.C.\
<\/i>15-A, 359-74.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote34 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The Antiochene School of exegesis had practically no influence on medieval exegesis. Its only well known\
representative was St. John Chrysostom whose homilies were more pastoral than exegetical in tone, cf. Smalley, <i>op.\
cit.<\/i>, pp. 14-20.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote35 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Danié1ou, op. <i>cit., pp. <\/i>141-43.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote36 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. <i>De Doct. Christ. <\/i>3, 5; also his famous plea in <i>De Gen. ad Litt. <\/i>I, 18 ff., for not making rash assertions on what\
the first chapters of Genesis are supposed to literally mean.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote37 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. <i>Collatio <\/i>14, 8-11; also O. Chadwick, <i>John Cassian: A Study in Primitive Monasticism <\/i>(Cambridge: Univ.\
Press, 1950), pp. 151-53; on the Origenist controversy, pp. 33-36.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote38 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Smalley, op. cit., pp. 31-.35. Referring to St. Gregory’s prophetic gifts Aquinas feels that one can discern “almost\
all the movements of one’s own heart” in the writings of Gregory, <i>In I Cor. <\/i>14, Lect. 5.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote39 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. J. Leclereq, O.S.B., <i>The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture <\/i>(New York:\
Fordham, 1961), pp. 31-44.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote40 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Hom. in Gen. <\/i>10,1 and <i>De Prin. <\/i>4,3,5. Origen scholars have not yet reached agreement on the extent of Philonic\
influence on Origen’s exegesis, cf. <i>T.S.<\/i> 24 (1963), pp. 250-63.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote41 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>De Prin. <\/i>4,1,7. According to J. McKenzie Origen did not clarify the inner connection between the historical and\
allegorical senses, cf. “A Chapter in the History of Spiritual Exegesis,” <i>T.S.<\/i> 12 (1951), pp. 276-80.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote42 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>De. Doct. Christ. <\/i>Book 1, 2, 3, 31 and 32. Augustine does not here explicitly relate the use by God of the things\
Scripture refers to as a means of further signification, but he does in <i>Epist. <\/i>102, n.33.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote43 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>De Doct. Christ. <\/i>3, 5. In book 1, 23 and 26, be states how we are to love our bodies for man is both soul and body,\
but the body is “beneath” us. For a succinct account of his theory of knowledge, cf. Copleston, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, vol. 2, pp.\
51-67.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote44 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>De Doct. Christ. <\/i>3, 10; also cf. <i>ibid., <\/i>15.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote45 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Ibid., <\/i>1,<i> <\/i>39: “And thus a man who is founded on faith, hope and love, keeping a firm grasp on these, cloes not need\
the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others.”<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote46 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Hugh increased the dignity of the historical or literal sense by joining it with the allegorical as pertaining to\
knowledge, but the literal was still considered as the necessary but lowly foundation of the allegorical, cf.\
<i>Didascalion, <\/i>VI, 4, 4.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote47 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Portalié, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 109-14; Copleston, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 63-67 where he holds that Augustine’s illumination cannot\
be equated with Thomas’ affirmation of the dependence of the human mind on the Divine Consciousness or “lumen,”\
cf. S. T. 1, 84, 5c; 88, 3 ad 1.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote48 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. <i>ibid., <\/i>84, 6c; grace does not dispense with this dependence, 12, 13c. For Aquinas the soul is the act of the body,\
<i>ibid., <\/i>76, 1, together body and soul form one unique being, III, 62, 1 ad 2. The only instance when the phantasm is\
not operative in contemplation is during an ecstatic vision of the Divinity itself, cf. <i>S.T.<\/i> 1, 12, 11; II-II, 175, 4 & 5;\
180, 5.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote49 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>De Ver. <\/i>12, 12 ad 2; <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 174, 2 ad 4.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote50 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>In II <\/i>Tim. 3, Lect. 3. St. Thomas does not insert Peter Lombard’s qualifying phrase that the holy letters instruct\
one if they are “spiritually understood,” <i>Collectanea in Epist. Pauli, P.L.<\/i> 192, col. 378.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote51 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>S.T.<\/i> I, 1, 10; also <i>Quodlibet VII, <\/i>6, 2; In <i>Gal. <\/i>4, Lect. 7. St. Thomas was principally dependent on St. Augustine\
and Venerable Bede for his definition. For the organic relationship between these four senses cf. W. J. Burghardt,\
S.J., “On Early Christian Exegesis,” <i>T.S.<\/i> 11 (1950), p. 105. P. Grelot, <i>La Bible, Parole de Dieu <\/i>(Paris: Desclée,\
1965), pp. 232-38 overlooks the clear references to “sensus litteralis” as that whereby men signify things by words,\
cf. <i>Quodlibet VII, <\/i>6, 3c. The texts quoted in note 1, p. 233, refer to a different problem, cf. our note 62 below. Nor\
is Grelot’s opinion supported by Aquinas’ biblical commentaries where the literal sense is what the writer intended.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote52 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. note 6 above; also H. de Lubac’s introduction to Origen’s <i>Homélies sur l’Exode, S.C. <\/i>1947, pp. 47-52. “... if\
history truly mediates, it must not retain us, its entire function on the contrary is <i>to pass away. <\/i>Entirely, down to its\
final event, it prepares for something else. The Truth to which it introduces us is no longer of the historical order.”\
<i>ibid.<\/i>, p. 50. The perspective is different in Aquinas for whom the only sense present in all of Scripture is the literal,\
cf. <i>Quodlibet VII, <\/i>6, 2 ad 5. Since this was the meaning intended by the author, if he intended to signify Christ in\
metaphorical language then this signification is its literal meaning, <i>ibid. <\/i>ad 1. He insists that in general the Old Law\
ceremonial precepts have a “causa litteralis” as well as a figurative reason, <i>S.T.<\/i> I-II, 102, 2; <i>In Rom. <\/i>4, Lect. 2. For\
a comparison of Aquinas’ exegesis of these precepts with that of his predecessors, cf. Smalley, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 303-06.\
Where Thomas does not hesitate to identify a spiritual meaning with the literal sense if intended by the author, the\
Augustinians and Origen usually affirm the same truth very differently by denying the passage a literal or historical\
meaning; the human mind can, after all, grasp spiritual realities without corporeal assistance.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote53 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Quodlibet <\/i>VII, 6, 2 ad 5. Both de Lubac, <i>Exgèse médiévale, <\/i>2-2, p. 274, and D. Chenu, O. P., <i>Introduction <\/i>a\
<i>l’étude de s. Thomas d’Aquin <\/i>(Montreal: Etudes médiévales, 1954) p. 218, are of the opinion that the Angelic Doctor\
made his own what is said in the fifth objection of <i>Quodlibet <\/i>VII, 6, 2 concerning the “de necessitate sacrae\
Scripturae” of the four senses. Yet the answer to the objection is in full agreement with its conclusion, when\
interpreting the Bible one does not have to of <i>necessity <\/i>find four senses because they are often not there to begin\
with.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote54 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p> The fact that particular instances in the ceremonial precepts may only have a “figuralis causa” (<i>S.T.<\/i> I-II, 102, 2\
ad 3) does not mean that they only have a spiritual sense; as intended by the author, the figurative value is the literal\
meaning—“causa” cannot be interchanged with “sensus.”<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote55 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>S.T.<\/i> I, 1, 10 ad 3; also I-II, 102, 2 ad <i>1; Quodlibet. <\/i>VII, 6, 2 ad 1. Hugh of St. Victor in his <i>De Scripturis, <\/i>P.L. 175,\
14, and Alexander of Hales in his Summa <i>Theologica, <\/i>tract. intro., 1, 4 ad 2 had already put metaphor and figure\
in the literal or historical sense. On spoken or written words as immediately related to mental conceptions, cf.\
Lonergan, “The Concept of <i>Verbum <\/i>in the Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas,” <i>T.S.<\/i> vol. 7 (1946) pp. 350 ff., and the\
references there given to the Angelic Doctor.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote56 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>None of the patristic quotations Father de Lubac brings forward to contest the novelty of this position, in <i>Exgèse\
médiévale. <\/i>2-2, p. 277 do so. They provide the rudiments but lack the stark clarity of Aquinas’ assertion. The <i>De\
Doct, Christ. <\/i>3, 2 deals with punctuation, and the “planissime dictum” of <i>ibid., <\/i>2, 6 reveals its ambiguity in the\
application made of it in Book 3, 26. No matter how “plain” a statement might be it could still be classed as\
figurative and obscure in virtue of Book 3, 10 and 15.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote57 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Smalley, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 243-45, 281-92; also de Lubac, <i>Histoire et esprit, pp. <\/i>422 ff.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote58 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>S.T.<\/i> I, 1, 10 ad 1. The writings of the Gospel themselves are to dispose the reader for grace, <i>ibid., <\/i>I-II, 106, 1 ad\
1. Note that I, 1, 10 is in the context of theoretical argumentation in theology as a science. This must be differentiated\
from other approaches to Scripture, cf. <i>In I Sent. <\/i>prol., q. 1, art. 5.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote59 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. <i>De Doct. Christ. <\/i>3, 9; on Origen cf. J. Guillet, “Les exégèses d’Alexandrie et &Antioch: conflict ou\
malentendu?” <i>R.S.R. <\/i>Vol. 34 (1947) pp. 288-89. For St. Thomas, cf. <i>De Ver. <\/i>14, 11; <i>S.T.<\/i> II-II, 2, 6-8. He qualifies\
it by saying that the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs only knew of the Christian mysteries in vague\
generalities, I, 57, 5 ad 3; <i>In Eph. <\/i>3, Lect. 1.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote60 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. <i>In Isaiam, <\/i>7, v.14; also In <i>Eph. <\/i>5, Lect. <i>10; In Psalmis, <\/i>prol.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote61 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>De Pot. <\/i>4, 1 where Aquinas puts the brakes on any excesses by his reference to the context—“salva circumstantia\
litterae.” <i>S.T.<\/i> I, 1, 10c; II-II, 173, 4.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote62 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. de Lubac, <i>Exgèse médiévale, <\/i>2-2, pp. 279-85 for a brief account of the debates on whether or not St. Thomas\
really held the multiplicity of the literal sense. Smalley, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 300-01 observes: “The discussion shows either\
that St. Thomas followed St. Augustine, or that he did not make his meaning clear. In his exegesis he generally\
avoids long lists of alternative explanations, such as his predecessors were accustomed to give; and this suggests that\
he preferred only one literal meaning.”<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote63 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Smalley, <i>ibid., <\/i>p. 301; yet she does admit on p. 329 that “The very concentration on Aristotle, which enabled the\
Dominicans to effect a change in exegetical principles, tended to prevent their new principles bearing fruit.”<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote64 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Y. Congar, “Le sens de l’économie salutaire dans la théol. de s. Thomas,” in <i>Festgabe Lortz <\/i>(1957) pp. 91-96.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote65 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>C. Spicq, “Saint Thomas exégète,” <i>D.T.C., <\/i>15-A, col. 695.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote66 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Smalley, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 270-72; Hugh of St. Cher’s <i>Postilla <\/i>or commentaries on the whole Bible were most likely\
a cooperative undertaking.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote67 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>De Comm. et Part. S. Scrip. <\/i>in <i>Opuscula Theologica, <\/i>Vol. I (Rome: Marietti, 1954), pp. 435-39.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote68 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>In loan. <\/i>21, Lect. 6; also <i>In I Tim. <\/i>6, Lect. 1; S.T. 1, 1, 8 ad 2; yet these norms needed interpretation, <i>ibid.<\/i>, II-II,\
1, 9 ad 1; 10 ad 1.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote69 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. de Lubac, <i>Exégèse médiévale, <\/i>2-2, p. 453; the Vander edition of 1703 gives the letter to J. Jonas as <i>Epist. <\/i>435,\
Tom. III-B, p. 458 E. On Erasmus’ respect for Thomas Aquinas cf. de Lubac, <i>ibid.<\/i>, pp. 432-33.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote70 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Spicq, D.T.C., 15-A, col. 710 and his <i>Esquisse dune histoire de l’exégèse latine<\/i>, pp. 165-172.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote71 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>In I Cor. 1, <\/i>Lect. 3; also <i>In Tit. 1, <\/i>Lect. 3. This enthusiasm for the Philosopher did not prevent him from remarking:\
“For no philosopher possessed such great wisdom that by it men could be withdrawn from error” In <i>loan. <\/i>6, Lect.\
5.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote72 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. P. Glorieux, “Essai sur les commentaires scripturaires de S. Thomas et leur chronologie,” <i>R.T.A.M. <\/i>Vol. 17\
(1950) pp. 261-64.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote73 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Congar, <i>la Foi et la théologie <\/i>(Paris: 1962) pp. 242-43; J. R. Sheets, S.J., “The Scriptural Dimension of St.\
Thomas,” <i>A.E.R., <\/i>Vol. 144 (1961) pp. 172-73.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote74 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>P. Mandonnet, O.P., <i>Des Ecrits authentiques de s. Thomas d’Aquin, <\/i>2nd ed. (Fribourg: 1910) pp. 63 and 69 for\
Tolomeo and Gui’s catalogues. The Official Catalogue (<i>ibid., <\/i>p. 31), as well as that of Harley (p. 46) and Gui (p.\
69), list the commentary on the Psalms as <i>reportationes <\/i>of Reginald, but Glorieux, op. cit., p. 250 believes they were\
composed by St. Thomas himself. The fact of these transcriptions should not militate against their acceptance as\
genuine works of Aquinas since A. Dondaine, O.P., has demonstrated that a group of secretaries was responsible\
for copying down St. Thomas’ dictation on “his own writings” and publishing them, cf. <i>Secrétaires de Saint Thomas\
<\/i>(Rome: S. Sabina, 1956).<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote75 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. <i>In Joan. <\/i>1, Lect. 16, n. 4; 11, Lect. 2, n. 2; <i>In Matt. <\/i>2, n. 3.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote76 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>In Joan. <\/i>6, Lect. 1, n. 5; Lect. 4, ns. 5-7.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote77 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. X. Leon-Dufour, S.J., “le Mystère du pain de vie,” <i>R.S.R. <\/i>Vol. 46 (1958) pp. 481-523. For a brief description\
of John’s “twofold meaning” cf. R. Brown, S.S., <i>The Gospel of St. John <\/i>(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1960) pp.\
12-13.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote78 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>In Matt. <\/i>1, n. 5; also <i>In Psalmis, <\/i>prol. Theodore of Mopsuestia did claim that a few passages of the Old Testament\
were literally applicable to Christ; scholars are now in doubt as to whether the propositions condemned at the Second\
Council of Constantinople truly embody Theodore’s Christology. This disparaging reference to Theodore must not\
be taken as an implicit approval of Origen. In <i>S.T.<\/i> I, 51, 1 ad 1 he is mentioned by Thomas as “deceived on many\
issues since he followed the opinions of the ancient philosophers.”<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote79 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Prologue 6 his <i>Comm. on the Psalms, <\/i>this comes from St. Augustine, <i>De Civitate Dei <\/i>17, 8.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote80 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>S.T.<\/i> I-II, 102, 2; cf. note 52 above.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote81 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>John’s historicity, <i>In Joan. <\/i>12, Lect. 1, n. 3; 19, Lect. 3, n. 4; on insignificance of minor divergencies, <i>In Joan. <\/i>18,\
Lect. 4, n. 5. On Matthew’s tendency to recapitulate events, <i>In loan. <\/i>2, Lect. 2, n. 1.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote82 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. <i>In Rom. <\/i>3, Lect. 1 and 2; 5, Lect. 4; <i>In Gal. <\/i>4, Lect. 4; <i>In Eph. 1, <\/i>Lect. 2; <i>In I Tim. <\/i>2, Lect. 1; on John\
Chrysostom, <i>In loan. <\/i>6, Lect. 3, n. 8.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote83 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Saint Paul, Epitre aux Romains <\/i>(Paris, 1916) p. ix.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote84 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Augustine, <i>De Gen. ad Litt. <\/i>P.L. 34, col. 262; Richard of St. Victor, P.L. 196, col. 265; on St. Matthew, <i>In Matt.\
<\/i>1, n. 2; on St. John’s use of our Lord’s words, <i>In Joan. <\/i>3, Lect. 1, n. 2 and Spicq’s comment, <i>D.T.C., <\/i>15-A, col. 731.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote85 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Smalley, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 197-200. On God’s condescension to man in his revelation, cf. <i>S.T.<\/i> I-II, 98, 3 ad 2; 1, 68,\
3; 67, 4.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote86 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>E.g., <i>In Rom. 8, <\/i>Lect. 1; <i>In Eph. <\/i>5, Lect. 3 and 5; <i>In loan. <\/i>1,<i> <\/i>Lect. 1, n. 3; Lect. 3, n. 1.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote87 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Spicq, <i>D.T.C., <\/i>15-A, col. 716.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote88 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Bernard Gui’s <i>Legenda, S. Thomae, <\/i>c. 16. Translated by K. Foster, O.P., in his <i>The Life <\/i>of <i>Saint Thomas Aquinas\
<\/i>(Baltimore: Helicon, 1959) pp. 38-39; also p. 57 and notes.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote89 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Chenu, <i>Introduction<\/i>, p. 199; also Sheets, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 154-57.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote90 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Mandonnet, “Chronologie des écrits scripturaires de s. Thomas d’Aquin,” <i>Rev. Thomiste, <\/i>Vol. 33 (1928) pp. 222-45; M. Grabmann, <i>Die Werke des H1. Thomas von Aquin <\/i>(Munster: 1949) pp. 269-71; Glorieux, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 254-258.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote91 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Prologus <\/i>to his lectures on St. Paul.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote92 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Glorieux, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, p. 257; Grabmann, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 269-70.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote93 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>P. Synave, O.P., “les Commentaires scripturaires de s. Thomas d’Aquin,” <i>Vie Spirituelle<\/i>, Vol. 43 (1923) pp. 464-.66.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote94 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>On the difficulties involved in establishing how many lectures Aquinas gave during a week, cf. Glorieux, <i>op. cit.<\/i>,\
pp. 262-64. Most probably the order followed was that of the Vulgate; the prologue to the Pauline corpus suggests\
this order except that Hebrews is placed first. Yet in the prologue to his lectures on Hebrews he places it last.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote95 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The “ordo doctrinae vel disciplinae” is the synthetic movement in teaching which begins with the fundamental\
concepts of the subject to be taught and proceeds to show bow they are interrelated with all of the subject’s elements.\
This presupposes the analytic movement of the “via inventionis” which gradually discovers the various elements in\
the subject. Cf. Chenu, <i>Introduction, <\/i>pp. 258 ff.; Lonergan, <i>Divinarum, Personarum, Conceptio Analogica, <\/i>(Rome:\
Gregorianum 1957) pp. 20-28.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote96 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas took the opinion on the origin of Hebrews from the <i>Glossa Ordinaria, <\/i>P.L. 114, col. 643, or more\
likely from the Lombard’s <i>Magna Glossatura, <\/i>P.L. 192, col. 399. It was Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite and\
Jerome whom he invokes as his authorities in this matter.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote97 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Prologus <\/i>to the Pauline Corpus just before his commentary on Romans.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote98 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Cf. Chenu, <i>Introduction, <\/i>p.<i> <\/i>269; also Sheets, <i>op. cit.<\/i>, pp. 158-70 where he develops the scriptural dimension in St.\
Thomas’ thought on grace.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote99 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>From an address to the Faculty and Students of the Roman Athenaeum Angelicum. on January 14, 1958; an English\
translation in <i>The Pope Speaks, <\/i>Vol. 5, no. 1 (Summer 1958) pp. 91-95—quotation from p. 93. Not least among the\
benefits is a keener appreciation of the historical context of St. Thomas’ work.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote100 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Peter Comestor, Peter Cantor and Stephen Langton, all Masters of the Sacred Page in Paris during the twelfth\
century, are usually referred to as constituting the biblical-moral school of exegesis. In their commentaries they\
would frequently refer to local customs, etc. They would also stress the moral or tropological sense of Scripture;\
especially Langton who was interested in ecclesiastical reform. Cf. Smalley, op. <i>cit.<\/i>, pp. 240-45.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote101 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Compare with A. Wikenhauser, <i>New Testament Introduction <\/i>(N.Y.: Herder & Herder, 1958), pp. 422-23; and P.\
Benoit, <i>l’Epitre aux Ephésians <\/i>(Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1949) pp. 79-80.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote102 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Each verse is fitted, willy-nilly, into the overall scheme of the letter; thus a complete diagram of the divisions given\
by R. Cai, O.P., in his edition of St. Thomas’ commentaries on (Rome: Marietti, 1953) runs from page 507 to 514.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote103 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Quoted by D. Chenu in his is <i>Theology a Science? <\/i>(New York: Hawthorn, 1959), p. 47. Neither the French\
original nor the English translation gives the reference and I have not been able to locate it.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote104 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Parmae Editio, <\/i>t. XIII, A.D. 1862, Typis P. Fisccadori. The editor of this edition was Father Giovanni M. Allodi\
who, except for the <i>Summa Theologica, <\/i>simply reprinted the Piana text, modifying its spelling and expanding its\
frequent abbreviations. The Parma could thus be termed a “corrected reprint” of the Piana.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote105 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>s. <i>Thomae Aquinatis Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura, <\/i>8th ed. (Rome: Marietti, 1953) 2 vols. Father Cai offers\
a corrected reprint of the <i>Editio Piana <\/i>of 1570, taking into account the <i>Editio Antuerpiense <\/i>of 1592. In the notes\
this will be referred to as the Piana-Cai edition.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
var WPFootnote106 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Contra Errores Graecorum, <\/i>proem, no. 1030 in <i>Opuscula Theologica<\/i>, Vol. 1 (Rome: Marietti, 1954) pp. 315-16.<\/p>\
<\/span>'
function WPShow(WPid, WPtext)
{
if(bInlineFloats)
eval("document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'");
else
{
if(floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed)
floatwnd = window.open("", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1");
floatwnd.document.open("text/html", "replace");
floatwnd.document.write("<html><head>\r\n");
floatwnd.document.write("<style> p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } <\/style>\r\n");
floatwnd.document.write("<\/head><body>\r\n");
floatwnd.document.write(WPtext);
floatwnd.document.write('<br><a href="javascript: self.close()">Close<\/a>');
floatwnd.document.write("<\/body><\/html>");
floatwnd.document.close();
floatwnd.focus();
}
}
function WPHide(WPid)
{
if(bInlineFloats)
eval("document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'hidden'");
}
</script>
<style>
span.WPFloatStyle
{
visibility: hidden;
position: absolute;
left: 10px;
right: 10px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 225);
border-width: 1px;
border-style: solid;
border-color: black;
margin-top: 25px;
padding: 6px;
line-height: normal
}
table
{
border-collapse: collapse;
border-spacing: 0pt;
border-color: black;
empty-cells: show;
font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;
font-size: 12pt;
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal
}
td
{
border-color: black
}
td.table1column1
{
border: 0.0133333in solid
}
td.table1column2
{
border: 0.0133333in solid
}
td.table1column3
{
border: 0.0133333in solid
}
</style>
<body style="text-align:justify;font-family:Arial">
<blockquote>
<center>
<h1>COMMENTARY on SAINT PAUL’S<br>
EPISTLE to the EPHESIANS</h1>
<h2>by<br>
St. Thomas Aquinas</h2>
<h3>Translation and Introduction by<br>
Matthew L. Lamb, O.C.S.O.<br>
<br>
(Albany, N.Y.: Magi Books, 1966)<br>
<br>
Html edition by Joseph Kenny, O.P.</h3>
</center>
<hr>
<p align="center"><b>CONTENTS</b>
<table align="center" width="90%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="30%">
<p><a href="SSEph.htm#0">INTRODUCTION by Matthew Lamb</a>
<p><a href="Eph1.htm#0">PROLOGUE</a>
<p>CHAPTER 1
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="Eph1.htm#1">1-1: Eph 1:1-6a</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph1.htm#2">1-2: Eph 1:6b-7</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph1.htm#3">1-3: Eph 1:8-10</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph1.htm#4">1-4: Eph 1:11-12</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph1.htm#5">1-5: Eph 1:13-14</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph1.htm#6">1-6: Eph 1:15-19a</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph1.htm#7">1-7: Eph 1:19b-21</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph1.htm#8">1-8: Eph 1:22-23</a>
</dl>
<p>CHAPTER 2
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="Eph2.htm#1">2-1: Eph 2:1-3</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph2.htm#2">2-2: Eph 2:4-7</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph2.htm#3">2-3: Eph 2:8-10</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph2.htm#4">2-4: Eph 2:11-13</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph2.htm#5">2-5: Eph 2:14-18</a>
</dl>
<td valign="top">
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="Eph2.htm#6">2-6: Eph 2:19-22</a>
</dl>
<p>CHAPTER 3
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="Eph3.htm#1">3-1: Eph 3:1-6</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph3.htm#2">3-2: Eph 3:7-9</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph3.htm#3">3-3: Eph 3:10-12</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph3.htm#4">3-4: Eph 3:13-17</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph3.htm#5">3-5: Eph 3:18-21</a>
</dl>
<p>CHAPTER 4
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="Eph4.htm#1">4-1: Eph 4:1-4</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph4.htm#2">4-2: Eph 4:5-6</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph4.htm#3">4-3: Eph 4:7-10</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph4.htm#4">4-4: Eph 4:11-13</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph4.htm#5">4-5: Eph 4:14-16</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph4.htm#6">4-6: Eph 4:17-19</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph4.htm#7">4-7: Eph 4:20-24</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph4.htm#8">4-8: Eph 4:25-27</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph4.htm#9">4-9: Eph 4:28-29</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph4.htm#10">4-10: Eph 4:30-32</a>
</dl>
<td valign="top">
<p>CHAPTER 5
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="Eph5.htm#1">5-1: Eph 5:1-2</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph5.htm#2">5-2: Eph 5:3-4</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph5.htm#3">5-3: Eph 5:5-7</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph5.htm#4">5-4: Eph 5:8-11</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph5.htm#5">5-5: Eph 5:12-14</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph5.htm#6">5-6: Eph 6:15-17</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph5.htm#7">5-7: Eph 6:18-21</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph5.htm#8">5-8: Eph 6:22-28a</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph5.htm#9">5-9: Eph 6:28b-30</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph5.htm#10">5-10: Eph 6:31-33</a>
</dl>
<p>CHAPTER 6
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="Eph6.htm#1">6-1: Eph 6:1-4</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph6.htm#2">6-2: Eph 6:5-9</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph6.htm#3">6-3: Eph 6:10-12</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph6.htm#4">6-4: Eph 6:13-17</a>
<dd>
<a href="Eph6.htm#5">6-5: Eph 6:18-24</a>
</dl>
</table>
<hr>
<a name="0" id="0">
<p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-weight: bold">INTRODUCTION</span><br>
<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Saint Thomas Aquinas is a paradox. He was a mystic and a rigorously scientific theologian. His attachment to Judaeo-Christianity was strong enough for him to appreciate and appropriate pagan truths. An Aristotelian, he never ceased utilizing Platonic insights. In him a deep reverence for the Church Fathers was coupled with an astonishing zest for novelty.</a>
<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><a name="0" id="0">All of these cross-currents were to show up in his biblical exegesis. He was neither an Alexandrian nor an Antiochene, perhaps because he was both. No one has successfully categorized his approach to the Bible. Advocates of allegory claim him as their own and defenders of strictly literal interpretation praise him for asserting the sufficiency of the letter. A noted Oxford historian admires the revolutionary quality of his exegetical principles and a prominent Jesuit theologian finds them simply traditional.</a> <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote1',%20WPFootnote1%20)"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
if(bInlineFloats)
{
document.write('<span id="WPFootnote1" class="WPFloatStyle">');
document.write(WPFootnote1);
document.write('<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote1\')">Close<\/a>');
document.write('<\/span>');
}
</script> Is St. Thomas’ genius really so elusive? Or was he being eclectic at the expense of consistency?
<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Aquinas effected a real break-through towards system in the domains of Christian philosophy and theology. But what did he do in the area of exegesis? During the centuries when his disciples were eagerly commenting on his Summa and his other systematic works, his commentaries on Scripture gradually became enveloped in thick layers of dust. The dust has been vigorously removed during the past few decades, but not all of it has settled. Nor does the present obscurity on just how systematic theology is related to Scripture clarify the situation.
<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">More than an Introduction would be necessary to come anywhere near an adequate treatment of the complex problems involved.
<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Nevertheless, a basic methodological distinction may go a long way in establishing St. Thomas’ position in the history of Christian exegesis. That distinction is between a biblical exegete’s presuppositions and his techniques. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote2',%20WPFootnote2%20)"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
if(bInlineFloats)
{
document.write('<span id="WPFootnote2" class="WPFloatStyle">');
document.write(WPFootnote2);
document.write('<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote2\')">Close<\/a>');
document.write('<\/span>');
}
</script> Both are operative in his exegesis, but in very different ways. Techniques are easy to identify; they pertain to the entire array of hermeneutical methods and sciences aimed at disclosing the human author’s intended meaning. Their range embraces everything from ancient history and comparative religion down to philology and lexicography. Exegetical presuppositions are harder to describe since they lie so close to the origins of meaning and expression in man, thus requiring greater self-understanding. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote3',%20WPFootnote3%20)"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
if(bInlineFloats)
{
document.write('<span id="WPFootnote3" class="WPFloatStyle">');
document.write(WPFootnote3);
document.write('<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote3\')">Close<\/a>');
document.write('<\/span>');
}
</script> In the context of biblical exegesis, presuppositions have to do with what it means for the Bible to be both the Word of God and the words of men. This twofold meaning of the Bible corresponds to two fundamental presuppositions. Correlative to the Scriptures as the Word of God there is the faith of the exegete. Because the Word is mediated by men the exegete’s philosophical horizon is also a determining factor in his interpretations.
<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">In the following pages I shall attempt to substantiate the thesis that, St. Thomas’ specific contributions to biblical exegesis were in the realm of the last mentioned presupposition, while on the level of techniques he adhered closely to the conventions of his day. His lectures on Ephesians can then be read within a general framework of his approach to the Bible.
<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">ST. THOMAS AND EXEGETICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS</span>
<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">To understand the Bible more is needed than a good dose of hermeneutical techniques. They are an indispensable aid in determining the human author’s intended meaning. But this meaning is what no human being could affirm as true on his own power. To understand the Scriptures as its authors meant them to be understood is to accept what they proclaim: the history of salvation culminating in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as revealing the ultimate meaning of human existence—a meaning only God could give it. A challenge to the religious conversion of faith is issued which no interpreter can explain away. Here St. Thomas is one with the entire Patristic tradition. Like an Irenaeus, an Origen, or an Augustine, Thomas had to respond to God’s Word with an unreserved faith before he could even hope to understand something of that Word’s meaning, and what it revealed about the meaning of his own existence.
<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">More than faith is presupposed, however, to scriptural exegesis. Just as revelation is mediated by men, so the faith that responds to revelation does not replace the mind of the believer. Because God’s Word is mediated by men a tradition is necessary to proclaim the Word and explain it to endlessly varying audiences down the ages. Without this continual re-expression, the original inspired expression would be of little help. What good would come of printing the Greek New Testament on the front page of the <i>New York Times</i> ? Because faith does not replace the human mind, the operations and drives of human understanding are implicated in both the original expression and the tradition which re-expresses and interprets it. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote4',%20WPFootnote4%20)"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
if(bInlineFloats)
{
document.write('<span id="WPFootnote4" class="WPFloatStyle">');
document.write(WPFootnote4);
document.write('<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote4\')">Close<\/a>');
document.write('<\/span>');
}
</script>
<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">The exegete’s task within the tradition, which he enters through faith, is to question the revealed message, not in doubt but in an effort to better understand it, and so contribute to its authentic transmission. What questions he asks, and how he answers them, will largely be determined by his philosophical horizon. Hence the presence of what contemporary German exegetes speak of as a <i>Begrifflichkeit</i>, the set of fundamental concepts employed by an interpreter in his questioning of God’s Word. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote5',%20WPFootnote5%20)"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
if(bInlineFloats)
{
document.write('<span id="WPFootnote5" class="WPFloatStyle">');
document.write(WPFootnote5);
document.write('<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote5\')">Close<\/a>');
document.write('<\/span>');
}
</script>
<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.125in">Here is where St. Thomas marked a notable transition in regard to the Fathers. Before him biblical exegesis in the West had relied mostly on concepts borrowed from a Middle or Neoplatonism. In the great Origenist and Augustinian schools the conceptual orientation was to exemplary and final causality. The visible world and human history were symbols of spiritual realities known through illumination. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote6',%20WPFootnote6%20)"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
if(bInlineFloats)
{
document.write('<span id="WPFootnote6" class="WPFloatStyle">');
document.write(WPFootnote6);
document.write('<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote6\')">Close<\/a>');