Pro'ln Rosz;tx
Between Dialectics and Metaphor:Dynamics of the Exegetical Practice
of Thomas Aquinas
Estratto da,ANGELICUM 90 Q01,3),pp. 507-534
ANGELICUM
PE'}łl C)f llct jN,t TRIlvf ESTRE PONTI tll C] A E STU D1o RUM U NIVERSITAT1-c
A SANCTO THON{A AQUINATE,IN URBB
Largo Angelicu,m, 1 - 00184 Roma
ANGELICUM 90 (2013) 507-534 507
Between Dialectics and MetaPhor:Dynamics of the Exegetical Practice of Thomas Aquinas
PtorR RoszłrNICoLAUs CoPERNICUS UNIVERSITY, TontŃ
Interest in the biblical commentaries of Thomas Aquinas is undergoing
an unquestionable revival and is helping to restore the importance of
thought of this mędieval theologian' who expressed his views in biblical
exegesis: through the biblical quotes that he chose and through the
language that he used in his interpretations. Since the days of c. spicql,
the focus of researchers has been mainly on the methods and contents of
the commentaries, and it has helped to discover the hermeneutical tools
that St. Thomas used in his biblical exegesis, which was the principal
subject of his university lectures. That is why the questions of language
and style used in the exegesis remained slightly in the background'
although worth mentioning here is the pioneering three-volume
publication by Olivier-Thomas Venard O.P., now associated with Ecole
biblique et archćologique franęaise rn Jerusalem2. Undoubtedly, one has
to be awarę of the fact that almost all biblical commentaries of St.
Thomas are reportationes, which means they were re-written by other
editors. Bearing in mind this crucial aspect, this article is not a historical
- This article uses information gathered through grant "The Bible and Metaphysics. The
Hęrmeneutics of the Mędieval Commentarięs of Thomas Aquinas on Corpus Paulinum"
funded from ręsourcęs of the National Scięnce Centre, allotted following the dęcision
no. DEC- 20I2l04l]|l{lHSI 100'/ 24.
' C. SlICq, Esquisse d'une histoire de l'exćgżse latine ąu moyen age, Librairie
Philosophique, Paris, J. Vrin, 1944.
' o.-Th-. VgNer'o, Thomas d'Aquin, poćte thćologien, volr. |'. Literature et thćologie,
une saison en enfer, Gendvę-Paris, Ad Solem, 2OO3; Thomas d'Aquin, poćte thćologien,
vo|'.2.. La langue de l'ineffable: essai sur le fondement thćologique de lą mćtaphysique,
Gendve-Paris, Ad Solem, ZOOł;Thomas d'Aquin, pożte thćologien, vol. 3'. Pagina
sacra: de l'Ecriture sainte d l'ćcriture thćologique, Gendve-Paris, Ad Solęm, 2005'
PlorR Roszłr
analysis but a theological reading in which the focus is on the
characteristic features of the commentaries' style.
Therefore, this article is an attempt to look closer at the
commentaries and pose the following questions: How does Thomas lead
his reader through the meandering of biblical texts? What tasks does he
sęt for exegetical language that, thanks to its brevity, stands out from not
only patristic commentaries, but also many contemporary ways of
carrying out biblical interpretation? Is it possible to find in it ęlements
that dominate our present-day exegesis, which is predominantly focused
on the extensive critical apparatus characteristic of the critical-historical
method?
When reading biblical commentaries of Thomas Aquinas we are
dealing with an example of medieval exegesis, which can harmoniously
combine the dialectical requirement of precision and the opęnness
towards the metaphorical transmission of the messag"'. This type of
exegesis remains sensitive to metaphorical language and its literary depth
without compromising the accuracy of meaning: it is open towards words
and their power, their genealogy and range of meaning. It is a symbiosis
of many factors that uncovers the multidimęnsionality of interpretation
expressed in expositiones - a multidimensionality that is basęd on literal
sense but opens the eyes of believęrs to a deep spiritual Sense: allegorical,
moral and anagogical. Thomas does not stop at the level of word, but
sees the convenientla of poetic and theological languageo. It was a sign of
a breakthrough that took place in the twelfth century and continued
throughout the thirteenth century in the field of biblical exegesis, leading
3 G. BanzłGHt, "Quando un teologo pensa alla poesia. Logica e metafisica delleimmagini'', in'. Sącra Doctrina 4 (2007),43-7'/ .
4 A. MłcINTYRE, Poetly ąs Politicąl Philosophy: Notes on Burke and Yeats, w:
Sellected Essays, vol. 2, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006, 161; D'MCINERNY, "Poętic Knowledge and Cultural Renewal'', tn'. Logos 4 (2012), |1-35.
BETwEEN DIALECTICS AND MprłpHon.. .
to the emergence of a new kind of biblical commentarys. An expandedstructure, which combinęs philosophical issues with sublime theologicalspeculation, was becoming an identifying feature of theologians, makingthe expositio, despite thę sheer magnitude of its forms of expression, a
logical and well-organised whole6. Because of obvious limitations, thisarlicle mentions only some of the features of the style used by St.
Thomas Aquinas, deeply linked to his exegetical method. The languageand the method go together, one does not constrain the other, but theyopen up and harmoniously combine ęach other's hermeneuticalperspectives.
1, Modus Loquendi. The Language of Scripture
In the Prooemium of the commentary on the Psalms, reminiscent of the
structure of Aristotelian prologues in which a few words have to bę saidabout the matter, the author and modus seu forma. Aquinas brieflycomments on various kinds of means of expression used in the Bible.Different language and style used in the Bible make Thomas point out
that narrative style (naruativus) is predominant in the historical books ofthe Bible; in the books of the prophets, the Law and the books attributedto King Solomon we can notice admonishing (admonitorius),
encouraging (exhortatorius) and imperative Qtraeceptivus) stylerespectively; the Book of Job and the Epistles of St. paul containelęments of dispute (disputativzs), while in the Book of Psalms begging(deprecativus) and praising (laudativus) style is predominantT. The
5 See T. Gał,uszre' Bądania nad Bibliq w XIII wieku. Super Psalmum XXIII' Kraków,Homini, 2005,12.u G. DaHeN, L'exegćse chretienne de lą Bibte en occident mćdićval XIIe- -XIVe siŻcle.Paris, 1999,308.' In Ps., Prooemium. As for the lack of the critical text (Super Psalmos and commentaryto Corpus Paulinum) by Comissio Leonina, all the subsequent citations from the biblicalcommęntaries of Thomas Aquinas have beęn derivęd from the editions availablę inCorpus Thomisticum ed. by E. ALARCoN.
509
510 PIorn Roszłx
abundance of forms, however, refers to something more than just
characteristic features of language and its expressiveness: it poses a
question about the deepest sense and meaning of language for Christian
theology.
Noteworthy is also the fact that Thomas Aquinas startęd this kind
of deliberation at the very beginning of his exegetical work. This was due
to his awareness about the role of language, which creates community
and is not a mere vęhicle of sense. Language expresses a common world
-after all, faith is always "dressed" in a specific language. His concern
about language -visible especially in the liturgical context, which
Aquinas was very familiar with- translates into a new starting point for
hermeneutics: thę particularity of forms of expression cannot destroy the
unity of discursive understanding and a certain universality of meanings
that is required for each community, and for Thomas, as it was
previously for Augustine, the Church as an exegetical environment is a
kind of civitas,in which a common language is highly significant8. While
making the distinctions mentioned above, Thomas is trying to avoid the
reductionist, utilitarian understanding of language as a simple
communication technique, but sees it in its broader sęnse' as immersed in
a common world of meaningsn. Attd that is possibly the reason why he
talks about the necessity of taking into account in exegesis consuetudo
loquendilj, which refers to both the rules of philosophical thinking and a
specifi c ecclesiological background.
8 See A. RAM6S, La Ciudąd de Dios en santo Tomós de Aquino. Estudio de eclesiologiatomista, Mar de Plata, Fasta, 2008.9 Seę U.M. LeNc, The Voice of the Church at Prayer' Reflections on Liturgy andLanguage, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2012 (especially the chapter "Saint Thomas
Aquinas on Liturgy and Language", in which the author emphasizes the importance ofunderstanding the Eucharist as imago repr(lesentcttiva of thę Passion of Chrisl whichdirectly affęcts understanding of the liturgical language).
'o In II Cor., cap. 4,Iect. 5.
BprwBBtt DIłIECTICS AND MBrapHoą.. 5ll
The fundamental prerequisite for the understanding of exegętical
language of Thomas Aquinas is the priority of the literal sense over other
meanings of text identified by him. Literality signifies here such a
hermenęutical procedure, which goes deeper into a text in order to ęxtract
its res, i.e. what God wanted to communicate as auctor principalis. It
does not stop at the 'surface' of the text, but from the letter it leads to the
meaning (sententia). Hence his commentaries often mention the
expression modus loquendi est, whtch draws the reader's attention to
certain figures of speech (e.g. pars pro toto -soul is representative of awhole human being, etc.11), often used by divinely-inspired authors and
charactęristic for their culture and Ianguagel2, and to conditionings of the
human way of expression (in which 'sadness' or 'joy' have
significance;13. This Thomas the one who is sensitive to the poetics oflanguage - is worth getting to know to, because in this attention to detail
we can see his true face, as it was brought to the light by the previously-
mentioned publication by Olivier-Thomas Venard, O.P.14.
Thomas is a Biblical scholar, who pays attention to the method
-modus loquendi- used by inspired authors and who at the same time
sets specific rules of interpretation. A perfect example of that can be
" h II Sent., d. 18 q.2 a.7 ad 1: "Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod locutio illa estsynecdochica; ponitur enim pars principalis, scilicet anima, pro toto homine; et hicmodus loquendi consuetus est in sacra Scriptura, et apud philosophos; unde philosophusdicit 9 Ethic. quod totus homo dicitur intellectus, per modum quo etiam tota civitasdicitur ręctor civitatis''.12 SeePs., 8,n.4;27,n.1;37,n.2;50,n. l; See also In lob,cap.3: "perconsequens diemnativitatis ęt noctem conceptionis, secundum illum loquendi modum quo ex his quae intempore aguntur aliquid ascribitur tempori bonum vel malum".t3 It is not surprising that Thomas draws attention to such circumstances andconditionings of language in thę commentary on Psalms, which is full of expressivenesstypical of figurative language. See źe Ps., 4, n.l: ex diversis alfectibus mutat homoloquendi modum. A similar situation takes place, e.g. in the commentary on the Book ofIob, where Aquinas notes that Job's friends do not understand what he means becausęthey do not interpret his words in thę same sense as Job.to O.-T. VENARD, Litterature et theologie. (Jne saison en enfer. t.I: Thomas d'AquinPoete Thćologien, Gendve, 2003.
51Ż PIoTR RoSZAK
found in a commentary on one of the psalm verses -"There is no speech
nor language, where their voice is not heard'(Ps 19(18),4)- where
Aquinas draws attention to three main methods of this 'language',
characteristic especially for St. Paul as a par excellence advocate of
God's Word: St. Thomas refers to the Apostle of Nations in order to
prove that the preaching of the truth of the Gospel can happen in many
ways (as demonstrated by a quote from 1 Cor. 14,18: "I thank God that Ispeak in tongues more than all of you").
The first modus loquendi is described by Thomas as humble
(humilis) and as one that should be characteristic for the people who
convey wisdom to others; the second one, coloratus, rs most often used
by those who want to convince othęrs in a discussion or dispute, because
it is already in some way 'embellished', depending on the purpose of the
utterance; the third one is ornatLłS, characteristic for people who are
capable of enjoying beautyls. This set of three methods reflects a
reference to the distinction made by the classical rhetorical practice of
docere, delectare, deflectare, dating back to Cicero (often quoted by
Thomas),16 and passed down and reinforced by St. Augustine tn De
doctrina christiana.
It has to be said that each of the described męthods is present in
Thomas's biblical commentaries because his exegesis uses three methods
and objectives: teaching, discussing and contemplating. His exegesis is
not a simple grammatical analysis, but is ęvaluativę and integral, and it
unites, thanks to the theory of meanings, the transfer of sense also into
the space of moral action. Exegesis is supposed to'carry'the Word into
'' In Ps., 78, n.2: "Est autęm triplex modus loquendi: unus humilis' quęm communitęrloquimur; alius, quando ęst coloratus; et alius, quando est ornatus tantum. Primusconvenit docenti. Secundus persuadenti. Tertius delectanti".tu Cf. S. Th., iII, q. 83, where there appears an allusion to Cicero and to "Ad erennium"(attributed to Cicęro in the Middlę Ages). See also P. CANoLER, "Liturgically TrainędMemory: A Reading of Summa Theologiae III.83'', in'. Modern Theologł 3 (2004),423-55.
BETWEEN DIALECTICS AND MsrłpHon...
the existential coordinates of a Christian: it is clearly visible in Thomas's
commentaries on the Psalms, which were explained to young Dominicanfriars from Naples in the last stage of Thomas's life, and which have
clear moral connotations (in the background it is clear to see that Thomas
took into consideration the social context of his audience, the Sitz imLeben of the people, who by reading the psalms wanted to get ready for
country preaching, typically performed by Dominican priestslt;. It is in a
similar spirit -of God's answer penetrating into the life of man toquestions that consume him- that Aquinas refers to the method ofexpression, this time of God himself, in his commentary on the Book ofJob: in there, modus respondendi signifies not only God's literal speaking
in the midst of thunder, but also the inner awakening of divine
inspiration, which language is not able to fully 'carry' and describę. It is
constantly exposed to obumbratio of sensual forms, but despite this
'obscuring' the will of Lord is truly expressedls.
It is important to emphasize the theological and rhetorical
sensitivity of the Doctor Angelicus to thę wealth of forms of expression
of the divinely revealed truth, which refers to the fundamental relativityof word that is usually uttered to "someone", helps form bonds between
people and is open to transmission of truthle. This is what the application
'' P. Roszłr, Tomós de Aquino como comentador de los Salmos, in: P' Roszer (ed.),Comentario de santo Tomós de Aquino ąl sąlmo 50(5 1). Trąducción y estudios,Cuadernos de Anuario Filosófico. Serie Univęrsitaria, Pamplona, Universidad deNavarra, 2011,35-49.'8 In lob, cap. 38: "Modum autem respondęndi ostendit subdens de turbine, quodquidem potest et ad litteram intelligi ut dicatur formatam esse vocęm Dei miraculosę inaere cum quadam aęris turbatione, [...] vel potest intelligi ut sit rrletaphorice dictum, uthaec responsio domini sit inspiratio intęrior divinitus facta ipsi lob, [.'']' tum etiampropter turbinis obscuritatem, quia scilicet divinam inspirationem in hac vita nonpossumus clare percipere sed cum quadam obumbratione sensibilium similitudinum".'n Bęca,'se of limitations in this article, I merely signal the subject of 'the theology ofword' as the appropriate context to carry out a specific kind of exegesis. Crucial heręare the reflections on the broadly understood sęmantics of Thomas Aquinas - seę L.SruRrpsE Thomas von Aquin und die Mantik, in: Mantik, Schicksal und Freiheit imMittelalter, KÓln, ęd' L' Sturlese, BÓhlau, 2011,97-I08.
513
5IĄ Plorrł Roszłr
of the expression modus loquendi seems to reveal in the first place in
Thomas's biblical commentaries. It is about aparticular responsibility for
word whose ultimate limit is understanding; the biblical sensus is based
on words and their meaning, and it requires a careful and responsible use.
Modus locluendi must be appropriate and must not contribute towards
purposeful misleading or misunderstanding. It is in this spirit that
Thomas undęrstands a fragment from the Book of Jeremiah 23,23-32,
which contains Yahweh's criticism directed against prophets 'abusing'
words to achieve their goals, and it is an attitude that Aquinas
summarises as irrisio verborum. Here, the method of speaking means
faithfulness in conveying what was heard from God, and not
ęmbellishing or completing it20.
The expression modus loquendi is also used by Aquinas to
highlight the intensity of metaphorical language that he discovers in a
text, and to draw attention to thę importance of proper reading of the
sense of metaphors2l. Literal sense does not mean that Thomas interprets
metaphors literally: "arm of God" (brachium Dei) does not mean that
God has an arm as humans do, but signifies God's power that works
effectively for peoples' benefit. Metaphor is supposed to lead towards the
reading of the literal sense, it is in a sense at its service. That is why
Thomas classifies it this way sub sensu litterali includitur parabolicus
seu metaphoricusz2. A similar situation takes place with similes, which
are used very often in the psalms: when explaining one of them, Thomas
comes across thę versę "My guilt has overwhelmed me like a burden too
heały to bear" (Ps. 37,5) and he states: "It is a certain way of speaking.
Guilt signifies here the multitude of sins: just like a man drowns in water,
" In ler., cap. XXIII, lęct. 9.
'' E. RvorN, "Aquinas on thę metaphorica|Heythrop Journal3 (2011), 409419." In GaL., cap. IV, lęct.'7 .
expression of theological truth", in: The
BprwEpN DIłlBcrlcs łNo MBTAPHoR
that is how sins can drown a man"23. In this case, Thomas merelyexplains the comparison, and even poetically broadens the perspective
and opens up interesting possibilities for deepening its meaning;
however, an incorrectly-understood way of speaking can lead to a wronginterpretation -for example, when the Gospels mention that the son ofGod did not know about the day of the Final Judgement. Also here,
according to Aquinas, the way of speaking characteristic for the biblicallanguage is the deciding factor: admitting to not knowing something
does not mean not realising what is to come. As an example Aquinasuses a sentence from the Book of Genesis 22,12 uttęred by angel(Yahweh) to Abraham during his trial on Mount Moriah: Now I know
that you.feąr Goła .One of the very special cases of use of modus loquendi is
allegory, which Thomas defines in a very simple way: one thing is said,
and another is understood (aliquid dicitur et aliud intelligitur)t5. Here,
we touch upon one of the most important questions regarding the
language of Thomas's biblical commentaries, which adapts to the
characteristic for the Holy Bible way in which the truth is communicated.
He explains it in the commentary on the Letter to the Galatians,
indicating that the reading of biblical sense does not end with vox, but
that God 'speaks' also through res, which is described through word or
voice. This dual access to the truth conditions the language used by St.
Thomas: he is aware that God speaks -paradoxically- through what he
'expresses' in things, situations and actions. Aquinas does not live in
'3 In Ps. 37, n'.2.'. "Dicit ergo quantum ad primum, quoniam iniquitates meae Supęrglessaesunt caput meum. Modus loquendi est. Per iniquitates signatur multitudo pęccatorum:quia sicut aqua hominem obruit, ita peccata submergunt hominem." In Matt., cap. XXIV, n.3: Augustinus et Hieronymus dicunt quod consuetus modusloquendi ęst dicere nęscire aliquid, quando non facit illud scire; sicut dicitur Gen. XXII,v. 12: nunc cognovi quod timeas Deum".'' As dęmonstratęd in extensive research, exegetes could not interpret allegories the waythey thought was best and many hermeneutical tools, such as e.g. distinctions, wereavailable to assist correct interpretation.
5i5
ProrR RoszAKs16
'panphilologism', i.e. he does not agree that understanding the structure
of word is enough to understand the meaning of text. He is aware that he
has to step out of 'the literality of the word' because he is not its mere
gatherer and because, using his own, more modern words, the word
opens up in front of him the space of meaning.tu. This is why he is
willing to invite Aristotle and other auctoritates to the exploration of
these meanings.
It is perfectly visible in the case of irony and thosę semantic
operations which determine its performance. Irony, as St. Thomas
explains, is
una de locutionibus figurativis, in quibus veritas non attenditur
secundum sensum quem verba faciunt, sed secundum id quod loquens
exprimere intendit per simile, vel contrarium, vel quocumque alio
modozt.
Linguistic analyses cannot do without a careful observation of the
intęntion of the speaker, i.e. what he wants to 'squeeze'' to use Thomas's
expression, out of the reader28. Whil" in the case of metaphor we have to
find similarity, in irony we have to pay attention to the opposite meaning,
which hides under a \ayer of words. A similar situation happens with
synonyms (nomina synonyma), to which L. Martinelli drew attentionŻ9years ago
Ż6 L Gąl., cap. IV, Ięct. J: "Est ęnim duplex significatio. Una ęst per voces; alia est per
res quas vocós significant' Et hoc specialiter ęst in sacra Scriptura et non in aliis; cum
enim ęius auctor sit Deus, in cuius potestate est, quod non solum voces ad designandum
accommodet (quod etiam homo facęre potest), sed etiam res ipsas. Et ideo in aliis
scientiis ab hominibus traditis, quae non possunt accommodari ad significandum nisi
tantum verba, voces solum significant. Sed hoc est proprium in ista scientia' ut voces et
ipsae res significatae per ęas aliquid significent, et ideo haec scięntia potest habere
plures sensus".
" In I Cor., cap. XI, lect. 1
28 To read moró about the role of intentio auctoris in thę hermęneutic system of Thomas
Aquinas go to Mauricio R. Nenvłp'z, Thomas d'Aquin lecteur. Vers une nouvelle
approche de la pratique hermćneutique au Moyen Age,Lo'lvait, Peętęrs, 2012.
'9 L. MłnrrNELtI' Thomas d'Aquin et l'analyse linguistique' Paris, J. Vrin, 1963.
BF,TwEEN DIALECT]CS AND METAPHOR.. .
To summarise, as a theological poet Aquinas is well aware of the
weight of words, their epistemology and the possibilities of expression
residing in them. His own style of exegetical transfer, reflected in his
commentaries, cannot ignore thę modus loquendi of the biblical text'
Linguistic variety appears in the transfer of Revelation "because such a
method of speaking is most suitable for a mystery" (iste modus loquendi
mysterio competit)30. The samę criterion -suitability for God's mystery-
shines through his commentaries: the paradoxical nature of this language
does not clash with the desire for precision of meaning' removęd' like a
nut, from the shell of the word and explained with the greatest rigour
possible, ever So ęvident in the structure of the commentaries, their
divisio, the rhythm of their expositio and the interpretative perspectives
that each verse opens.
venard talks about Thomas's 'linguistic strategy' that derives not
from the a rejection of the symbolism of previous theological approaches
(through the replacement of the theory of signs that was present in early
scholastic theology with realistic metaphysics), but rather from the
demonstration of their appropriate genesis and fundamental metaphysical
rooting3l. It is, therefore, crucial to assess not only linguistic practices,
but also their deepe st background. Thts is the metaphysical realism of
Aquinas that influences his biblical discourse. This way, as it was
interestingly demonstrated by M. Levering, the Bible and metaphysics
are not expressed by St. Thomas dialectically, but symphonic al|y3z.
30 In Mątt., cap. XXVII.'' o.-T. VBNłno, Literature et theologie: une saison en enfer, Genćve, Ad Solęm,
2003, 129-145.
" M. LBVgn1rnG, Scripture and Metaphisics, Aquinas and the Renewctl of Trinitarian
Theol o gy, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
5r7
E--
PIoTR ROSZAK518
I.I The Openness of Aquinas's Biblical Commentaries
Even though the previously mentioned complexity of medieval
commentaries, which combine many modules of exegetical analysis (as
notes, questions, distinctions etc.), may seem to be a finite and closed
structure, there is however a certain way of carrying out an exegesis of a
specific biblical passage which will make its expositio an open piece of
writing. Thomas is aware that his interpretations do not exhaust thę
wealth of Divinę Word and that his analyses help uncover only a fraction
of its reality, and this revelation is methodologically based on the theory
of biblical meanings. And so his commentaries play the role of hinges in
the door that should be opened in order to reveal the complete tradition33'
It is demonstrated by the very method of carrylltl out the
exegesis, in which fragments of thę Bible are not attached at the end in a
form of an appendix containing exhausting documentation, but sęrve to
open up the exegesis into a new direction, and look for links and
references. These 'intra-biblical links' serve as a sort of a nervous system
of Thomas's exegesis and are not a closed system, but a transversal
dynamism. He keeps changing perspectives, as if looking for the best
obserrration point (inside thę Bible!) for the contemplation of the truth to
its full ęxtent. This broadening of perspectives is Thomas's permanent
hermeneutical procedure; it protects his exegesis from the temptation to
read the Divine word in a closed, exhaustive way. Thomas protects its
transcendentalism, which means that thę uncovering of the multitude of
possible interpretations leads to the uncovering of the excellentia of the
word. God expresses everything in his one word, while the human
condition requires a multitudę of meanings for people to come closer to
the truth. And so we talk about a multi-level exegesis that, like rays' goes
out in many diręctions at the same timę. The interpretation of the word
33 Seę A. Wtt-lnvs, The Architecture of Theology: Stlucture, System, and Ratio,
oxford, oxford University Pręss, 201 1 '
BBrwppN Dlłrpcrlcs alu METAPHoR.. .
'ęarth' in Psalm 23 can refer to the moral, ecclesiological and
mariological aspects, all at the same time. We are not dealing here with a
simplistic concordism, but with an ability to think in all dimensions, an
attempt to get to the heart of the matter and reach its totum, and this
requires an adequate procedure3o. This ability ofan open synthesis proves
how extraordinary the exegetical spirit of Thomas Aquinas really is.
It is also demonstrated in a number of commentaries, in which
interpretations are separated by the conjunction vel. Thomas sees it as a
possibility to broaden his interpretation, e.g. in the commentary on the
Letter to the Ephesians he notes:
Benedictione, inquam, habita, in caelestibus, id est in caelo; ethoc, inChristo, id est per Christum, vel in Christo operante. Ipse enim est quireformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae.
The conjunction helps him clarify the theological contents hiding
behind the expression "in Christ": he understands the mediation of Christ
as a dynamic involvement of the Saviour in thę matters of man' as the
one who transforms and does not stay at the margin of human desires.
Thanks to it, the reader gets a broad perspective of what the "blessing"
that we receive "in Christ" is (see: Ef 1,3). In a different fragment,
Thomas wonders what the expression "in the eyes of the Lord" means
and he makes reference to two interpretations drawn from two different
expert SourcęS' 1 Kings I6,J anda sentence from St. Augustine35.
Sancti, inquam, in conspectu eius, id est intęrius in corde, ubi ipse
solus conspicit. I Reg. XVI, 7: Deus autem intuetur cor. Yel inconspectu eius, id est ut eum inspiciamus, quia visio est tota merces,
sęcundum Augustinum.
3a Thęsę fęaturęs of Thomas's method were admiręd in the twentieth century by ę.g.Mauricę Blondel -see M.A. CoNwły, "Thomistic Turn? Maurice Blondel's Reading ofSt. Thomas", inl. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanien^ses I (2008), 87-122.'' See F. RYAN, "Auctoritas in the Thęology of St. Thomas Aquinas'', in: NewBlackliars 88 (2007), 443-456.
519
PIoTR ROSZAK520
These two explanations do not clash, they simply reveal two
possible paths for interpretation: one that is spiritual and talks about an
intimate Space for meęting God inside ourselves, wherę oniy God has
access, and one that is strictly theological and reminds us that seeing God
happens thanks to grace. The language of Thomas's commentaries is full
of these kinds of 'connectors' between the semantic and spiritual
reflection (even as the integrity of word and spirit in Aquinas' exegesis
was strongly emphasizedby De Lubac), which serve to give the readers
the most important points of reference that they can later use in their
personal reading of the Word. It is clęar to see from thę examples given
above that referring to two Sources does not demonstrate indecisivenęSs
on Thomas's part or his unwillingness to take a stand; it actually shows
his openness and the willto provide a complete interpretation, which wilł
not flatten the Divine Word but will be at the service of its clarity36.
In order to ful1y understand the sense of vel in Thomas's biblical
commentaries, it needs to be presented against the expression salis
convenienter whtch, contrary to expectations, means that Aquinas does
not opt for one of the interpretations, but for convenience (convenientia)
of the mode of expression of the Bible in a given matter. Thanks to it'
Thomas draws attention to the non-coincidence of order and context of
certain words, e.g. when Christ entrusted the role of the pastor to St'
Peter and mentioned his future martyrdom37, or when he reflects on the
seemingly insignificant insęrtions in biblical texts that' however' have
their meanirrg''. The tęrm convenientia often appears in Aquinas'
,u G. DeHłN , Lire la Bible ąu moyen dge: essais d'helmćneutique mćdićvale, Geneve,
Droz,Ż009,50.
', Ir' Io, cap. XXI, |ect. 4.. "Supra commisit dominus Petro pastoralę officium; hic
praenuntiat iibi passionis martyrium; et satis convenięnter: nam ad bonum pastorem
pertinet ut pro ovibus suis animam ponat".5, h Phit.,'"up. IV, lect. l: "Et satis convęnięnter subditnihil solliciti, ętc. ad hoc quod
dixerat: dominus prope est; quasi dicat: ipse omnia tribuet, unde non nęcesse est quod
sitis solliciti. Matth. YI, 25: ne solliciti sitis animaę vestrae quid manducetis, neque
corpori vestro, quid induamini, etc."
BBTwBBN Dnrpcncs łNo MBTAPHoR. '.
writings on Christology, so it comes as no surprise that it also appears in
Christological subjects present in his commentaries: e.g. when he points
to the crucial role that Christ plays in achieving authentic virtue and
getting justification3e, the hidden sense of words written on the board
hanging over Jesus' Cross40, or the appropriateness of seeing opposition
between obedience and sina1.
In the process of interpretation, this term reminds us about the
logic of text whose editorial, considered within the framework of the
critical-historical method, is also intended by God as its main author. But
the expression satis convenienter also justifies the introduction into the
commentaries of the procedure typical for prologues, in which a selected
biblical fragment corresponds with Aristotęlian take on causality that,
according to Aquinas, perfectly reflects the matteq method, purpose and
authorship of a given book. This is how he begins explaining the Book ofPsalms, when he justifies the use of metaphysical schemes of causality
for outlining the introductory matters of this booĘ which is probably
more necessary today than it was back then. Putting metaphysics together
with a biblical text is 'appropriate':
In omni opere suo dedit confessionem sancto, et excelso in verbogloriae.Eccli. 47. Verba haec dicuntur de David ad litteram; et satis
convenienter assumuntur ad ostendendum causam hujus operis. In
'n L Io., cap. XIII, lęct' 3: "Sed attęndę, quod satis convenienter filius Dei ęst nobis inexemplum virtutum. Ipse enim est ars patris, ut sicut fuit exemplar creationis, essetetiam exemplar iustifi cationis".
^o L Io., cap. XIX, Iect. 4'. "Secundo ponitur tenor tituli: erat autem scriptum: IesusNazarenus ręx Iudaeorum. Quae quidem tria verba satis conveniunt ad crucismysterium, nam hoc quod dicit Iesus, qui salvator interpretatur, convęnit ad virtutęmcrucis, pęr quam nobis facta est salus''.
" L Ro*.' cap. VI, lect. 3: "Et satis convęnięnter obeditionem peccato opponit, eoquod, sicut Ambrosius dicit, peccatum ęSt transgressio legis divinae ęt caęlęstiuminobedięntia mandatorum. Deinde, cum dicit gratias autem Deo, ostęndit hoc essęinconvęniens, scilicet quod obediendo peccato, iterum ręducamur in servitutęmpeccati".
52r
52Ż Plorn Roszłx
quibus ostenditur quadruplex causa hujus: scilicet materia, modus'
seu forma; finis et agens.tt
1.2 Circumstantia Litterae
St. Thomas is an exegete of context; the distinctions that he makes reveal
the necessity of reading a biblical text in broad reference to a closer and
fuńher context (hence two types of divisio textus). The multitude of
acceptable interpretations, as pointed out by St. Thomas in a crucial text,
the Quaestiones disputatae de Potentia, results from the great dignity of
the Holy Bible which, as the word of God, is not diminished by human
words, and that is why sub una littera multos sensus contineata3. On the
one hand, there is a certain reflexivity of interpretations that results from
the conviction about the power of the Divine Word' and the critęrion for
their validity is the truth of faith and the literal context, which is referred
to by Thomas as circumstantia litterae. Responsibility makes us realise
that talking about God can sometimes turn into a torrent of words and it
warns us against treattng the Divine Word too lightly, but at the same
time reminds us not to sacrifice one explanation at the expense of,, 44anotnef
It is impońant to point out that Thomas does not understand
circumstances as only stylistic rules, but the real context of utterance. It
is clear to seę in the example of the commentary on the Gospel of John,
when he points out that Arius did not take the context into consideration
and it resulted -in the case of words of Jesus about "my Father and your
^' L Pt., prooemium.a3 De Potentia, q.4, a.lc.: "Aliud est, nę aliquis ita Scripturam ad unum Sęnsum cogęrę
velit, quod alios sensus qui in se vęritatem continent, ęt possunt, salva circumstantialitterae, Scripturae aptari, penitus excludantur".
'o W. VłLrBNBERG drew attention to this issue in Words of living God. Place andFunction of the Holy Scripture in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, Leuven, Pęęters,
2000,6.
BETWEEN DIALECTICS AND METAPHoR, 523
Father"- in a dogmatic error. Arius made an effor when he did not take
into consideration what comes from ex circumstantiis loquendłs.Finally, although the term circumstantia litterąe does not appear in
biblical commentaries, it does draw attention to the contextuality ofAquinas' exegesis, which blends the reflections car:ried out by Thomas into
the general undertone of the text consistent with the intention of the author,
and into a broader plan of the history of salvation. The principle of unity ofthis plan, the silent but fundamental conviction about Christ as fulfilment,allows us to fully understand what Aquinas calls sensus perfectus.It is akind of 'hermeneutical jump' (G. Dahan), one that is not, however, arr
arbitrary choice by Aquinas, but one that is based on the two often-quoted
auctoritates' which proves that Aquinas read themaó. It is reminiscent of aspiritual resonance, which meant for St. Thomas, as for many other
medieval exegetes, that wherever the text was 'touched', Christ's mystery
always resounded, sometimes loudly and sometimes quietly.
I.3 In Search of Linguistic Integrity
It might be asserted, in reference to Thomas' exegesis, that it was not
based on an analysis of biblical languages and remained insensitive to
such linguistic matters, and that in fact Thomas based his exegetical
research on an analysis of the Latin text of the Vulgate. However, carefulanalysis of individual commentaries reveals that in contrast to such
worries, Aquinas paid great attention to thę original languages of the oldbooks. They have real influence on the choice of the line of interpretation
ot In Io., cap. XX, 1ect.3: "Sed ex hoc Arius sumit sui erroris fulcimentum; quia per hocquod dicit patręm meum ęt patrem vęstrum, concludere voluit quod eodęm modo Dęussit pater filii, sicut ęst noster pater; et Deus filii sicut Deus noster. Sed contra hocdicendum quod haec verba qua intentionę dicanfur apparet ex circumstantiis loquendi''.aó G. DAHAN, "La móthode óritique dans l'etude dę ńsiute (XIIe-XIIIe siecles)'', in: M.CHłzłN - G. DłrnN (ed.), Le methode critique au Moyen Age, Tumhout, Brepols,2006,122-124.
PtorR Roszłr
and when Thomas considers two versions of a text, he chooses the one
that is in accordance with Greek, the original language of the book:
Digne sanctis, id est secundum quod dignum est recipi sanctos,
secundum illud Matth. X, 11: qui recipit iustum in nomine iusti,
mercedęm iusti recipiet. Quidam libri habęnt, digne satis, id est,
convenientęr; tamen littera non concordat cum Graeco.o'
Even though Thomas relies more on the Latin translation from
Greek or Hebrew, this does not mean that he does not consult the original
biblical text in order to compare the translation with the original text or to
manifęst some theological aspect of the Greek or Hebrew word or words
underlying the Latin version. This happens for example in the commentary
on Psalms, where Thomas makes thę following statement'. Graeci autem
ablativo carent...haec autem est translatio de graecoa8. Therefore, it is not
an uncritical reception of the Latin text that he used in his commentaryae.
Even today, as pointed out by an expert on the subject, Gilbert Dahan,
the issues of the reconstruction of thę biblical texts on which Aquinas
based his exegetical work are not devoid of difficulties.so As it iscommonly known, the Vulgate underwent significant improvements in the
Middle Ages, starting with Alcuin of York and Theodulf of Orleans, which
date back to the first years of ęxistęnce of universities and faculties of
theology that wanted to develop a basic text that would later be used as a
o' In Rom., cap. XVI, lęct. 1.or In Ps., 11, n.3: "Thomas goes ęven deeper into the męandręs of translation and
reflects: Ps. 4: Dicit ergo, et scitotę ętc. Sęd notandum est' quod hic in Graęco est
diapsalma, in Hębraęo vero est sela, quod Hieronymus transtulit, feliciter' vel semper.
Diapsalma ergo divisio Psalmi est: qui quando cantabant, fiebant aliqua intervalla inpsaimo, ut ostenderetur quod sequentia ad aliam materiam pertinebant secundum
Augustinum. (In Ps., 4,n.3)".on ń. SNBoooN, "The 'Biblę du XIIIe sięcle': Its Mędieval Public in the Light of itsManuscript Tradition'', in: W' Lourdaux - Dani L. Vęrhelst (ed.), The Bible and
medieval culture, Leuven, Lęuven University Press, 1984, 127-140'
'o G. DłHAN, "Lęs óditions dęs commentaires bibliques de Saint Thomas d'Aquin' Leur
apport żr la connaissance du texte de la Biblę au XIII" sidcle'', tnl. Revue des Sciences
Philosophiques et Thćologiques 89 (2005), 9-15.
BprwppN DIłIECTICS AND METAPHoR. 52s
template for othęr copies (the so-calledtextus parisiensis)sl. The mistakesspotted in this text led to the creation in the convent of St. Jacques inParis, under the leadership of Hugh de St. Cher, of the so-called Bibleof St. Jacques.s2
Thomas makęs reference to the Greek and Hebrew biblical texts,
not quoting whole sentences but concentrating on words or terms that canpoint to the correct interpretations3. He also usęs Greęk etymology ofmany expressions, getting the full meaning only in reference to itsoriginal sound' This is true, e.g. with thę word 'heresy', which derives
not from 'dividing', but from 'choosing'54.
Grammar rules typical of a language in which a biblical text isexpressed are impońant for a full understanding of the sense of the text.
There are two specific situations that justify this methodological care ofThomas Aquinas, in which determining the declination of a noun has
significance for the text. When commenting Ps. 44, where the word"God" (Deus) is used twice, Thomas considered it important to make
reference to the grammar rules in order to prove
interpretation:
Haec littera Deus, vel est nominativi casus, velLatino est dubium: sed in Graeco non, quia
the validity of his
vocativi; et ideo inibi unum est casus
5l To ręad more about the history of biblical texts in the medięval university circles goto: G. LosRtCHoN, "Les óditions de la Biblę latine dans lęs univęrsitćs du XIII" sidcle"'in: G. CnBuaSCoLI, F. SłNII (red.), Lą Biblia del XIII secolo...,15-34.'' G. DłrrłN, Lire la Bible au Moyen Age' Essais d'hermćneutique mćdićvale, Droz,Gendve, 2009,161-195.'' In Pr.,21,t.1: "Haec ęst translatio Septuaginta. In Graęco autem et in Hebraeo nonest, respice in me; sed habetur sic, Deus Deus męus quarę me dereliquisti? Quia haecverba dixit Christus in cruce; sed, respice, interpositum est".5a In Tit., cap. III, \ęct.2: "Ubi notandum est, quid faciat essę haereticum' et accipiendaest prima ratio huius nominis haeręticus. Non ęnim dicitur a divisione, sed ab electione,ut dicit Hieronymus; in Graeco enim haeresis dicitw electio. Unde haęręticus, id ęst,elęctivus' quasi pertinacitęr adhaeręns sectae alicuius, quam e1egit''.
s26 PIoTR RoSZAK
nominativi, et aliud vocativi, quia dicit, o Deus, Deus tuus unxit te
oleo laetitiąe55.
ln Thomas's work, the precision of language goes together with the
diligent analysis of sources. It is important to point out that Aquinas
analyses not only the Greek or Hebręw terms crucialfor interpretation, but
he also makes reference to other versions of the Bible. It also often
happens that the previously-męntioned characteristic features of his
exegetical language come together in one sentence' e.g. in the commentary
on the Psalms:
In civitate, inquit, munita; quasi dicat: ita liberavit me, quod fecit me
sicut civitatem munitam. Alia Littera, in civitate circumstantiae.
Hebraei habent, obsęssa'6.
2. Metaphors in the Exegetical System of Thomas Aquinas
For St' Thomas, metaphors in thę Holy Bible do not serve only as
adomment, but they emerge from the deepest nature of theological
language' He dręw attention to this relationship in the first question of the
Summa theologiae.
The commentary on the Letter to the Ephesians is a perfect
example of the method of blending similes and metaphors into big
theological subjects and putting them togethęr with biblical texts. ln thę
prologue to this commentary, while comparing believers to columns,
Aquinas says:
Believers are likę columns, becausę they should be straight (recti),
upright (erecti) and strong (forti). straight through faith, upright
thanks to hope, and strong through love ('..)s7.
" In Ps.,44,n.5.'u L Pt.,3o, n.18.s1 In Eph.,prol.
BBrwEpN DIALECTICS ANl MBrłpHoR. . . 5Ż7
In this metaphor that he himself constructed, Thomas plays with the
double meaning of the Latin word rectus that signifies a simple and
honest man. On the one hand, the adjective 'straight' denotes the
verticality of a column and the fact that it is directed upright, towards
God, and on the other hand, it means honesty in the sense of following"the straight path of the truth". Continuing the theme of love, which isthe force that gives the Church community its power, St. Thomas writes
later in the prologue:
Strong through lovę becausę"loye is as strong as death", as Song ofSongs 8,6 tells us; that is why it is presented as a plllar of fire that
devours everything, as the Book of Wisdom of Salomon 18,3 says:"Therefore they received a burning pillar of fire for a guide of the waywhich they knew not". Just as fire shines through everything that istransparent, tries metal and burns down to ashes, love shines onactions, trięs intentions, and burns all flaws.
This fragment perfectly demonstrates the method of carrying out
exegesis: it takes as a starting point one of the verses of Psalm ("1 hold its
pillars firm"), which reflects the theme of the Letter to the Ephesians
(according to the practice of explaining one fragment of the Biblethrough another fragment, a so-callęd locum ex loco rule):
Just as people mark their flocks to distinguish them from others', the
Lord wanted to mark his flock, his people, with a spiritual mark5s.
The requiręment of clarity, which Thomas sęts as his goal and
which makes his language take on elęments of transparency, does not
indicate the lack of metaphorical fęatures in favour of linguistic strictness
typical of academic tręaties: quite the opposite, the expression quasi dicat(Lat. as if he would say) that appears often in the commentaries,
introduces into the interpretation of biblical texts an element ofparaphrase, which often in a direct address to the addressee presents far
t' L Eph., cap. I, lect. 5.
528 PIort Roszłx
existential connotations of the Divine Word. When in the commentary on
the Letter to the Ephesians Thomas wonders what the gift of wisdom is,
he is not satisfięd with a theologically rich statement that it is getting to
know God, and he adds:
quasi dicat: hoc peto ut per spiritum sapientiae habeatis illuminatos
oculos cordis vestri in agnitionem, scilicęt clariorem, eius, scillcet
Dei. Ps. XII,4: illumina oculos meos, et cetera Hoc est contra eos, qui
habent oculos illuminatos tantum ad temporalia cognoscenda, cum
magis tamen sit necessarium et etiam gloriosum cognoscere Dęum59.
It looks as if Thomas was concerned that his interpretation could
get stuck in the multitude of terms and divisions and could lose its
existential power' instead of reaching thę world of the reader, who is
prone to the danger that Thomas exposes.
3. The Dynamics of Quuestio in Exegesis
When analysing the commentaries, we can notice a specific rhythm that
rules the explanation of the divinely inspired text. Thomas's explanation
of the Bible, sentence after sentence, has a changeable speed, which
serves to indicate the difficulty that Aquinas has to face60. He leaves for a
moment the path set by the text in order to explain a difficulty: haste is
for Thomas an enemy of good exegesis. At the same time, the presence
of quaestio itself proves one thing about Aquinas: he does not listen to
thę voice of every person' whose desire for truth leads to posing
questions and expressing doubts. He doęs not omit difficult fragments,
which used to be called crux theologicum, but hę tacklęs thęm with the
courage of a theologian searching for understanding of his own faith and
asking about the sense of reality.
se In Eph., cap. I, lect. 6.60 See F. C. BłuBnscHMIDT, Thomas Aquinas. Faith, Reason, and Following Christ,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, 4.
BBIwBEN DIłlpcrIcs łt'u METAPHoR. . .
The Questions posed in the course of the interpretation of the
Bible are not aS long as their equivalents in the Summą theologiae, and
they do not consist of articles. They include a brief outline of a problem,
usually starting withvidetur esse contra or the classic videtur quod. After
the introduction of a problem, Thomas proceeds to sed contra, and then
shortly explains a difficulty, demonstrating nuances of a given issue and
introducing appropriate distinctions and divisions.
But stopping to pose a question -not without importance for
medięval pedagogy, since it accommodated itself to the cognitive
capabilities of students and intemrpted a ceńain monotony of discourse-
can occur as a result of many factors, which reveal why Thomas thought
it is important to tackle a given subject within the framework of a
traditional quaestio. When analysing this 'move from exegesis to
question', we can distinguish a few reasons that motivated Thomas:
(I) Contradiction with other biblical texls seems to be one of the
most frequent reasons why Aquinas decides to introduce a
question into the course of interpretation of the Holy Bible.When explaining the Book of Job, he notes, for example, that
Job curses on his birthday, which is in contradiction with the
encouragement of St. Paul from Rom I2,I4, to bless and not
curse61. In another fragment, found in the commentary on the
Psalms, St. Thomas spots a contradiction with the words ofJesus, who told us to pray for our persecutors, while in Ps. 53
worshippers ask for their persecutors to be punished. The
contradictions found in the Bible convince Thomas to present
6I In lob., cap. III: "sic et Iob loquendo tristitiam suam aperuit unde sequitur etmalędixit diei suo, quod videtur essę contra illud apostoli Rom. XII 14 bęnędicite etnolitę maledicere. Sęd sciendum est quod maledicerę multipliciter dicitur: cum enimmalędicęre nihil aliud sit quam malum dicęre".
s29
Plorn Roszłrs30
three different ways of understanding these 'maledictions'62'
Within the framęwork of these kinds of difficulties we have to
distinguish what Thomas calls quaestio litteralis, i'e' a
discrepancy regarding facts described in Gospels. It happens
when he notes that one time it is Jesus who asks Philip, and
other times disciples ask Jesus63.
(2) Argumentative discrepancy with expert sources regards
interpretative suggestions presented in ręference to specific
biblical passages by both Fathers of the Church, as well as the
Glossa ordinaria, highly regarded in the time of Aquinas6a'
(3) Doctrinal problems result from the great care taken by
Aquinas in order not to omit important texts that constitute a
basis for the dogmatic statements of thę Church. That is why
hę asks if there really does not exist anyone who would bę
similar to God6s, and talks about seeing God in his essence66.
Thomas does not always formulate questions in the form of
queries or through the expression videtur quod, but as in the
62 In Ps. 53, t.4'. "Sed hoc videfur ęsse contra verbum Christio qui dicit: orate pro
persequentibus. Dicęndum quod omnes istae imprecationes quae leguntur in prophetis,
iripliciter possunt intelligi. Uno modo per modum pronunciationis quia loquebantur
spiritu Dei et praedicebant futura. Per modum orationis, quasi dicat avęrte, ętc.' idęst
avęrtes. undę in Hebraeo habetur de praesenti, avertis. Alio modo sęcundum
conformitatem ad divinam iustitiam. Tertio secundum spiritualem dęnunciationem.
Peccatoręs quando dęsinunt peccare' tunc moriuntur et dęsinunt essę peccatores' Et hoc
est continue precandum".u' In Mott., óap. XIV, |ęct.2'. "Et in hoc significatur devotio turbarum, item dilectio et
reveręntia ad Ćhristum, quia non ręcessęrunt ab eo, quamvis vespere ęsset' Sęd hic ęst
quaestio littera|iso quia in Ioanne habetur, quod Iesus intenogavit Philippum; hic autęm
ńabetur, quod discipuli interrogaverunt Christum. Solvit Augustinus.. '''6o In Ro-., cap. XiV, lect. 3: "Ex quo videtur quod, sicut dicitur in Glossa omnis vita
infidelium peócatum Sit, Sicut omnis vita fidelium est meritoria, inquantum ad Deigloriam ordinatur, secundum illud I Cor. c. X,31: sive manducatis, sive bibitis, sive
atiquld aliud facitis, omnia in gloriam Dei facite. Sed dicendum est quod aliter se habęt
fidelis ad bonum, ęt infidelis ad malum''.6t In Ps.,34,n.7.uu In I Cor., cap. XIII, lect.4.
BprwppN DtłLpcrtcs łNo MptłpHon
case of the commentary on the Letter to the Romans, he points
out what issues or problems might arise in the course of the
reading of the text67.
(4) Ecclesial praxis, particularly when Thomas notes the
differences between the church liturgy and a biblical text. Forexample, the words of Jesus from the Last Supper deliveredby St. Paul give rise to a question about why bread should not
be shared before consecration, similarly to how Jesus used todo it68. In another fragment, he asks why three bishops are
needed to consecrate another, when only one bishop isnecęSsary to consecrate a presbyter69. (Jsus Ecclesiae and,
consuetudo Eclessiae are terms that often appear in the coursęof biblical interpretation.
Thomas does not always present a problem as quaestio;
sometimes he prefers simply to draw attention to a certain issue byintroducing a so-called note, which usually starts with the wordsnotandum quod, It reminds the readers about important distinctions,divisions and nuances that should stay at the back of their mind duringthe reading of the Holy Bible. Perhaps they reflect the echo of questionsposed in the circles in which rhomas happened to explain the Bible. Not
u' In Rom., cap. IX lęct. IV: "Deindę cum dicit o homo, tu quis es, etc. respondetpraemissae quaestioni. Ad cuius responsionis intellectum considerandum est, quod circaęlectionęm bonorum et reprobationem malorum duplex quaestio potest moveri.68 In 1 Cor., cap. XI, v. 24: Et quia ab alio accepit, sequitur: giatias agens, secundumillud I Thess. v: in omnibus gratias agite; quid enim habes quod non accepisti, I cor.IV. Sequitur: fregit, ubi quaeritur utrum fregerit panem consęcratum vel nonconsęcratum: si (vero) non consecratum, hoc videtur esse contra ritum Ecclesiae quaepanęm consęcratum frangit; si autęm consęcratum, hoc non videtur quia postea verbaconsecrationis videtur protulisse; nam consęquenter subditur: et dixit: accipite etc.Dicendum est autem quod panem consecratum fregit"."' In I Tim.- cap. lv lect.3: "Et ideo ordinandis in episcopum imponuntur manus. Sedquaestio est, cum episcopus debeat ordinari a tribus, quare hic dicitur singulari numeropresbyeri? Respondeo".
531
532 ProrR RoszAK
all of the dubia come from written, expert Sources. However, according
to what Beryl Smalley pointed out in her monumental study, what
surprises in Aquinas (and the exegesis of mendicants in general) is this
balancę that lacked in the previous period of tensions between a moral
interpretation of the Bible, typical for monastic schools, and the complete
orientation towards dispute, typical for speculative theologyTo. In
Thomas's system, quaestio does not get the full attention and it
harmoniously leads the readęr towards an integral decoding of the
theological contents hiding under littera.
Questions from the commentaries are different from questions
that we know from other works. There are fewer obiectiones, as ifAquinas was more interested in getting to the bottom of an issue and not
being tempted by deviations or digressions, which instęad of helping,
pushed him away from the explanation of a biblical text. However, we
cannot unquestionably state that these are completely different methods.
They fit into the duties of a medieval theologian, into his lectio,
dis put at io and pr ae di c at i o7 r
.
4. Conclusion
According to Serge-Thomas Bonino, o.P., the re-theologisation of
Thomism, typical for the 20th-century interpretation of Aquinas, was a
good post-conciliar answer to the hypertrophy of the philosophical
dimension of Thomism (Neo-Scholasticism inspired by Leo XIII). The
return to biblical commentaries in the times of a devastating 'divorce'
taking place between exegesis and systematic theology works in favour
of this process. Aquinas' exegesis is an integral exegesis, which stems
'o B. SvłLLzv, The study of Bible in the Middle ,4ge, Notre Dame, Notre Dame
University Pręss, 1 982.
'' P' Roszłr, "Disputatio en la vida de la univęrsidad medieval a Ia hv dę| Verbum
Abbreviatum de Pedro Cantor", in: P. ROSZaT (ed.), Debates Navarros en Torun,
Toruń, KPTKO, 2010, |49-162.
BerwE'pN DIłIECTICS AND Mprłprłon. . 533
from the fundamental unity of truth. The Holy Bible is for Thomas "the
soul of theology" and that is why shallow biblicism is not a solution, but
merely an explanation of the sense of Divine Word, arising frommetaphysical truth or specific Traditions. It is exegesis that forms
speculative theology.
When analysing fragments from the biblical commentaries ofAquinas, it is possible to see the formal components of his exegetical
style, which take into consideration the basic tools of commentary workarising from the postulated hermęneutics, but also extemal aspects
regarding important features of Thomas's language. Bringing together
these two aspects can help present an integral vision of the exegetical
language of Aquinas, in which the smoothness and fluency of argument
goes together with the concern of the theologian who was sensitive not
only to the beauty of littera, but also its powe/2.
One might think, according to Gardeil, that what Thomas
primarily expects from language is its severity and purity in conveyingthe truth, so that the truth can be communicated to the intellect withoutany obstacles. His clarity in the transmission of truth, however, is not
related to a scarcity of forms, but according to what is suggested byVenard, we can talk herę about the 'iconicism' of Thomas'S
scholasticism. Venard's project deserves special attention in this respect
and the growing amount of publications about him appearing in variouscircles prove that there is a great interest in his suggestion of 'poetic
Thomism'.
Thomas's exegesis shows the harmony of word and spirit,
systematic theology and exegesis, which started dangerously to drift
72 See C. FABRo, "Pęnsiero e linguaggio in S.Tommaso''' in: A. Losłro (ed.), HomoLoquens. Uomo e linguaggio. Pensiero, cervelli e macchine, Bologna, 1989, 167-182;P. ZłIłsRl,lN{o, "Ręvęlación divina a travós de la belleza. Vęr el mundo como un reflejodivino segńn Tomós de Aquino'', in: Angelicum 83 (2006), 315-326.
534 PIoTR RoSZAK
apart only after Aquinas's times73. His idea of interpretation is based on
the interpenętration of theology, poetics and exegesis, but hidden
behind it is the idea of a theological ductus, i.e. such a rhetorical
organisation of biblical commentaries, which uses various forms to
carry out a proper, talking figuratively, 'polarisation' of individual
elements, which so far węre chaotically scattered, so that the mystery ofJesus Christ can fully shinę7a.
Effectively, it is about practicing exegesis not in "critical
isolation" (often leading to a peculiar "idolatry of the Bible"), but in the
company of the saints. It is perfectly demonstrated by the work of St.
Thomas Aquinas, which even today can tum out to be a valuablę
contribution to our present-day method. Relying on the heritage ofThomas's exegesis and describing it as "participatory biblical exegesis",
Matthew Levering suggests in his book that the first step is renewing the
Christological awareness and metaphysical historical reality as
"participatory", and as a result seeing God as the Teacher in the HolyBible (an important medieval intuition associated with the term sacra
doctrina) and showing the role of community, in Jesus and the HolySpirit, in accepting the teachings of the BibleTs. Thomas's exegesis is
after all ecclesial, not only in a material way (interest in the issues of the
Church), but also in its formal sense (as significant context and
environment of his exegetical procedures).
t' R. McDpRMorr, "Henri de Lubac's Genealogy of Modern Exegesis and Nicholas ofLyra's Litęral Sense of Scripture'', lr': Moderu Theology 1 (2013), 124-156.
'o M' CłRRuTHERS, The Craft of Thought; Meditątion, Rhetoric, and the Making ofImages, 400-1200, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2000, JJ: "Thę ductus lswhat we sometimes now call thę 'flow' of a composltiorl'. Ductus is an aspect ofrhetorical 'disposition,' but it is the movement within and through a work's variousparls. Indeed, ductus insists upon movement, the conduct of a thinking mind on its waythrough a composition."
'' M. LEvĘRtllG, Participatory Biblical Exegesis. A Theology of Biblical Interpretation,Notre Damę, University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.
