Reading Sacred Scripture With Thomas Aquinas. Hermeneutical Tools, Theological Questions and New Perspectives

Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales
TEXTES ET ÉTUDES DU MOYEN ÂGE, 80
READING SACRED SCRIPTURE WITH

THOMAS AQUINAS. HERMENEUTICAL
TOOLS, THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS
AND NEW PERSPECTIVES
Edited by
Piotr ROSZAK and Jörgen VIJGEN

FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DES INSTITUTS D’ÉTUDES MÉDIÉVALES
Présidents honoraires :
L.E. BOYLE (†) (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana et Commissio Leonina,
1987-1999)
L. HOLTZ (Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, Paris, 1999-)
Président :
J. HAMESSE (Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve)
Vice-Président :
G. DINKOVA BRUUN (Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto)
Membres du Comité :
P. CAÑIZARES FERRIZ (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)
O.R. CONSTABLE (†) (University of Notre Dame)
M. HOENEN (Universität Basel)
M.J. MUÑOZ JIMÉNEZ (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)
R.H. PICH (Pontificia Universidade Católica do Río Grande do Sul, Porto
Alegre)
Secrétaire :
M. PAVÓN RAMÍREZ (Centro Español de Estudios Eclesiásticos, Roma)
Éditeur responsable :
A. GÓMEZ RABAL (Institución Milá y Fontanals, CSIC, Barcelona)
Coordinateur du Diplôme Européen d’Études Médiévales :

G. SPINOSA (Università degli Studi di Cassino)
Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales
TEXTES ET ÉTUDES DU MOYEN ÂGE, 80
READING SACRED SCRIPTURE WITH

THOMAS AQUINAS. HERMENEUTICAL
TOOLS, THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS
AND NEW PERSPECTIVES
Edited by
Piotr ROSZAK and Jörgen VIJGEN
F
2015
This book uses information gathered through grant: «The Bible and
Metaphysics. The Hermeneutics of the Medieval Commentaries of Thomas
Aquinas on Corpus Paulinum» funded from resources of the National
Science Centre in Poland (NCN), allotted following the decision no. DEC-
2012/04/M/HS1/00724.
© 2015, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the
prior permission of the publisher.
D/2015/0095/207
ISBN: 978-2-503-56227-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Piotr ROSZAK & Jörgen VIJGEN: Towards a ‘Biblical Thomism’:

Introduction VII
Part 1: Hermeneutical Tools
Marco PASSAROTTI, What You Can Do with Linguistically Annotated

Data. From the Index Thomisticus to the Index Thomisticus
Treebank 3
Gilbert DAHAN, Thomas Aquinas: Exegesis and Hermeneutics 45
Elisabeth REINHARDT, Thomas Aquinas as Interpreter of Scripture in
Light of his Inauguration Lectures 71
Jeremy HOLMES, Participation and the Meaning of Scripture 91
Piotr R OSZAK , The Place and Function of Biblical Citations in
Thomas Aquinas’s Exegesis 115
Mauricio NARVÁEZ, Intention, probabiles rationes and Truth: The
Exegetical Practice in Thomas Aquinas. The Case of the Expositio
super Iob ad litteram 141
Margherita Maria ROSSI, Mind-space. Towards an “Environ-mental
Method” in the Exegesis of the Middle Ages 171
Olivier-Thomas VENARD, Metaphor, Between Necessitas and Delectatio 199
Timothy F. B ELLAMAH , The Interpretation of a Contemplative:
Thomas’ Commentary Super Iohannem 229
Leo E LDERS , The Presence of the Church Fathers in Aquinas’
Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of
John 257
Jörgen VIJGEN, The Use and Function of Aristotle in Aquinas’s Biblical
Commentaries 287
VI TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part 2: Theological Questions and New Perspectives
Matthew LEVERING, The Old Testament in Aquinas’s Moral Theology 349

Enrique MARTÍNEZ, The Elevation of Human Knowledge According
to the Biblical Commentaries of Thomas Aquinas 375
Robert J. WOŹNIAK, An Emerging Theology Between Scripture and
Metaphysics: Bonaventure, Aquinas and the Scriptural Foundation
of Medieval Theology 415
Mirosław M RÓZ , Virtue Epistemology and Aquinas’s Biblical
Commentary on the Corpus Paulinum 435
Lluís CLAVELL, Philosophy and Sacred Text: Mutual Hermeneutical
Help. The Case of Ex 3:14 457
Matthew RAMAGE, In the Beginning: Aquinas, Benedict XVI, and the
Book of Genesis 481
Daniel KEATING, Exegesis and Christology in Thomas Aquinas 507
Christopher BAGLOW, The Principle(s) of Ecclesial Nature: The
Church in the Ephesians Commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas 531
Bibliography 555
Editions of the Works of Thomas Aquinas and Abbreviations 555
Ancient and Medieval Authors 560
Modern Authors 562
Contemporary authors 562
Indices
Index of Manuscripts 591
Index of Ancient and Medieval Names 593
Index of Modern and Contemporary Names 595
PIOTR ROSZAK – JÖRGEN VIJGEN
TOWARDS A ‘BIBLICAL THOMISM’: INTRODUCTION
Many years ago Étienne Gilson wrote that «the entire theology of St.
Thomas is a commentary on the Bible; he advances no conclusion without
basing it somehow on the word of Sacred Scripture, which is the Word of God»1.
This volume offers a collection of essays on the hermeneutical tools used
by Thomas Aquinas in his biblical exegesis and its contemporary relevance.
Its goal is to familiarize the contemporary reader with an indispensable
dimension of his scholarly activity: as a master in Sacred Scripture (magister
in sacra pagina) Aquinas taught theology as a form of speculative reading of
the revealed Word of God and hence the reading of the various books of the
Bible constituted the axis of medieval scriptural didactics.
Thomas Aquinas († 1274) lived at a time when biblical exegesis had seen a
significant transformation: the monastic practice of lectio continua had given
way to a scholastic heuristics of the Bible2. In this new paradigm of biblical
science, the reading of Sacred Scripture was carried out on various levels:
from familiarity with its contents during the lectio, through discovering its
profound meaning in the disputatio to the application in everyday life in the
praedicatio3. In other words, the scholarly engagement with the Bible starts
from a textual exposition of the Bible, it discovers the speculative insights
of the text and ultimately leads to the pastoral application thereof, following
the three major steps of engaging Sacred Scripture: exegesis, speculation
and preaching. The exegetical practice of Thomas Aquinas continues in this
direction, benefitting from both the patristic tradition (especially Augustine
and Jerome) as well as from the advances of his more immediate 12th century
predecessors such as the school of Laon, the writers of the various Glossae
and the Victorine school, in particular Hugh of St. Victor4.
1
É. GILSON, Les tribulations de Sophie, Vrin, Paris 1967, p. 47.
2
Cf. M. M. ROSSI, «Conversazioni medioevali: associazioni sul tema della Bibbia
nel medioevo», Divus Thomas, 35 (2002) 184-198.
3
Cf. G. DAHAN, L’exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident médiéval, XIIe-XIVe
siècle, Cerf, Paris 1999, pp. 239-297.
4
G. DAHAN, «L’influence des victorins dans l’exégèse de la Bible jusqu’à la
fin du XIIIe siècle», in D. POIREL (ed.), L’École de Saint Victor de Paris. Influence et
rayonnement du Moyen Âge à l’époque moderne, Brepols, Turnhout 2010, pp. 153-178.
VIII PIOTR ROSZAK – JÖRGEN VIJGEN
The theological activity of Aquinas as master in Sacred Scripture

consists in explaining and exploring the meanings of the biblical text based
on a hermeneutic model that leads to a theological exegesis and ultimately
to an ecclesial application. At the heart of his exegetical practice stand the
three levels of literal exposition formulated by Hugh of St. Victor littera –
sensus – sententia: from the textual analysis and brief explanation of the
words and their context (littera) to the analysis of the various elements
(sensus) and the true understanding of the theological content, underlying
the text (sententia)5. This characteristic of his hermeneutics, in which
the literal sense has the principal and regulative role, leads to a rigorous
reading of the Bible which contains a genuine scientific warrant. This partly
explains why his exegesis is held in high regard by so many theologians,
from Erasmus of Rotterdam6 to contemporary exegetes7.
Aquinas’s commentaries to the Old and New Testament contain various
other techniques such as the division of the biblical text (divisio textus),
which conduces and facilitates a coherent and thematic interpretation,
the insertion of theological questions and philosophical digressions, the
connection of the text commented upon with passages from other books
of the Bible, etc. All these techniques are not merely hermeneutical tools
standing on their own but are also modes in which the genuine biblical
character of his theology, the way in which he approaches the inspired texts
and the role of these texts in developing a sacra doctrina come to the fore.
The thought of Aquinas undoubtedly operates within a biblical horizon8. A
5
Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalia VI, 8: «Expositio tria continet: literam,
sensum, sententiam».
6
Cf. Desiderium Erasmus, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum, Rom. 1:5, in
Idem, Opera omnia, ed. JOANNES CLERICUS, 10 vols. (Lugduni Batavorum: cura et
impensis Petri Vander AA, 1703-1706) [facsimile reprint = Olms, Hildesheim 1962],
VI, col. 554E: «Dictu mirum est, quam se torqueat hoc loco Thomas Aquinas, vir
alioqui non suo tantum seculo magnus. Nam meo quidem animo nullus est recentium
Theologorum, cui par sit diligentia, cui sanius ingenium, cui solidior eruditio: planeque
dignus erat, cui linguarum quoque peritia, reliquaque bonarum litterarum supellex
contingeret, qui iis quae per eam tempestatem dabantur tam dextre sit usus». The
critical edition is now available in Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. Pars tertia,
Ed. P. F. HOVINGH, E. J. Brill, Leiden 2011 (Editio Amstelodamensis, VI,7).
7
Cf. M. LEVERING, Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical
Interpretation, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame 2008.
Cf. P. ROSZAK, «Between Dialectics and Metaphor: Dynamics of the
8
Exegetical Practice of Thomas Aquinas», Angelicum 90 (2013) 507-534.

TOWARDS A ‘BIBLICAL THOMISM’: INTRODUCTION IX
comprehensive understanding of Aquinas has to take into account therefore

not merely his systematic works but also his biblical commentaries.
Apart from the ‘material’ reason of the biblical commentaries
themselves, there is also a ‘formal’ reason why Aquinas’s biblical
commentaries are an indispensable part of his theological output and even
the key for a comprehensive understanding of his theological thought.
Almost all of his systematic works, and in particular his Summa Theologiae,
are constructed around a set of biblical quotations. This becomes apparent
by the fact that the sed contra of the individual articles of for instance the
Summa Theologiae mostly contain biblical quotations, which serve as the
authoritative basis for discussing the question at hand. In these cases it is
necessary not to treat the particular biblical quotation as a mere argument
from authority but to turn to the context of the particular quotation, as
commented upon by Aquinas in his commentary on the biblical verse in
question.
Another element that highlights the importance of his biblical
commentaries is the introduction of theological excursuses by way of
formulating a series of quaestiones, occasioned by reading a particular
passage from the Bible. This practice not only gives an insight into the
didactic nature of Aquinas’s commentaries but also forms an echo of what
happened at the classroom during his lectures. It also demonstrates the
catechetical potential of Scripture and shows how these commentaries are
incorporated into an ongoing dialogue between Scripture on the one hand
and the Church and the ‘world’ on the other hand.
Nevertheless, the history of reading and commenting on the works of
Thomas Aquinas has resulted in a different picture of Thomism than the
one outlined briefly above. Thomas was and is still most widely known
for his Summa Theologiae and as a commentator of Aristotle whereas
his contribution as a biblical theologian has been overlooked9. Although
medieval biblical exegesis in general has witnessed a revived interest due
9
An investigation into the reason why Aquinas’s contribution as a biblical
theologian has received so little recognition is a matter we cannot discuss here. The
fact that the critical editions of almost all his biblical commentaries are still lacking
has certainly contributed to this situation. It is worthwhile to recalling, however, the
observation by Fergus Kerr: «The lack of decent texts, it has to be admitted, is entirely
due to the fact that Thomists themselves have never read the biblical commentaries
much. The Aquinas often criticized for being unbiblical is the creation of his self-
styled admirers». F. KERR, «Recent Thomistica 1», New Blackfriars, 83 (2002) 248.
X PIOTR ROSZAK – JÖRGEN VIJGEN
to the increasing availability of critical editions and such seminal works

as those of Beryl Smalley (The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages)
and Henri de Lubac (Exégèse médiévale: les quatre sens de l’écriture),
published since the 1950’s, the credit for underlining the importance of
Thomas Aquinas the exegete goes to Ceslaus Spicq’s work Esquisse d’une
histoire de l’exégèse latine au Moyen Âge, published in 1944 and to his
lengthy contribution entitled «Saint Thomas d’Aquin Exégète» in the
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique10. The results of these works laid
the groundwork for such studies as those of Marie-Dominique Chenu11,
Maximino Arias Reyero12, Thomas Domanyi13 and others.
In more recent times the «forgotten corpus of the Angelic Doctor»14
has been applied to a number of issues related to moral and dogmatic
theology because it is perceived as «a medieval exegetical project of
striking breadth and depth that still has much to teach contemporary
theology and biblical studies»15 and can be made fruitful for the ecumenical
dialogue. Simultaneously various translations of his commentaries into
modern languages have appeared, among which the French translations
undertaken by J.-É Stroobant de Saint-Éloy, often richly annotated and
carefully introduced by Gilbert Dahan deserve special mention. In this
way one is witnessing the development of what has been called ‘Biblical
Thomism’ in which Aquinas’s thought is being explored through his study
of Scripture16.
10
Edited by A. VACANT – E. MANGENOT – E. AMANN, Libraire Letouzey et Ané,
Paris 1946, col. 694-738.
11
M.-D. CHENU, Introduction à l’étude de saint Thomas d’Aquin, Institut d’études
médiévales – Vrin, Montréal – Paris 1950.
12
M. ARIAS REYERO, Thomas von Aquin als Exeget, Johannes Verlag, Einsiedeln
1971.
13
Th. DOMANYI, Der Römerbriefkommentar des Thomas von Aquin: Ein Beitrag
zur Untersuchung seiner Auslegungsmethode, Peter Lang, Bern 1979.
14
«Preface» in Th. WEINANDY – D. KEATING – J. YOCUM (edd.), Aquinas on
Scripture. An Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries, T&T Clark International,
London – New York 2005, p. ix.
15
B. BLANKENHORN, «Aquinas on Paul’s Flesh/Spirit Anthropology in Romans»,
in M. LEVERING – M. DAUPHINAIS (edd.), Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas,
The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2012, p. 38.
16
For a concise description of ‘biblical thomism’ and its origins in the work of
Servais Pinckaers, cf. T. ROWLAND, Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict
XVI, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008, pp. 26-27.
TOWARDS A ‘BIBLICAL THOMISM’: INTRODUCTION XI
Despite these achievements, there nevertheless remains much work

to be done, especially given the fact that the critical edition of many of his
biblical commentaries has still to appear. Most recent works have focused
on analysing theological themes in a selected number of his commentaries17
without systematically taking into account the hermeneutical perspective
of Aquinas. Our volume aims to fill this gap by identifying Aquinas’s
hermeneutical tools, by offering a status questionis of current research
regarding this topic and by indicating the direction of future research. As
such it can serve as an aid for reading Aquinas’s biblical commentaries.
The first section of the volume focuses on the hermeneutical tools
employed in reading Scripture. Given that Aquinas’s biblical exegesis «is
constituted by his procedure of continually moving, within the exegetical
tasks, from exegesis proper to speculative theological questioning and
back again»18, the multitude of hermeneutical tools employed by Aquinas
becomes clear. The authors of this section address both the components of
Aquinas’s method such as divisio textus, exemplum, intentio auctoris, the
use of biblical citations and patristic sources but also the hermeneutics of
biblical inspiration, philosophical influences and the relationship between
exegesis and contemplation. Especially noteworthy as a contemporary
hermeneutical tool is the chapter on the use of computational analysis in the
Corpus Thomisticum. The second section of the volume is devoted to the
contemporary, theological relevance of Aquinas’s biblical commentaries.
The authors engage in dialogue with 20th century authors and texts (for
instance S. Pinckaers, J. Ratzinger) in order to explore the relevance of
Aquinas’s approach to sacred Scripture in such areas as moral philosophy
and theology, dogmatic theology and scriptural exegesis.
17
Cf. WEINANDY – KEATING – J. YOCUM (edd.), Aquinas on Scripture; this volume
presents a selected number of theological topics from some biblical commentaries.
Other works have focused on specific commentaries and topics. Cf. M. LEVERING –
M. DAUPHINAIS (edd.), Reading John with Thomas Aquinas. Theological Exegesis and
Speculative Theology, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C.
2005; M. LEVERING – M. DAUPHINAIS (edd.), Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas,
The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2012; M. HAMMELE,
Das Bild der Juden im Johannes-Kommentar des Thomas von Aquin: Ein Beitrag
zu Bibelhermeneutik und Wissenschaftsgeschichte im 13. Jahrhundert, Katholisches
Bibelwerk, Stuttgart 2012.
18
«Introduction», in M. LEVERING – M. DAUPHINAIS (edd.), Reading John with
Thomas Aquinas. Theological Exegesis and Speculative Theology, The Catholic
University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2005, p. xiii.
XII PIOTR ROSZAK – JÖRGEN VIJGEN
Because the essays in this volume address a wide array of themes, the
remainder of this introduction offers a brief synopsis of each of the essays.
In 1949 Robert Busa SJ started the project of the Index Thomisticus,
a computational tool unique in the study of medieval thought and highly
appreciated by scholars. Marco Passarotti builds on the achievements of
the Index Thomisticus and introduces the Index Thomisticus Treebank
(IT-TB). After providing some basic issues in corpus annotation and
treebanking, Passarotti presents the IT-TB by detailing the theoretical
background that supports its annotation layers. He shows how to query the
IT-TB, by showing a number of queries written in different languages and
run with different tools and presents a lexical-based statistical analysis of
the Biblical commentaries of Thomas Aquinas, showing the possibilities
inherent in the use of digital language resources in the humanities.
Gilbert Dahan discusses some of the central points of St. Thomas’s
hermeneutical reflection: the borders between literal and spiritual exegesis,
the proper mode of Scripture and the transition from the letter to the spirit.
Each of these points is widely illustrated by examples from Aquinas’s
works and discussed against the background of medieval exegesis.
Elisabeth Reinhardt examines Aquinas’s earliest biblical commentaries,
that is his inception texts with which he earned the title Magister in Sacra
Pagina. She finds that these texts, also known as Rigans montes and Hic est
liber, are a programmatic outline of Aquinas’s idea of what a theologian is
supposed to do and what constitutes the nature of theology. She exemplifies
these insights by examining his Commentary on Romans.
Building on the work of Francis Martin, Matthew Lamb and Matthew
Levering, Jeremy Holmes proposes that Thomas’s philosophical doctrine
on participation offers a path to the fruitful recovery and deepening of
traditional exegesis. In fact, as Holmes documents, participation permeates
Aquinas’s entire understanding of reality and enables him «to the both/
and of Catholic thought». He emphasizes, moreover, that the analogical
meanings of participation make it possible for Aquinas to see «salvation
history, prophecy», and the spiritual sense of Scripture in a complex unity of
anticipatory participation in the mystery of Christ. As Holmes points out, it is
the philosophical notion of participation which deepens the traditional view
of the spiritual sense of Scripture by showing the ontologically grounded
likeness of biblical realities to the mysteries of Christ’s first and second
comings, while simultaneously ensuring the value of the literal sense by
illuminating the intrinsic worth of those past persons, institutions, and events.
TOWARDS A ‘BIBLICAL THOMISM’: INTRODUCTION XIII
Piotr Roszak focuses his attention on the function of biblical quotations,

which Aquinas often uses to end his comments on a passage and which
he cites without any introduction or comments. Roszak demonstrates
that these quotations do not merely serve as a confirmation of Aquinas’s
interpretation or as a mere decorative extension of his exegesis, but often
change the direction of his interpretation. Analysing the functions of these
citations in the various notae and sed contra in the biblical commentaries,
Roszak argues for the existence of genuine hermeneutics, able to display
the internal coherence of the Bible.
In his detailed analysis of Aquinas’s Commentary on Job, Mauricio
Narváez investigates the connection of truth to meaning and language.
Starting from Aquinas’s assertion that the Book of Job discusses its
subject per probabiles rationes, Narváez discusses how articulated truth,
probability and the intention of the different characters are intertwined.
The divisio textus or division of a text into smaller thematic and
interconnected units is one of the main procedures of medieval exegesis.
Building on her earlier research on this topic in Thomas Aquinas, Margharita
Maria Rossi proposes an «environ-mental approach» for reading his
biblical works. This approach takes its cue from the analogy between
the exegetical practice of a medieval reader of the Bible and the work of
an architect. It searches for the «mental space» defined by all elements
present in the text (and thus implied in the analysis), considered in the
structural position granted to them by the master and which determines
their epistemic value within the progression of the text.
Contrary to modernity’s separation between theology and poetry,
Olivier-Thomas Venard argues for the central importance of metaphor
as the indispensable pivot between Holy Scripture and theology. Venard
discusses Aquinas’s use of metaphor as an alternative to the view of Paul
Ricœur, who attempts to protect speculative theological discourse from
the contamination of metaphor and attempts to answer the question how a
secular reader can still accept Aquinas’ «theological poetics».
Timothy F. Bellamah seeks to understand the contribution of Aquinas’s
commentary on John’s Gospel within the Johannine commentorial tradition
in the Medieval Latin West. He starts out by investigating the historical
context of the commentary, its origin, sources and diffusion in manuscript
and print. Bellamah then inquires into the principles and techniques
Thomas brings to bear in his prologue to the commentary, his employment
of sources, and his literal and spiritual expositions of the Biblical text.
XIV PIOTR ROSZAK – JÖRGEN VIJGEN
Leo Elders examines Aquinas’s use of the Church Fathers in the

commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and John. After commenting
on the function of the Church Fathers in these commentaries, Elders turns
to the most important individual Church Fathers. As Elders carefully
documents, Aquinas continually makes use of the Church Fathers
throughout his commentaries in order to provide an historical context, to
delineate the contours of acceptable interpretations, to indicate speculative
developments and moral applications of a given passage.
Jörgen Vijgen investigates the explicit references to Aristotle in
Aquinas’s commentaries on Scripture, a topic which he claims has
been overlooked by contemporary research. After identifying all these
references (see the appendix to his contribution), he analyses for a large
number of these references their context and function within Aquinas’s
commentaries. Far from obscuring the meaning of the Christian faith by
employing Aristotelian philosophical ideas, Vijgen demonstrates the way
in which Aristotle functions as Aquinas’s primordial intellectual collocutor
whenever he, as a theologian, is seeking an understanding of the difficulties
of the text of the Bible. For Aquinas Aristotle can shed light on a wide range
of theological topics in the areas of dogmatic theology and moral theology
touched upon in the Bible. Aquinas’s references to a broad selection of
works from the Corpus Aristotelicum in order to shed light on these topics
show the ease with which Aquinas combines the natural level of Aristotle’s
philosophical insights with revealed Scripture.
In the opening essay of the second part, Matthew Levering follows up
on the call for moral theology to draw more fully on the teaching of holy
Scripture. He starts out by making a careful survey of how Servais Pinckaers
construes Aquinas’s sources, and especially Aquinas’s biblical sources, in
his The Sources of Christian Ethics. Building on John Cuddeback’s recent
critique of Pinckaers’s book for not attending sufficiently to the value of
law, he examines Aquinas’s use of the Old Testament in the secunda pars
of the Summa theologiae. His meticulous analysis shows that not least in
his use of the Old Testament, Aquinas’s moral theology serves as a model
of what a fully biblical moral theology should be.
The ongoing centrality of the relation between created nature and
perfecting grace is the topic of the contribution by Enrique Martínez.
On the basis of Aquinas’s biblical commentaries and with an eye for its
underlying metaphysics, he first analyzes the elevation of human nature
in general, starting by analyzing the most perfect way in which it has
TOWARDS A ‘BIBLICAL THOMISM’: INTRODUCTION XV
occurred, namely, in the hypostatic union. Subsequently, he studies the prior

requirement of such elevation and in particular knowledge, by focusing
on three of its traits: the truth, the interior word and the intellectual light.
Finally, the elevation of human intelligence itself is analyzed. Throughout
his contribution, Martinez shows how the speculative doctrine of the
harmony between nature and grace is firmly rooted in Scripture.
Both from an historical as well as from a systematical viewpoint
the interrelationship between scriptural exegesis and metaphysics has
been the center of contemporary debates. The contribution by Robert J.
Woźniak shows the interplay of systematic theology, biblical exegesis and
metaphysics in Bonaventure and Aquinas, exemplified by their theological
reasoning on God as first Person of the Trinity. Woźniak argues that their
approaches transcend the contemporary division between foundationalism
and anti-foundationalism.
Within contemporary accounts of epistemology, the topic of virtue
epistemology (as developed by Linda Zagzebski and others) plays a
central role. Mirosław Mróz’s contribution underlines the importance
of Aquinas’s account of the three intellectual virtues (understanding,
knowledge and wisdom) as commented upon in his commentaries on the
Pauline Letters in order to deepen and broaden the contemporary debate on
virtue epistemology. In fact, once these cognitive virtues are imbued by the
«power from above» grace purifies and elevates them.
Aquinas’s way of cultivating exegesis has consequences not only
for theology but also for philosophy. Lluís Clavell analyzes Thomas’s
interpretation of the famous passage from Ex. 3:14 (where God reveals
His name) in his biblical commentaries. Aquinas’s exegesis shows that
this Name reveals God’s infinite fullness of being, but also that it is the
proper name of God because God says in a personal way to his people:
My name is «Who is». Clavell argues that Aquinas’s reading is not a mere
philosophical hermeneutic but a hermeneutic shaped by Scripture.
Matthew Ramage explores the respective exegetical methods and
practices of Thomas Aquinas and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as applied within
the account of primeval history narrated in Genesis 1-3. After addressing
Ratzinger’s critiques of neo-scholasticism, he offers an overview of
principles illustrating key points of contact in which Ratzinger implicitly
(and explicitly at points) connects his exegetical programme with that of
Aquinas. Ramage shows that Ratzinger conducts his exegesis of Genesis
in a way that is much in the spirit of Thomas and indeed shares many
XVI PIOTR ROSZAK – JÖRGEN VIJGEN
parallels with Thomas’ exegesis of the same texts. At the same time, he
demonstrates that Ratzinger makes significant advances beyond Aquinas
with the help of the modern scholarly tools to which he is privy.
Daniel Keating sets out to show how Aquinas’s biblical exegesis
informs and governs his Christology, both in the systematic treatments of
the Incarnation in the Summa Contra Gentiles and the Summa Theologiae
as well as in his commentary on two core christological texts from his
commentaries on the Gospel of John and the Letter to the Philippians. He
concludes that, when exploring Christological questions and issues in a
systematic fashion, Thomas provides an impressive and canonically rich
use of scripture both to anchor and illuminate teaching about Christ.
Christopher Baglow offers a holistic reading of Aquinas’s commentary
on the Letter to the Ephesians according to its ecclesiological theme. The
commentary constitutes, according to him, «a metaphysico-theological
account of what the Church is established to be, then, now and always, in
the divine intention» or an «exegetical De ecclesia». Baglow shows that
with the help of an Aristotelian, hylomorphic account of the soul/body
relationship Aquinas is able to shed light on the institution of ecclesial
unity and the principles of ecclesial nature and on Christ/Spirit as enduring
cause and principle of the existence and oneness of the Church. In so
drawing out the contours of the Letter to the Ephesians, Aquinas offers a
fresh perspective that is thoroughly faithful to the Epistle.
Part I: Hermeneutical Tools
MARCO PASSAROTTI*
WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH LINGUISTICALLY ANNOTATED

DATA. FROM THE INDEX THOMISTICUS TO THE
INDEX THOMISTICUS TREEBANK
Introduction
It was in 1949 when the late father Roberto Busa SJ (1913-2011)

started the project that would have led to the Index Thomisticus (IT)1,
helping to lay the foundations of computational linguistics and literary
computing. One of the first annotated corpora available on machine-
readable format ever, the IT contains the opera omnia of Thomas Aquinas
(118 texts) as well as 61 texts by other authors related to Thomas, for a
total of approximately 11 million tokens. The corpus is morphologically
tagged and lemmatized and it is available on paper, CD-ROM and on-line
(www.corpusthomisticum.org).
With the aim of performing the syntactic and semantic annotation
of the entire IT, the project of the Index Thomisticus Treebank (IT-TB:
http://itreebank.marginalia.it) has begun in 2006, leading the linguistic
annotation of the corpus to its natural next step.
This paper has two main objectives. The first one is to introduce
the IT-TB. After providing some basic issues in corpus annotation and
treebanking (section 2), the paper presents the IT-TB by detailing the
theoretical background that supports its annotation layers (section 3). The
second aim of the paper is to give examples about “what you can do with
linguistically annotated data”. In this respect, sections 4 and 5 respectively
report two cases of exploitation of the IT-TB and the IT. In particular, section
4 explains how to query the IT-TB, by showing a number of queries written
in different languages and run with different tools. Section 5 presents a
lexical-based statistical analysis of the Biblical commentaries of Thomas
Aquinas and discusses the results achieved. Finally, section 6 is a general
conclusion about the use of digital language resources in the humanities.
*
CIRCSE Research Centre, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo A.
Gemelli 1, 20123 Milan, Italy. marco.passarotti@unicatt.it.
1
R. BUSA, Index Thomisticus, Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt
1974-1980.
4 MARCO PASSAROTTI
Corpus Annotation and Treebanks
Annotated corpora are collections of linguistic data enhanced with

different kinds of metadata. Such resources are basic components of
linguistic research and natural language processing (NLP), as their metadata
can be used for different purposes, ranging from research in theoretical
linguistics to applications in language engineering.
As far as linguistic metadata are concerned, corpus annotation deals
with the following layers of analysis:
- morphology: given the list of all the different words occurring in
the corpus, each of them is lemmatized and morphologically tagged
without disambiguation;
- morphological disambiguation: each occurrence of each word in
the corpus is regarded in its context and both its lemmatization and
morphological analysis are disambiguated;
- syntactic analysis: it is focussed not on word-level anymore, but on
sentence-level. It describes the syntactic relations holding between
the words in the sentence; these relations can be tagged with
functional syntactic labels such as Subject, Object etc.;
- higher layers of annotation mostly deal with semantics, including
tasks like named-entity recognition, semantic role labelling, word
sense disambiguation, pragmatic analysis, and coreference, ellipsis
and anaphora resolution.
Syntactically annotated corpora are known as ‘treebanks’, the term
‘treebank’ referring to the representation of the syntactic structure of
sentences in terms of tree-graphs. Syntactic tree-graphs are built according
to two main grammar frameworks: Phrase Structure Grammars (PSG) and
Dependency Grammars (DG).
Roughly speaking, the following are the differences between PSG and
DG at the tree-graph level. A DG tree-graph is a tree in which all nodes
are labeled with words. Nodes are connected to each other in hierarchical
fashion through branches, DG being predicate-focused grammars based on
the notions of ‘dependency’ (the head-dependent relations between words)
and ‘valency’ (the number of obligatory arguments for verbs and some
nouns, adjectives and adverbs). Instead, a PSG-based tree-graph is a tree
in which all, and only, the leaf nodes are labeled with words, while internal
nodes are labeled with non-terminal symbols (such as various kinds of
phrases, like nominal phrases, prepositional phrases, verbal phrases etc.).
WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH LINGUISTICALLY ANNOTATED DATA 5
Mostly because of the great success of PSG in linguistics in the second

half of the last century, the first treebanks, available since the 70s, were
annotated according to PSG-based schemata: see, for instance, the IBM,
Lancaster and, later on, Penn treebanks of English. However, over the last
two decades many dependency-based treebanks (of different languages)
has appeared. As a matter of fact, the DG framework is gaining always
wider interest in the scientific community that deals with annotated corpora
because it is simple, yet providing useful information for many linguistic
and NLP tasks. For instance, many dependency relations (such as Subject or
Object) have tight correlations with semantic roles (like Agent or Patient),
which makes a dependency structure suitable for representing semantic
information such as predicate-argument structure. Furthermore, Carroll
et alii2 have shown that inter-annotator agreement is significantly better
for dependency treebanks, indicating that phrase-structure annotation is
requiring too many irrelevant decisions.
The Index Thomisticus Treebank
Theoretical Background
The IT-TB is a (ongoing) dependency treebank based on a subset of

the IT3. Since its beginning, the project has been carried out at the CIRCSE
research centre of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan, Italy
(http://centridiricerca.unicatt.it/circse).
The choice of a representation framework does not determine alone
the representation for a given sentence, as there can be many (correct)
DG or PSG trees for even simple sentences. Conversely, no theory-
neutral representation of a sentence is possible, since every representation
framework needs a theory to extract its meaning. Thus, a fine-grained
linguistic theory must be chosen to support the specific aspects raised by
2
J. CARROLL – T. BRISCOE – A. SANFILIPPO, «Parser Evaluation: a Survey and a New
Proposal», in A. RUBIO –N. GALLARDO – R. CASTRO – A. TEJADA (eds.), Proceedings of
the First International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC
1998). May 28-30, 1998, ELRA, Granada 1998, pp. 447-454.
3
B. MCGILLIVRAY – M. PASSAROTTI – P. RUFFOLO, «The Index Thomisticus
Treebank Project: Annotation, Parsing and Valency Lexicon», Traitement Automatique
des Langues, 50(2) (2009) 103-127.
6 MARCO PASSAROTTI
a large-scale annotation of real data. In this respect, the annotation style

of the IT-TB is grounded on Functional Generative Description (FGD)4,
a dependency-based theoretical framework developed in Prague and
intensively applied and tested while building the Prague Dependency
Treebank of Czech (PDT).
FGD is deeply rooted in Praguian structuralism-functionalism dating
back to the 30s. In particular, FGD recalls the stratificational approach to
sentence analysis pursued by Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP), a
linguistic theory developed by Jan Firbas in the mid-50s on the basis of
Vilém Mathesius’ work5. According to FSP, the sentence is conceived as:
(1) a singular and individual speech event [utterance-event];
(2) one of the possible different minimal communicative units (means)
of the given language [form];
(3) an abstract structure (a pattern) [meaning].
By considering language as a form-meaning composite, FGD mainly
focusses on the last point. Its aim is to describe the so-called ‘underlying
syntax’ of the sentence. Underlying syntax (the meaning) is separated
from (but still connected with) surface syntax (the form) and represents
the linguistic (literal) meaning of the sentence, which is described through
dependency tree-graphs. This approach is consistent with the functional
and pragmatic analysis of language pursued by the Prague Linguistic
Circle since its very beginning (in the so-called ‘first period’ of the
Circle). Language is conceived as «un système de moyens d’expression
appropriés à un but» («a system of purposive means»)6. Here, the «moyens
d’expression» correspond to the ‘form’ (surface syntax), while the fact that
they are «appropriés à un but» corresponds to the ‘meaning’ (underlying
syntax).
The description of surface and underlying syntax in FGD is dependency-
based mostly because DG are predicate-focused grammars, thus enabling
FGD to face another of the basic statements of the Prague Linguistic
4
P. SGALL – E. HAJIČOVÁ – J. PANEVOVÁ, The Meaning of the Sentence in its
Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects, D. Reidel, Dordrecht NL 1986.
5
J. FIRBAS, Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Commu-
nication, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK 1992.
6
CERCLE LINGUISTIQUE DE PRAGUE, «Thèses présentées au Premier Congrès
des philologues slaves», in Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague 1: Mélanges
linguistiques dédiés au Premier Congrès des philologues slaves, Jednota
Československých matematiků a fysiků, Prague 1929, p. 7.
Circle: «l’acte syntagmatique fondamental […] est la prédication» («the

basic syntagmatic act is predication»)7. In this respect, during the second
period of the theory of predication pursued by the Circle, while accounting
for the three-level approach to the sentence in FSP, Daneš claims that «[t]
he kernel syntactic relation is that of dependance»8.
Consistently with this theoretical background, the PDT (and the IT-
TB, as well) is a dependency treebank with a three-layer structure, in which
each layer corresponds to one of the three views of the sentence mentioned
above9. The layers are ordered as follows:
(1) a morphological layer: disambiguated morphological annotation
and lemmatization;
(2) an ‘analytical’ layer: annotation of surface syntax;
(3) a ‘tectogrammatical’ layer: annotation of underlying syntax.
Developing one layer requires the availability of the previous
one(s). Both analytical and tectogrammatical layers describe the sentence
structure with dependency tree-graphs, respectively named ‘analytical tree
structures’ (ATSs) and ‘tectogrammatical tree-structures’ (TGTSs).
In ATSs every word and punctuation mark of the sentence is represented
by a node of a rooted dependency tree. The edges of the tree correspond
to dependency relations that are labelled with (surface) syntactic functions
called ‘analytical functions’ (like Subject, Object, etc.).
TGTSs describe the underlying structure of the sentence, conceived
as the semantically relevant counterpart of the grammatical means of
expression (described by ATSs). The nodes of TGTSs represent autosemantic
words only, while function words and puntuation marks are left out. The
nodes are labeled with semantic role tags called ‘functors’, which are
divided into two classes according to valency: (a) arguments, called ‘inner
participants’, i.e. obligatory complementations of verbs, nouns, adjectives
and adverbs: Actor, Patient, Addressee, Effect and Origin; (b) adjuncts,
called ‘free modifications’: different kinds of adverbials, like Place, Time,
7
CERCLE LINGUISTIQUE DE PRAGUE, «Thèses», p. 13.
8
F. DANES, «A three-level approach to syntax», in J. VACHEK (ed.), Travaux
linguistiques de Prague 1: L’École de Prague d’aujourd’hui, Éditions de l’Académie
Tchécoslovaque des Sciences, Prague 1964, p. 227.
9
J. HAJIČ – A. BÖHMOVÁ – E. HAJIČOVÁ – B. VIDOVÁ HLADKÁ, «The Prague
Dependency Treebank: A Three-Level Annotation Scenario», in A. ABEILLÉ (ed.),
Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora, Kluwer, Amsterdam 2000, pp. 103-
127.
8 MARCO PASSAROTTI
Manner etc. The ‘dialogue test’ by Panevová10 is used as the guiding

criterion for obligatoriness. TGTSs feature two dimensions that represent
respectively the syntactic structure of the sentence (the vertical dimension)
and its information structure (‘topic-focus articulation’, TFA), based on the
underlying word order (the horizontal dimension). In FGD, TFA deals with
the opposition between contextual boundness (the ‘given’ information, on
the left) and contextual unboundness (the ‘new’ information, on the right).
Also ellipsis resolution and coreferential analysis are performed at the
tectogrammatical layer and are represented in TGTSs through newly added
nodes (ellipsis) and arrows (coreference).
Since its beginning, the IT-TB has been following the PDT annotation
style because of both typological and structural reasons.
As far as the former are concerned, Latin and Czech share certain
relevant properties, such as being richly inflected, showing discontinuous
phrases, and having a moderately free word-order and a high degree of
synonymity and ambiguity of the endings11. Both languages have three
genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), cases with roughly the same
meaning, and no articles.
As for the latter, the tight connection between the three-layer structure
of the PDT and a sound background theory like FGD allows to consider
each layer of annotation as one part of a more general framework driven by
a functional perspective aimed at understanding the underlying meaning
of the sentence, through its relation with the surface form. Moreover,
tectogrammatical annotation includes several pragmatic aspects that,
although much present in Latin linguistics research, are still missing in the
available annotated corpora of Latin12.
10
J. PANEVOVÁ, «On verbal Frames in Functional Generative Description»,
Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 22 (1974) 3-40. Part II published in
Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 23 (1975) 17-52.
11
Discontinuous constituents are those broken by words of other constituents.
An example is the following sentence by Ovid (Met. I.1-2): «In nova fert animus
mutatas dicere formas corpora» («[My] mind leads [me] to tell of forms changed into
new bodies»). In this sentence, both the nominal phrases ‘nova corpora’ and ‘mutatas
formas’ are discontinuous.
12
Some semantic-pragmatic annotation of Latin texts is available only in the
PROIEL corpus: D. HAUG – M. JØHNDAL, «Creating a Parallel Treebank of the Old
Indo-European Bible Translations», in K. RIBAROV – C. SPORLEDER (eds.), Proceedings
of the Language Technology for Cultural Heritage Data Workshop (LaTeCH 2008),
ELRA, Marrakech 2008, pp. 27-34. The Latin subset of PROIEL includes Classical
Annotation Layers
Morphological Layer
Although the IT is a morphologically tagged corpus, its morphological

annotation must be first automatically corrected by a Part-of-Speech (PoS)
tagger, and then checked by a human annotator.
As a matter of fact, the IT texts are tagged in such a way that a word is
assigned only one of its possible morphological analyses (namely, the first
in the traditional order of grammars). For instance, in the IT a word like
puella is always tagged as a singular nominative, but never as a singular
vocative, or ablative, because nominative occurs before both vocative and
ablative in the usual order of Latin cases.
The texts included in the IT-TB are morphologically disambiguated.
Disambiguation is performed mostly automatically, by using a probabilistic
PoS tagger13 (Hunpos14). Manual checking is run only on those (categories
of) words that show an high error rate in the automatic tagging.
Analytical Layer
Along the first three years of the project, the analytical annotation of
the IT-TB was performed manually only. Since 2009, analytical data are
annotated in semi-automatic fashion by using a probabilistic parser trained
on a subset of the IT-TB15. Semi-automatic annotation allows annotators to
texts from the 1st century BC (Caesar, Cicero), the Peregrinatio Aetheriae and the New
Testament by Jerome (both from the 5th century AD).
13
M. PASSAROTTI, «Leaving Behind the Less-Resourced Status. The Case of Latin
through the Experience of the Index Thomisticus Treebank», in K. SARASOLA – F. M.
TYERS – M. L. FORCADA (eds.), 7th SaLTMiL Workshop on Creation and Use of Basic
Lexical Resources for Less-Resourced Languages, LREC 2010, La Valletta, Malta, 23
May 2010, ELRA, Malta 2010, pp. 27-32.
14
P. HALÁCSY – A. KORNAI – C. ORAVECZ, «HunPos – an open source trigram
tagger», in S. ANANIADOU (ed.), Proceedings of the ACL 2007 Demo and Poster
Sessions, ACL, Prague 2007, pp. 209-212.
15
M. PASSAROTTI – F. DELL’ORLETTA, «Improvements in Parsing the Index
Thomisticus Treebank. Revision, Combination and a Feature Model for Medieval
Latin», in N. CALZOLARI – K. CHOUKRI – B. MAEGAARD – J. MARIANI – J. ODIJK –
S. PIPERIDIS – M. ROSNER – D. TAPIAS (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International
10 MARCO PASSAROTTI
build ATSs not from scratch anymore, but by checking the trees produced
by the parser and correcting the mistakes. In this regard, Marcus et alii
have shown that manual tagging takes twice as long as correcting pre-
tagged text, and results in twice the inter-annotator disagreement rate, as
well as an error rate about 50% higher16.
So far, the number of analytically annotated nodes in the IT-TB is around
230,000, corresponding to approximately 12,000 sentences excerpted from
three works of Thomas Aquinas: Scriptum super Sententiis Magistri Petri
Lombardi (Sent.), Summa contra Gentiles (ScG) and Summa Theologiae
(ST). In particular, the IT-TB includes the following texts annotated at the
analytical layer:
A. concordances of the lemma forma17:
- all the sentences of Sent. and ST that feature at least one occurrence
of the lemma forma;
- all the sentences that feature at least one occurrence of the lemma
forma in the first 76 qq. of ST;
B. entire first book and chs. 1-80 of the second book of ScG.
Analytical annotation is performed according to a specific manual for
the syntactic annotation of Latin treebanks18, which was developed on the
basis of the PDT guidelines for analytical annotation19.
Figure 1 reports the ATS of the following sentence of the IT-TB: «tunc
enim unaquaeque res optime disponitur cum ad finem suum convenienter
Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010). May 19-21, 2010,
La Valletta, Malta, ELRA, Malta 2010, pp. 1964-1971.
16
M. MARCUS – B. SANTORINI – M. A. MARCINKIEWICZ, «Building a Large
Annotated Corpus of English: the Penn Treebank», Computational Linguistics, 19(2)
(1993) 313-330.
17
This is due to the fact that the IT-TB was originally started to support the
writing of the lexical entries of the so-called ‘Lessico Tomistico Biculturale’, a new
lexicon of Thomas Aquinas, conceived by father Busa, empirically induced from the
evidence provided by the IT. The first lexical entry of the LTB to be built in this fashion
is that of forma.
18
D. BAMMAN – M. PASSAROTTI – G. CRANE – S. RAYNAUD, «Guidelines for the
Syntactic Annotation of Latin Treebanks», Tufts University Digital Library (2007).
Available from http://hdl.handle.net/10427/42683.
19
J. HAJIČ – J. PANEVOVÁ – E. BURÁNOVÁ – Z. UREŠOVÁ – A. BÉMOVÁ, Annotations
at Analytical Level. Instructions for annotators, Institute of Formal and Applied
Linguistics, Prague 1999. Available from http://ufal.mff. cuni. cz/pdt2.0/doc/manuals/
en/a-layer/pdf/a-man-en.pdf.
ordinatur;» («So, each thing is excellently arranged when it is properly

directed to its purpose;», ScG I, ch. 1, no. 2).
Fig 1. An Analytical Tree Structure.
Except for the technical root of the tree (holding the textual reference of
the sentence), each node in the ATS corresponds to one word or punctuation
mark in the sentence. Nodes are arranged from left to right according to
surface word-order; they are connected in governor-dependent fashion
and each relation is labelled with an analytical function. For instance, the
relation between the word res and its governor disponitur is labelled with
the analytical function Sb (Subject), i.e. res is the subject of disponitur.
Four kinds of analytical functions that occur in the tree are assigned to
auxiliary sentence members, namely AuxC (subordinating conjunctions:
cum), AuxK (terminal punctuation marks), AuxP (prepositions: ad) and
AuxY (sentence adverbs: enim, tunc)20.
20
The other analytical functions occurring in this sentences are the following: Atr
(attributes), Adv (adverbs and adverbial modifications, i.e. adjuncts), AuxS (root of the
tree), Obj (direct and indirect objects), Pred (main predicate of the sentence).
12 MARCO PASSAROTTI
Tectogrammatical Layer
As the tectogrammatical annotation of the IT-TB has just started and no

other Latin texts annotated at the tectogrammatical layer are available yet,
we cannot train and use probabilistic NLP tools to build TGTSs. Thus, the
tectogrammatical annotation workflow is based on TGTSs automatically
converted from ATSs. The TGTSs that result from conversion are then
checked and refined manually by two independent annotators. Conversion
is performed by adapting to Latin a number of ATS-to-TGTS scripts
provided by the NLP framework Treex developed in Prague21. Relying on
ATSs, the basic functions of these scripts are:
- to collapse the ATS nodes for function words and punctuation marks,
as they no longer receive a node for themselves in TGTSs, but are
included into the nodes for autosemantic words;
- to assign basic functors (such as Actor, Patient etc.);
- to assign ‘grammatemes’: grammatemes are node attributes capturing
the meaning of semantically relevant morphological categories such
as number and gender for nouns, degree of comparison for adjectives
and adverbs, tense and aspect for verbs. For instance, pluralia tantum
nouns are tagged with the singular number grammateme. On the
contrary, collective nouns, despite being morphologically singular,
are tagged with the plural number grammateme.
The annotation guidelines are those for the tectogrammatical layer of
the PDT22.
So far, the first 200 sentences of ScG have been fully annotated at
tectogrammatical level (corresponding to 3,112 words and 451 punctuation
marks).
Figure 2 shows the TGTS corresponding to the ATS of the sentence
reported in figure 1.
21
M. POPEL – Z. ŽABOKRTSKÝ, «TectoMT: Modular NLP Framework», in H.
LOFTSSON – E. RÖGNVALDSSON – S. HELGADÓTTIR (eds.), Proceedings of IceTAL, 7th
International Conference on Natural Language Processing, Reykjavík, Iceland, August
17, 2010, Springer, Berlin – Heidelberg – New York 2010, pp. 293-304.
22
M. MIKULOVÁ et alii, Annotation on the Tectogrammatical Layer in the Prague
Dependency Treebank Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Prague 2006.
Available from http://ufal.mff.cuni. cz/pdt2.0/doc/manuals/en/t-layer/html/index.html.
Fig. 2. A Tectogrammatical Tree Structure23
As only autosemantic nodes can occur in TGTSs, auxiliary sentence

members labelled with AuxC, AuxK, or AuxP are collapsed.
Analytical functions are replaced with functors. The nodes for the
lemmas tunc and enim are both assigned the functor PREC, since they
represent expressions linking the clause to the preceding context; further,
tunc and enim are given nodetype ‘atom’ (atomic nodes), which is used
for adverbs of attitude, intensifying or modal expressions, rhematizers and
text connectives (which is the case of tunc and enim)24. Res is the Patient
(PAT) of dispono, as it is the syntactic subject of a passive verbal form
(disponitur)25. Both the adverbial forms of bonus (optime) and convenio
(convenienter) are labelled with functor MANN, which expresses manner
by specifying an evaluating characteristic of the event, or a property.
Unusquisque is a pronominal restrictive adnominal modification (RSTR)
23
In the default visualization of TGTSs, wordforms are replaced with lemmas.
24
MIKULOVÁ et alii, Annotation on the Tectogrammatical Layer in the Prague
Dependency Treebank, p. 17.
25
Conversely, syntactic subjects of active verbal forms are usually labelled with
the functor ACT (Actor). However, this does not always hold true, since the functor of
the subject depends on the semantic features of the verb.
14 MARCO PASSAROTTI
that further specifies the governing noun res. The clause headed by
ordinatur (lemma: ordino; analytical function: Adv) is assigned the functor
COND, as it reports the condition on which the event expressed by the
governing verb (disponitur; lemma: dispono) can happen. The lemma finis
is assigned the functor DIR3 (Directional: to), which expresses the target
point of the event. Finis is then specified by an adnominal modification of
appurtenance (APP).
Three newly added nodes occur in the tree (square nodes), to provide
ellipsis resolution of those arguments of the verbs dispono and ordino that
are missing in the surface structure. Dispono is a two-argument verb, the
two arguments being respectively the Actor and the Patient, but only the
Patient is explicitly expressed in the sentence, i.e. the syntactic subject
res. The missing argument, i.e. the Actor (ACT), is thus replaced with a
‘general argument’ (#Gen), because the coreferred element of the omitted
modification cannot be clearly identified, even with the help of the context.
The same holds also for the Actor of the verb ordino (#Gen), whose Patient
(#PersPron, PAT) is coreferential with the noun res, as well as the possessive
adjective suus (#PersPron, APP). In the TGTS, these coreferential relations
are shown by the blue arrows that link the two #PersPron nodes with the
node for res26.
The nodes in the TGTS are arranged from left to right according to
TFA, which is signalled by the colour of the nodes (white nodes: topic;
yellow nodes: focus). A so-called ‘semantic part of speech’ is assigned to
every node: for instance, ‘denotational noun’ is assigned to finis27. Finally,
the illocutionary force class informing about the sentential modality is
assigned to the main predicate of the sentence dispono (‘enunciative’).
Querying the Index Thomisticus Treebank
The IT-TB is a language resource freely available under a Creative

Common Licence (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License). Data can be queried by using two
26
#PersPron is a ‘t-lemma’ (tectogrammatical lemma) assigned to nodes repres-
enting possessive and personal pronouns (including reflexives).
27
For further details, see MIKULOVÁ et alii, Annotation on the Tectogrammatical
Layer in the Prague Dependency Treebank, p. 47.
different tools and query languages. Both the tools and the query languages
are highly portable, language-independent, well documented and widely
used in the field of (computational) linguistics.
TrEd and PML Tree Query
PML Tree Query (PML-TQ)28 is a query language and search engine

developed in Prague and freely available as an extension of the tree
editor TrEd29. PML-TQ supports complex queries (to be written either in
graphical or textual mode) and permits to build outputs in the form either
of sequences of trees or fully customizable lists.
Figure 3 presents a graphical query designed for searching the
analytical data of the IT-TB (“a-node” means “analytical-node”). This
query searches for all the occurrences of a subtree shaped as follows: a node
(named $n0) of a wordform whose lemma is sum (m/lemma= “sum”)30 and
that is member of a paratactic structure, i.e. a coordination or an apposition
(is_member = 1). This node has (at least) two direct, or indirect child-
nodes (‘echild’ relation), namely31:
- $n1: labelled with the analytical function Pnom (Nominal Predicate)
(afun = “Pnom”);
- $n2: (a) a wordform of the lemma forma (m/lemma= “forma”), (b)
member of a paratactic structure (is_member = 1) and (c) labelled
with analytical function Sb (Subject) (afun = “Sb”).
Further, $n1 must follow $n2 in the surface word-order of the sentence
(as it is represented by the horizontal arrow going from $n2 to $n1).
28
P. PAJAS – J. ŠTĚPÁNEK, «System for querying syntactically annotated corpora»,
in G. GEUNBAE LEE, S. SCHULTE IM WALDE (eds.), Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009
Software Demonstrations, World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd, Singapore 2009,
pp. 33-36.
29
http://ufal.mff.cuni.cz/tred/. The user manual of PML-TQ is accessible at http://
ufal.mff.cuni.cz/pmltq/doc/pmltq_doc.html.
30
Here, m/lemma refers to the lemma registered at the morphological layer of
annotation (m).
31
Indirect dependency relations are those where one or more intermediate nodes
occur between the head and the dependent in the tree. These nodes can be auxiliary
sentence members (like prepositions and subordinating conjunctions), coordinating
conjunctions (for instance, et), or words/expressions introducing appositions (scilicet).
16 MARCO PASSAROTTI
Fig. 3. A graphical query of analytical data.
Figure 4 reports one of the results of the above query.
Fig. 4. An ATS resulting from a query.

The sentence whose ATS is displayed in figure 4 is the following:

«perfectio autem et forma effectus est quaedam similitudo agentis, cum
omne agens agat sibi simile.» («but both the perfection and the form of
the effect are a kind of resemblance of the agent, since every agent does
something similar to itself»)32. Consistently with the query, the ATS in
figure 4 features a wordform of the lemma sum (est) heading a coordinated
subject, one of whose two members is a form of the lemma forma
(«perfectio et forma»); the nominal predicate of est (similitudo) follows
the subject in the surface order.
The corresponding textual mode of the above query looks as follows:
a-node $n0 :=
[ m/lemma = “sum”, is_member = 1,
. echild a-node $n2 :=
. [ afun = “Sb”, is_member = 1, m/lemma = “forma” ],
. echild a-node $n1 :=
. [ afun = “Pnom” ] ];
The query in textual mode gets written automatically by TrEd

according to what the user draws in the graphical interface. However, if
the user has more specific needs than viewing the output ATSs one by one
(like building a list extracted from results), she has to add manually an
instruction at the end of the textual query. For instance, if the user wants to
know which lemmas occur in the position of node $n1, i.e. which are the
lemmas that have the role of nominal predicate in this construction, she has
to add the following instruction:
>> for $n1.m/lemma give $1,count() sort by $2 desc,$1
This line tells the tool to take the lemma of each node $n1 in the query
(for $n1.m/lemma) and to return a list (give). Each row of this list must report
the lemma itself ($133) followed by the number of its occurrences (count()).
32
The textual reference of this sentence is the following: a- (analytical tree),
007 (seventh text registered in the IT), ST1 (ST I), QU--++6 (q. 6), AR1 (a. 1), 3-6
(sentence starts at line 3, word 6), 5-4 (sentence ends at line 5, word 4).
33
In the PML-TQ syntax, $1 refers to the first value among those occurring before
the last instruction in the query. In this case, the last instruction is give and the first (and
only) value occurring before give is $n1.m/lemma.
18 MARCO PASSAROTTI
The rows are ordered first by number of occurrences in descending fashion

and then by lemma alphabetically (sort by $2 desc,$1).
In this case, the output list informs that the most frequent lemma
occurring in the position of node $n1 is principium (5 occurrences). The
total number of occurrences of this construction in the IT-TB is 20. The full
list looks as follows:
principium 5
alius 2
idem 2
species 2
bonus 1
communis 1
corpus 1
forma 1
incorruptibilis 1
pervius 1
similitudo 1
unus 1
volo 1
As mentioned above, tectogrammatical annotation provides both

semantic role labelling and coreferential analysis. Figure 5 shows a query
on tectogrammatical data (t-nodes) that exploits these features. The query
is shaped as follows:
- $n0 is a t-node with lemma sapiens (t_lemma = “sapiens”)34;
- $n1 is a t-node labelled with semantic role ACT (Actor) (functor
= “ACT”), belonging to the same document of $n1 (arrow: “same-
document-as”) and coreferential with $n0. According to Mikulová et
alii35, coreference can be either grammatical or textual. Grammatical
coreference (coref_gram) is such a kind of coreference in which
it is possible to pinpoint the coreferred expression on the basis of
34
T_lemma is the lemma registered at the tectogrammatical layer of annotation
(t). T_lemmas usually correspond to m/lemmas, but exceptions may hold (MIKULOVÁ et
alii, Annotation on the Tectogrammatical Layer in the Prague Dependency Treebank,
pp. 22-35).
35
MIKULOVÁ et alii, Annotation on the Tectogrammatical Layer in the Prague
Dependency Treebank, p. 1100.
grammatical rules, like in the case of relative pronouns. Textual

coreference (coref_text) uses various linguistic means (pronouns,
synonyms, generalizing nouns etc.) which function as anaphoric
(occasionally, cataphoric) reference devices. This reference is not
made by grammatical means alone, but also via context; in those
cases where it is possibile to identify its coreferent element, textual
ellipsis is considered to be a case of textual coreference.
According to PML-TQ syntax, in order to search for the occurrences
of a node $n1 with either a grammatical or a textual coreference with
a node $n0, the same id of $n0 must be written for $n1 in one of its
attributes that report information about coreference (coref_gram.rf or
in coref_text.rf);
- $n2 is a verb (gram/sempos = “v”)36 that heads $n1 directly or
indirectly (‘eparent’ relation).
Roughly speaking, this query searches for all those places in the IT-
TB where sapiens plays the role of Actor of a verb, although this is not
explicitly expressed by one occurrence of the lemma sapiens in the text, but
by either an anaphoric expression or an elliptical construction. Note that
this query cannot be run on analytical data, because they do not provide
neither semantic role labelling, nor anaphora and ellipsis resolution.
Fig. 5. A graphical query of tectogrammatical data.
36
Gram/sempos refers to the grammateme (gram) called ‘semantic part of speech’
(sempos).
20 MARCO PASSAROTTI
Figure 6 displays a subtree of one of the TGTSs retrieved by the above

query.
Fig. 6. The subtree of a TGTS resulting from a query.
The subtree reported in figure 6 corresponds to a portion of the TGTS

of the following sentence: «multitudinis usus, quem in rebus nominandis
sequendum philosophus censet, communiter obtinuit ut sapientes dicantur
qui res directe ordinant et eas bene gubernant» («the usage of the multitude,
which according to the Philosopher is to be followed in giving names to
things, has commonly held that they are to be called wise who order things
rightly and govern them well»)37. The portion of the sentence pictured in
figure 6 is the following subordinate clause: «ut sapientes dicantur qui res
directe ordinant et eas bene gubernant».
The subtree in figure 6 features a grammatical (anaphoric) coreference
holding between the pronoun qui and the lemma sapiens, which is made
explicit by the arrow that connects the two nodes in the subtree. Consistently
with the query, qui is labelled with the ACT functor and depends on a
verb. Actually, in this case, qui depends on two coordinated verbs (i.e. qui
37
Textual reference: ScG I, ch. 1, no. 2. Sentence begins at the first word of the
first line (1-1) and ends at the first word of the fifth line (5-1).
depends ‘indirectly’ on these verbs, as echild): ordino and guberno38. In

other words, this subtree presents one occurrence of sapiens, represented
by a relative pronoun in the sentence and playing the semantic role of the
Actor shared by two coordinated verbs.
TüNDRA
The portion of the IT-TB annotated at the analytical layer is accessible

also through the web-based treebank search and visualization application
TüNDRA39 (Tübingen aNnotated Data Retrieval & Analysis)40. TüNDRA
is a web application for working with treebanks developed as part of
the web infrastructure of language resources and tools CLARIN-D and
accessible using CLARIN’s single sign-on infrastructure41. Academic
users at participating universities are able to log into and use TüNDRA
with their existing institutional login credentials, and other academic users
can request accounts from CLARIN.
TüNDRA allows users to view the syntactic analysis of each sentence in
the IT-TB, and to move from one sentence to the next or jump to a sentence
by its number in the treebank. Searching in the IT-TB is available by typing
a query into a specific box on the main TüNDRA page. TüNDRA uses
a query language adapted from the widespread TIGERSearch software42.
38
In TGTSs as well as in ATSs, dependent nodes shared by all the members
of a paratactic construction (coordination or apposition) are made dependent on the
coordinating (or apposing) element. In this case, qui depends on et because it is a
dependent node shared by ordino and guberno (both assigned is_member = 1).
39
S. MARTENS, «Tündra: A web application for treebank search and visualization»,
in S. KÜBLER – P. OSENOVA – M. VOLK (eds.), Proceedings of The Twelfth Workshop on
Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT12), Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia
2013, pp. 133-144.
40
The version of the IT-TB available in TüNDRA is updated twice a year. As
the size of the IT-TB is constantly growing, the number of words and sentences in the
most recent version of the treebank can differ from that accessible through TüNDRA.
Presently, TüNDRA gives access to 205,502 nodes and 11,721 sentences of the IT-TB.
41
CLARIN: Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure (http://
de.clarin.eu/).
42
W. LEZIUS, «TIGERSearch - Ein Suchwerkzeug für Baumbanken», in S. BUSEMAN
(ed.), Proceedings der 6. Konferenz zur Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache (KONVENS
2002), DFKI GmbH, Saarbrücken 2002. Available from http://konvens2002.dfki.de/
cd/inhalt/index.html.
22 MARCO PASSAROTTI
Query results are displayed by highlighting the treebank elements that

match the query. Users can browse within query results.
To search for the same construction queried by the PML-TQ query
reported in figure 3, type the following into the query box:
#0:[lemma=“sum” & edge=/.*(\_Co|\_Ap)$/] > #1:[edge=“Pnom”]

&
#0 > #3:[edge=/(Coord|Apos)/]
&
#3 > #2:[lemma=“forma” & edge=/Sb(\_Co|\_Ap)$/]
This query searches for any node (named #0) with a lemma attribute
matching the string “sum” (lemma = “sum”) and labelled with an analytical
function ending with the suffix _Co or _Ap (used respectively for members
of coordinations and appositions)43. Node #0 governs directly (>) node #1,
which is labelled with function Pnom (nominal predicate) (edge = “Pnom”).
This part of the query shows one deficiency of the query language used in
TüNDRA in comparison to PML-TQ, as TIGERSearch does not provide
any operator able to represent the echild relation of PML-TQ44. Thus,
indirect descendants cannot be searched in TüNDRA by using just one
single operator. One way to overcome this limit is to add auxiliary nodes in
the query (namely, those auxiliary nodes that are by-passed by the echild
relation in PML-TQ). The query here in question presents one example
of such a solution. Node #0 is supposed to govern indirectly a form of
the lemma forma labelled with function Sb (Subject) and member of a
paratactic construction. In order to represent this in the query, one auxiliary
node is added between the governor (#0) and the indirect descendant (#2:
lemma forma and function Subject). This node (named #3)
a) heads directly node #2 (#3 > #2),
b) depends directly on node #0 (#0 > #3),
43
This is represented in the following part of the query: edge=/.*(\_Co|\_Ap)$/.
The part included between slashes (/) is a regular expression; .* means “zero or more
occurrences of any character”; (\_Co|\_Ap)$ means that the string ends ($) with “_Co”
or (|) “_Ap”. Backslash is used to mean that here the underscore character (_) is used
in its literal meaning and not as a special character of a regular expression.
44
The echild relation is a property specific of PDT-like treebanks This is the
reason why it is not implemented in query languages not directly related to this kind
of treebanks.
c) is labelled with function Coord (coordinating elements), or Apos

(apposing elements) (edge=/(Coord|Apos)/).
Figure 7 shows the main page of TüNDRA. On the top left of the
screen, the “Search” box reports the query discussed above. The right side
of the screen shows one of trees resulting from the query, namely the same
tree of figure 4.
Fig. 7. The main page of Tündra.
The subtree matching the query is highlighted and nodes are named
accordingly to the names assigned in the query. Figure 8 shows a closer
view of the subtree.
Fig. 8. A subtree in Tündra.

24 MARCO PASSAROTTI
Multiple visualization formats of trees are available, providing

different perspectives on individual trees and corresponding to different
traditions in dependency tree drawing. In particular, TüNDRA provides
two visualization styles for dependency trees. The first one, shown in
Figures 7 and 8, draws on the visualization style most associated with Word
Grammar45. Words are ordered linearly, like on a page, and dependencies
are represented as arcs above the words. Figure 9 shows an alternative
visualization, based on the approach used in TrEd. The nodes of the tree are
arranged horizontally according to surface word order, but, like in TrEd,
their vertical placement reflects their place in the dependency hierarchy.
In both visualizations, lemmas and parts-of-speech are shown to users,
while the full set of morphological features is obscured to prevent screen
clutter, but can be optionally viewed by clicking an arrow beneath each token.
Fig. 9. A TrEd-like visualization of a subtree in Tündra.
TüNDRA also provides consolidated statistics for query; users can

download the raw result data for further analysis in spreadsheets or other
software of their own. For instance, figure 10 shows the statistics for
45
R. HUDSON, Word grammar, Blackwell, Oxford 1984.
the lemmas occurring in the place of node #2. The number of sentences
matching the query is reported in the top left corner of figure 10 (Sent.
match: 12). As mentioned above, principium is the most frequent lemma
in this position (3 occurrences). Note that these results differ from those
provided by the PML-TQ-based query (i.e. 20 sentences matching;
principium: 5 occurrences). This is due to the fact that TIGERSearch does
not provide an operator for searching indirect dependents, which can result
in loss of some results, like in this case.
Fig. 10. Statistics for a query in Tündra.
Except for the lack of a specific operator for searching indirect

relations, TIGERSearch fits the needs of searching the IT-TB very well. On
the application side, TüNDRA is very efficient, because it is user-friendly
and powerful at the same time. It is accessible from any compatible
browser, on any computer with an adequate Internet connection, with no
particular technical expertise required. Further, since TüNDRA is a web
application, treebank size and access speeds are not bounded by the limited
memory and storage of desktop computers.
26 MARCO PASSAROTTI
A Lexical-based Statistical Analysis of the Biblical Commentaries of

Thomas Aquinas
This section presents a lexical-based investigation of the Biblical

commentaries of Thomas Aquinas recorded in the IT.
The Biblical commentaries are being compared both to each other
and with the major works of Thomas Aquinas. By applying a statistical
technique, the texts get automatically organized in such a way that those
works that share a relevant amount (and distribution) of meaningful lexical
items are considered to be very similar to each other and get collected into
closely related groups.
In order to detail the lexical similarities and differences holding
between the works, a technique able to highlight those words that mostly
characterize one or more texts in comparison to the others is applied.
Data
The Biblical commentaries of Thomas Aquinas concerned in this
analysis are those available in the IT. Table 1 reports the titles of the works
and their size. Texts are organized into four main groups: (a) commentaries
on the Old Testament, (b) Catena Aurea, (c) commentaries on the Gospels
and (d) commentaries on the Letters of Saint Paul46.
Commentaries on the Old Testament

Title of the Work Number of Words
In Job 115,239
In Isaiam 100,322
In Hieremiam 58,473
In Psalmos 193,567
In Threnos Hieremiae 12,147
SUBTOTAL 479,748
Catena Aurea
In Mattheum 269,016
In Marcum 78,115
46
See BUSA, Index Thomisticus for details about the critical editions of the
commentaries recorded in the IT.
In Lucam 191,638
In Johannem 175,419
SUBTOTAL 714,188
Commentaries on the Gospels
Super Evangelium Matthaei 233,176
Super Evangelium Johannis 320,019
SUBTOTAL 553,195
Commentaries on St. Paul’s Letters
Super Epistulam ad Romanos 131,357
Super ad Corinthios 1 92,313
Super ad Corinthios 2 65,409
Super ad Galatas 48,078
Super ad Ephesios 48,331
Super ad Philippenses 18,068
Super ad Colossenses 19,190
Super ad Thessalonicenses 1 12,341
Super ad Thessalonicenses 2 8,456
Super ad Timotheum 1 27,755
Super ad Timotheum 2 16,816
Super ad Titum 12,484
Super ad Philemonem 3,082
Super ad Hebraeos 100,964
SUBTOTAL 604,644
TOTAL 2,351,755
Table 1. Biblical commentaries in the IT.
Since one of the analyses reported below compares the Biblical

commentaries with a number of other works of Thomas Aquinas (namely,
those collected under the label Opera Maiora in the IT), table 2 provides
the details for such works.
28 MARCO PASSAROTTI
Opera Maiora
In I Sententiarum 268,965
In II Sententiarum 296,307
In III Sententiarum 334,431
In IV Sententiarum 597,821
Summa contra Gentiles 325,820
Summa Theologiae 1 364,484
Quaestio disputata de veritate 1 287,113
Quaestio disputata de veritate 2 114,991
Quaestio disputata de potentia 183,562
Quaestio disputata de malo 180,464
Quaestio disputata de spiritualibus creaturis 35,279
Quaestio disputata de anima 59,920
Quaestio disputata de unione verbi 10,238
Quaestio disputata de virtutibus 80,068
Quodlibeta 134,152
TOTAL 4,482,565
Table 2. Opera Maiora in the IT47.
Method
Two statistical techniques are applied to textual data, namely Clustering

and Principal Component Analysis.
All the experiments are performed with the R statistical software48. In
particular, the “tm” (“text mining”) package49 is used to build and analyze
47
Summa Theologiae 2 and 3 correspond respectively to the first and to the second
section of the second part of the work. See BUSA, Index Thomisticus for further details.
48
R DEVELOPMENT CORE TEAM, A language and environment for statistical
computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Wien 2012. Available from http://
www.R-project.org/.
49
I. FEINERER – K. HORNIK, tm: Text Mining Package. R package version 0.5-
9, 2007, http://CRAN.R-project.org/ package=tm. I. FEINERER – K. HORNIK – D.
the document-term matrices that are employed for clustering50. Distance

and similarity measures provided by the package “proxy” are used as
well51.
Clustering
Clustering is a technique that deals with finding a structure in a

collection of (un)labeled data. In other words, clustering is the process of
organizing objects (named ‘observations’) into groups (named ‘clusters’)
whose members are similar in some way. Thus, a cluster is a collection of
objects which are ‘similar’ to each other and are ‘dissimilar’ to the objects
belonging to other clusters. One of the most tricky issue in clustering is
to define what “similarity” means and to find a clustering algorithm that
computes efficiently the degree of similarity between two objects that are
being compared.
Clustering methods can be applied to several different kinds of data,
among which are textual data, whose ‘objects’ are occurrences of words
in texts. Applying clustering techniques to textual data is usually made for
natural language processing purposes like topic classification, data mining,
named-entity recognition and word sense disambiguation. As far as word
sense disambiguation is concerned, clustering lies on the theoretical
assumption stated by Harris’ Distributional Hypothesis, according to which
words that are used in similar contexts tend to have the same or related
meanings52. This basic assumption is well summarised in the famous
quotation of Firth: «You shall know a word by the company it keeps»53.
MEYER, «Text Mining Infrastructure in R», Journal of Statistical Software, 25(5)

(2008) 1-54.
50
A document-term matrix is a mathematical matrix that holds frequencies of
distinct terms for each document. In a document-term matrix, rows correspond to
documents in the collection and columns correspond to terms. A term-document
matrix is a document-term matrix in which rows and columns are interchanged: rows
correspond to terms and columns correspond to documents in the collection.
51
D. MEYER – C. BUCHTA, Proxy: Distance and Similarity Measures. R package
version 0.4-10, 2013, http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/proxy/index.html.
52
Z. S. HARRIS, «Distributional structure», Word, 10 (1954) 146-162.
53
J. R. FIRTH, Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951, London University Press, London
1957.
30 MARCO PASSAROTTI
Word clustering techniques follow a two-step procedure:

1. classification: each word occurrence is represented as an observation
in a matrix and the (dis)similarity of two observations is computed;
2. clustering: some clustering algorithm is applied, such that similar
occurrences are grouped together.
Among several clustering techniques available, hierarchical clustering
is a specific method of cluster analysis which seeks to build a hierarchy of
clusters. Hierarchical clustering can be performed by following two main
strategies:
- agglomerative (bottom-up): each observation starts in its own cluster,
and pairs of clusters are merged as one moves up the hierarchy;
- divisive (top-down): all observations start in one cluster, and splits
are performed recursively as one moves down the hierarchy.
In this work, hierarchical agglomerative clustering is applied in order
to compute and graphically present the degree of similarity/dissimilarity
among texts. As full texts instead of single occurrences of words are here
concerned, this led to slightly modify the two basic theoretical assumptions
mentioned above: Thus, here it is assumed that
a) texts that feature a similar (distribution of the) lexicon tend to
address the same or related topics (Harris-revised);
b) you shall know a text by the words it keeps (Firth-revised).
These two assumptions are reflected in the clustering method, which
compares the texts by computing their distance in terms of lexical similarity,
as detailed in the following54.
Data cleaning
Punctuations and function words are removed from input data.

In particular, this concerns (both coordinative and subordinative)
conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns and the not-adjectival adverbs (like,
for instance, diu, nimis and semper). Since each word in the IT is assigned
one tag informing about its flexional type (nominal, verbal, or uninflected),
this task was performed automatically. Removing function words reduced
the size of input data of 50% on average in all the texts considered in the
analysis.
54
Comparison among texts is based on lemmas.
All the occurrences of the verb sum are removed from data, sum
being the most frequent verb in the IT (thus, spread over all the texts in the
corpus). Also, all the verbatim quotations are removed, in order to make the
analysis focus only on the words of Thomas and not also on those of other
authors quoted by Thomas in his texts55. Both these cleaning tasks were
performed automatically by exploiting respectively the lemmatization and
the annotation of quotations available in the IT.
Hierarchical agglomerative clustering analysis: distance
Clustering analysis is run on document-term matrices by using a

distance based on the cosine distance
d(i; i') = 1 – cos{(xi1, xi2, …, xik), (xi'1, xi'2, …, xi'k)}
The arguments of the cosine function in this relationship are two

rows, i and i', in a document-term matrix; xij and xi'j provide the number
of occurrences of a word j (j =1, …, k) in the two texts that correspond to
rows i and i' (“profiles”).
Zero distance between two documents (cosine = 1) holds when two
documents with the same profile are concerned (i.e. they have the same
relative conditional distributions of terms). In the opposite case, if two
texts do not share any word, the corresponding profiles have maximum
distance (cosine = 0).
A complete linkage agglomeration method is run. While building
clusters by agglomeration, at each stage the distance (similarity) between
clusters is given by the distance between the two elements that are most
distant (one from each cluster). Thus, complete linkage ensures that
all items in a cluster are within some maximum distance (or minimum
similarity) to each other.
Roughly speaking, according to this method, works that share a high
number of lemmas with similar distribution are considered to have a high
degree of similarity and, thus, fall into the same or related clusters.
55
The verbatim quotations are retained only in the analysis that compares the
Biblical commentaries with the Opera Maiora.
32 MARCO PASSAROTTI
Principal Component Analysis
While clustering computes the degree of similarity/dissimilarity

holding between two texts, it does not inform about which features
distinguish one text from the other. These features are those properties that
make two texts more similar (or dissimilar) to each other.
As the method here used is highly lexical-based, the features
considered are words (in particular, lemmas). In order to know which
lemmas distinguish one or more texts from the others, a technique called
‘Principal Component Analysis’ is applied.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a method to retrieve a structure
built according to one or more latent dimensions. This structure can be
defined by using different features: in the case in question, the features
considered are lemmas, which are used as bag-of-words representations of
texts. Such representations of texts get mapped into a vector space that is
assumed to reflect the latent dimension structure.
The PCA presentation described by Johnson & Wichern56 is used
to produce contribution biplots that graphically represent a vector
space57. Starting from an I × J term-document matrix Y (whose values
were previously standardized by column, in order to overcome the size
differences between texts), a reduction of the column (document) space
can be achieved by using PCA and considering dimensions which relate
texts that show high similarity in their term distributions.
A Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) of Y/(IJ)1/2 is then performed
S = Y/(IJ)1/2 = UDbV
where U and V are matrices whose columns are respectively the

left-singular and the right-singular vectors and Db is a diagonal matrix
containing the singular values in decreasing order.
The SVD allows to compute the coordinates U for the terms and
G = J1/2VDb
56
R. A. JOHNSON – D. W. WICHERN, Applied multivariate statistical analysis,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ 2002.
57
M. GREENACRE, Biplots in Practice, Fundación BBVA, Bilbao – Madrid 2010,
p. 67.
for the documents. By considering the first two columns of U and G, the
coordinates with respect to the first two principal components are obtained.
The squares of the elements in Db, divided by their total, inform
about the amount of variance explained by the principal components.
By considering the squared values of the coordinates of terms, their
contribution to principal axes is obtained.
Results
Figure 11 presents the clustering plot of all the Biblical commentaries

of Thomas Aquinas concerned in this analysis.
Height
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
In_threnos_Hieremiae.txt
In_Hieremiam.txt
In_Isaiam.txt
In_Job.txt
Super_Ad_Philemonem.txt
Super_Ad_Galatas.txt
(1 − simil(as.matrix(Commentaria_all_lemmas123_noQL_dtm), method = "correlation"))
Super_epistolam_ad_Romanos.txt
Super_Ad_Thessalonicenses_2.txt
Super_Ad_Timotheum_2.txt
Cluster Dendrogram
hclust (*, "complete")
Super_Ad_Titum.txt
Super_Ad_Colossenses.txt
Super_Ad_Ephesios.txt
In_Psalmos.txt
Super_Ad_Philippenses.txt
Super_2_Ad_Corinthios.txt
Super_Ad_Hebraeos.txt
Super_Evangelium_Johannis.txt
Super_Evangelium_Matthaei.txt
Super_1_Ad_Corinthios_1_VII.txt
Super_1_Ad_Corinthios_XI_XVI.txt
Catena_Aurea_in_Lucam.txt
Catena_Aurea_in_Marcum.txt
Catena_Aurea_in_Johannem.txt
Catena_Aurea_in_Matthaeum.txt
Fig. 11. Clustering plot of all the Biblical commentaries.

34 MARCO PASSAROTTI
According to agglomerative hierarchical clustering, each text starts

in its own cluster, and pairs of clusters are merged as one moves up the
hierarchy by an always lower degree of similarity.
From the clustering plot of figure 11 it looks clear that there are two
main clusters, one (A) featuring the four commentaries that form the Catena
Aurea and the other (B) including all the other commentaries. In particular,
among the four texts of the Catena Aurea, those about the Gospels of Luke
and Mark on one side and those about the Gospels of John and Matthew on
the other are collected together into separate clusters.
The four texts of the Catena Aurea are very much different from the
other ones here concerned. As clustering ends once all the texts are collected
into one common cluster, figure 11 shows that the four texts of the Catena
Aurea are dissimilar from the others at the height of 1.0, which means that
they are similar at 0.0. This is not surprising: since the Catena Aurea is
made up of excerpts from some eighty Greek and Latin commentators on
the Gospels, most of its texts are verbatim quotations (around 97% of the
texts), which are removed from input data in the cleaning phase.
By loooking in more detail into the cluster that collects all the texts
but the Catena Aurea (cluster B), it turns out that four out of five of the
commentaries on the Old Testament are clustered apart from the other
ones. In particular, the commentaries In Hieremiam and In Isaiam are
much similar to each other (being dissimilar at the height of 0.08) and are
clustered together with In Threnos Hieremiae, the latter being dissimilar to
the former at 0.19 (cluster B.1). Although the commentary In Job does not
appear in B.1, it is yet clustered apart from all the other texts that occur in
its cluster (B.2).
Among the commentaries on the Old Testament, only In Psalmos is
clustered together with the commentaries on the Letters of Saint Paul
and on the Gospels. In particular, In Psalmos is clustered together with
the commentaries on following letters: Super ad Philippenses, Super ad
Corinthios 2 and Super ad Hebraeos. Among the commentaries on the
letters of Saint Paul, Super Ad Philemonem is clustered apart from the others.
PCA is able to detail what makes one text (or group of texts) different
from another. As the method here applied is strongly lexical-based, this
question concerns the lemmas that distinguish one text (or group of texts)
from another. In particular, the analysis here presented wants to answer the
question about which lemmas make the commentary In Job different from
the other ones included in cluster B.2.
0.021 Super_Ad_Philemonem.txt
0.2
fides christus
dico
apostolus
pono
bonus Super_Ad_Thessalonicens
facio Super_Ad_Timotheum_
Super_Ad_Thessalonicenses
Super_Ad_Philippens
Super_Ad_Titum.txt
habeo Super_2_Ad_Corinth
Super_Ad_Hebraeo
Super_Ad_Timotheum
Super_Evangelium_Johan
Super_Evangelium_Matt
Super_Ad_Ephesi
0.0
Super_Ad_Colossense
Super_1_Ad_Corinthios_XI_
ostendo
Super_1_Ad_Corinthios_
In_Psalmos.txt
Super_epistolam_ad_Ro
pecco
video
divinus
−0.2
iob
possum deus
homo
−0.4
subdo
In_Job.txt 0.897
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fig. 12. PCA contribution biplot of cluster B.2.
Figure 12 is a contribution biplot that presents the results of PCA

performed on the term-document matrix of the works included in B.258.
In particular, the biplot in figure 12 represents the rows and the columns
of the term-document matrix through a graph whose axes are the first two
principal components, since these are able to explain almost 0.92 of the
total variance among texts59.
The first principal component gets graphically represented on the
horizontal axis of the contribution biplot and it is able to explain alone 0.897
of the variance. As all the works considered in this analysis polarize in the
same direction (the rightside of the biplot), the first principal component
describes a dimension that is common to all the texts involved.
58
In all the contribution biplots presenting the results of PCA, the words
appearing in the most central area of the vector (i.e. at height 0.0 on both the axes)
were removed for presentation purposes. This area includes all those lemmas that are
similarly distributed in all the works concerned in the analysis.
59
In more detail, the first two principal components explain 0.918 of the variance,
this proportion resulting from the sum of the explaining power of each of the two
components (respectively, 0.897 –horizontal axis– and 0.021 –vertical axis–).
36 MARCO PASSAROTTI
The second principal component is reported on the vertical axis of the

biplot and it explains 0.021 of the variance among texts. This component
describes a dimension that is able to detail what mostly characterize one
or more texts in comparison to the others. Although the second principal
component explains just 0.021 of the total variance among texts, it is yet
able to report meaningful differences, which allow to highlight the specific
lexical features that distinguish the commentary In Job from the other ones
included in B.2. For instance, the verbs habeo and ostendo are placed quite
in the center of the vector (around height 0.0 on the vertical axis). This
means that these lemmas are common to all the texts and do not characterize
any of them in comparison to the others. Instead, the lemmas subdo, homo,
possum, deus, iob, divinus, video and pecco are moved from the center and
characterize In Job, which is set apart from the other commentaries in the
biplot60.
In order to show better the relations holding among the texts that occur
in cluster B, figure 13 reports the results of clustering analysis performed
on a subset of B, from which the commentaries Super Ad Philemonem and
all those on the Old Testament (except for In Psalmos) were removed. The
texts included in this subset are dissimilar at 0.13.
60
Note that, accordingly to the clustering plot reported in figure 11, Super ad
Philemonem appears separated from the other texts also in figure 12.
Height
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
Super_Ad_Titum.txt
Cluster Dendrogram
In_Psalmos.txt
Fig. 13. Clustering plot of a subset of the Biblical commentaries.
Figure 13 shows two main clusters, one including the commentaries

Super ad Galatas and Super Epistulam ad Romanos (cluster C), the other
featuring all the other texts (cluster D). Cluster D is then organized into
two subclusters:
- the first (D.1) includes the commentaries on both the letters Ad
Thessalonicenses and on both those Ad Timotheum. Further, it
features the commentary on the letter Ad Titum, this one being much
similar to the commentary on the first letter Ad Timotheum;
- the second (D.2) is further divided into two subclusters (D.2.1 and D.2.2),
showing that the commentaries on the Gospels of John and Matthew are
much similar to each other (dissimilar at 0.04) and are more similar to
those on the two letters Ad Corinthios than to all the other ones.
38 MARCO PASSAROTTI
The contribution biplots reported in figures 14 and 15 help to shade

light respectively on the lemmas that distinguish the commentaries Super
ad Galatas and Super Epistulam ad Romanos from the others (figure 14)
and on those that mostly characterize the commentaries on the Gospels
of John and Matthew and on the two letters Ad Corinthios (figure 15). In
both these analyses, the first two principal components (represented on
the horizontal and on the vertical axis respectively) explain a substantial
amount of the total variance among texts (0.94: figure 14; 0.945: figure 15).
Figure 14 shows the results of PCA performed on the term-document
matrix of the works included in clusters C and D.261. It turns out that the
commentaries Super ad Galatas and Super Epistulam ad Romanos are
characterized by the lemmas apostolus, fides, spiritus, pecco and iudaeus.
Figure 15 presents the results of PCA performed on the term-
document matrix of the works included in cluster D.2. The commentaries
on the Gospels of John and Matthew and on the two letters Ad Corinthios
are distinguished from the other works here concerned by the following
lemmas: possum, corpus, dominus, video (these two words are overlapped
in the biplot), sacramentum and intelligo.
0.012 deus
0.2
pono
In_Psalmos.txt
habeo
Super_Ad_Philippense
bonus
Super_Evangelium_Joha
Super_Ad_Colossense
christus Super_2_Ad_Corinth
0.0
homo dico Super_Ad_Ephesi

facio
possum Super_Ad_Hebrae
Super_epistolam_ad_Rom
iudaeus
pecco
spiritus
−0.2
fides
apostolus
−0.4
−0.6
lex 0.928
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fig. 14. PCA contribution biplot of clusters C and D.2.
61
For a better visualization of the results, works included in cluster D.1 were
excluded from this PCA.
0.013 deus
0.4
0.3
0.2
bonus
ostendo In_Psalmos.txt
Super_Ad_Philippense
malus Super_Ad_Colossense
0.1
pono Super_Ad_Ephesi
habeo Super_2_Ad_Corinth
homo Super_Ad_Hebrae
0.0
christus
facio
−0.1
intelligo dico
Super_Evangelium_Joha
sacramentum
dominus
video
corpus
−0.2
possum 0.932
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fig. 15. PCA contribution biplot of cluster D.2.
In order to identify the relations holding between the Biblical

commentaries of Thomas Aquinas and the other most important works of
him, clustering analysis was run on a data set featuring both the Biblical
commentaries and the so-called Opera Maiora.
Figure 16 reports the plot that results from this analysis.
40 MARCO PASSAROTTI
Height
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
In_threnos_Hieremiae.txt
In_Hieremiam.txt
In_Isaiam.txt
Quaestio_disputata_de_malo.txt
Quaestio_disputata_de_virtutibus.txt
Catena_Aurea_in_Marcum.txt
Catena_Aurea_in_Lucam.txt
Catena_Aurea_in_Matthaeum.txt
Catena_Aurea_in_Johannem.txt
Super_Ad_Philemonem.txt
In_Psalmos.txt
Cluster Dendrogram
Super_Ad_Titum.txt
In_Job.txt
Summa_Theologiae_4−lemmas.txt
Summa_contra_Gentiles.txt
Quaestio_disputata_de_veritate_1.txt
In_I_Sententiarium.txt
Quaestio_disputata_de__potentia.txt
Summa_Theologiae_1.txt
Quaestio_disputata_de_veritate_2.txt
In_IV_Sententiarium.txt
In_III_Sententiarium.txt
In_II_Sententiarium.txt
Quodlibeta.txt
Quaestio_disputata_de_unione_verbi.txt
Quaestio_disputata_de_anima.txt
Quaestio_disputata_de_spiritualibus_creaturis.txt
Fig. 16. Clustering plot of all the Biblical commentaries and the Opera Maiora.
This experiment was also performed in order to evaluate the clustering

method here used. As a matter of fact, the lexical features of the Biblical
commentaries are quite different from those of the Opera Maiora.
Accordingly, figure 16 shows that clustering analysis manages to organize
most of the Biblical commentaries and of the Opera Maiora into separate
clusters.
In more detail, figure 16 presents two main clusters. The first cluster
(A) features the commentaries In Threnos Hieremiae, In Hieremiam and
In Isaiam, which are confirmed to be much similar to each other and
quite different from the other texts of Thomas. All the other texts are
collected together into the second cluster (B), which is further divided
into two subclusters. The first (C) includes three quaestiones disputatae
(De unione verbi, De anima, De spiritualibus creaturis); the second (D) is
divided into one small cluster (D.1), which features only two quaestiones
disputatae (De malo and De virtutibus), and a bigger one (D.2), which
collects all the remaining texts. D.2 is the most interesting cluster to
analyze, because it clearly organizes the works by textual category into
two separate clusters:
- cluster D.2.1, featuring Biblical commentaries only;
- cluster D.2.2, featuring all the Opera Maiora but the commentary
In Job, which is clustered quite apart from the other texts included
in D.2.2, thus confirming its stand-alone nature among the Biblical
commentaries.
The method is able to cluster the works by textual category,
distinguishing the Biblical commentaries from the Opera Maiora. Such
an organization of the works of Thomas Aquinas is again confirmed by
the results of PCA applied to the same collection of texts (i.e. Biblical
commentaries and Opera Maiora).
42 MARCO PASSAROTTI
0.4
0.026 Quaestio_disputata_de_anima.txt
Quaestio_disputata_de_spiritualibus_creaturis.t
0.3
anima
Summa_contra_Gentiles.
Quaestio_disputata_de_verita
0.2
Quaestio_disputata_de_virtutibus.txt
Quaestio_disputata_de_veritate_
In_II_Sententiarium.t
actus Quaestio_disputata_de__pot
Summa_Theologiae_
forma sum
Quaestio_disputata_de_malo.txt
corpus possum
natura Summa_Theologiae_2.t
Quaestio_disputata_de_unione_verbi.txt
Quodlibeta.txt
intellectus
potentiaratio In_III_Sententiarium
In_I_Sententiarium.tx
In_IV_Sententiarium.
0.1
Summa_Theologiae_
Summa_Theologiae_4−lemm
0.0
Super_Ad_Timotheum
Super_Ad_Titum.
Super_Ad_Colossen
In_Job.txt
Super_Ad_Hebrae
Super_Ad_Philippens
Super_Ad_Philemonem.tx
Super_Ad_Ephesio
Super_2_Ad_Corinth
Super_Ad_Galatas.t
Super_Ad_Timotheum
−0.1
Super_epistolam_ad_Ro
Super_1_Ad_Corinthios_1
Super_Evangelium_Ma
Catena_Aurea_in_Mattha
Catena_Aurea_in_Johanne
Super_Ad_Thessalonicens
ostendo Super_Ad_Thessalonicens
Catena_Aurea_in_Lucam
christus Super_Evangelium_Joha
deus Catena_Aurea_in_Marcum.txt
In_Psalmos.txt
−0.2
dico
pono In_threnos_Hieremiae.txt
facio
In_Isaiam.txt
−0.3
dominus
In_Hieremiam.txt 0.902
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fig. 17. PCA contribution biplot of all the Biblical commentaries and
the Opera Maiora.
The contribution biplot reported in figure 17 clearly shows two

peripheric areas, respectively featuring the quaestiones disputatae De anima
and De spiritualibus creaturis (top of the figure) and the commentaries In
Threnos Hieremiae, In Hieremiam and In Isaiam (bottom). All the other
works are then organized into two main (black) areas: the first area from
top is that of the Opera Maiora, while the second is that of the Biblical
commentaries. The fourth part of ST stands more or less in the middle
between these two areas.
Loosely speaking, figure 17 represents the lexical-based map of all the
(main) works of Thomas Aquinas.
Conclusion
Language resources like annotated corpora, computational lexica and

ontologies, as well as NLP tools and systems for querying large amounts
of textual data are today widespread among scholars in (computational)
linguistics.
The most advanced language resources presently available are made

for modern languages and mostly concern texts taken from newspapers.
Instead, ancient texts written in Classical languages as well as literary and
philosophical texts still undergo a kind of gap, lacking state-of-the-art
language resources and tools. This is due both to ‘traditional’ humanists
and to computational linguists (among which also some ‘non-traditional’
humanists may hide). Actually, a large number of humanists (particularly,
classicists) is still today unwilling both to apply computational methods
to textual analysis and to use digital language resources in their every-day
work. Computational linguists, in turn, are more prone to develop language
resources and NLP tools for living languages, which have stronger
commercial, media and social impact.
If building new language resources and NLP tools for ancient
languages and literary or philosophical texts from scratch still remains
a labor-intensive and time-consuming task, today this is simplified by
the possibility of exploiting the results of previous similar experiences
in language resources development. Such results can be used for
porting background theories, methods and tools from one language to
another in a rapid and low-cost fashion. However, this task must deal
with several specific linguistic features of the texts in question. For
instance, as far as philosophical texts are concerned, these features deal
both with semantic issues (some words undergo a kind of technical
shift of meaning in philosophical texts) and with aspects of lexical
selection (high register words are pretty frequent). Further, the absence
of native speakers often makes it difficult to choose among different
interpretations of the texts.
But the work is worth doing. Advanced language resources
and NLP tools will help scholars to improve their understanding of
philosophical texts. In this respect, this paper has shown «what you can
do with linguistically annotated data» by presenting a couple of practical
experiments run on the IT-TB and the IT respectively. Hopefully, these
experiments demonstrate how much essential is the collaboration between
computational linguists (who build language resources) and philosophers
(who - should - use them). On purpose, the paper has not presented an
in-depth interpretation of the results achieved from clustering and PCA,
limiting itself to just describe what the results look like, because this is
the task of computational linguistics here: to provide resources, tools and
methods able to manage large amounts of textual data as much efficiently
44 MARCO PASSAROTTI
as possible. These results are now in the hands of philosophers and wait to
be interpreted properly.
The very aim of this paper is to provide evidence in support of the
massive use of language resources and NLP tools in the humanities, also in
order to overcome a kind of paradox. Indeed, on one side, one of the first
machine-readable corpora ever built was developed out from the Latin texts
of a Medieval philosopher, but, on the other, it turns out that classicists and
philosophers are today among the humanists most reluctant to use digital
resources and tools in their research work. Granted, father Busa was ahead
of his time. But, over the last decade, digital technology has entered our
life at almost every stage. There is no reason why it should not enter our
professional life too, because, as the founder of the Perseus Digital Library,
Gregory Crane, often reminds: «it’s not the digital humanities, it’s the
humanities in a digital age».
GILBERT DAHAN*
THOMAS AQUINAS: EXEGESIS AND HERMENEUTICS
The period during which St Thomas Aquinas composed his

philosophical, theological, and exegetical works is without doubt one
of the most outstanding eras in the history of western thought. Between
1230 and 1260, the definition of theology as a science1, as distinct from
biblical exegesis, was born from intense reflection (and, it is worth noting
as an aside, brought about the foundation of what we now call the ‘social
sciences’2). One of the most notable consequences is that biblical exegesis
itself, in a certain fashion, earned its autonomy from the very fact of this
separation, because Scripture was central to the reflection which produced
the science of theology. We note that the debate had its modest origins in
the prologues to the commentaries on the Sentences in discussions on the
nature of theology (which was then understood as being simultaneously
the Word of God and a discourse on this Word).
In fact, the dissociation was twofold: in the first phase there was the
distinction between the science (of theology) and its object; in the second
phase, as an indirect result, the distinction between a discourse about God,
strictly speaking (our theology, which attempts to speak about God in
human terms and in modes controlled by human reason), and a discourse
about the Word of God (exegesis, which attempts to analyse the divine Word
with the methods provided by human sciences). So Scripture was, as it
were, objectivised, allowing for a scientific analysis (and, in the Thirteenth
Century, it became possible also to speak of ‘exegesis as science’3).
Thomas Aquinas belonged to this pivotal generation: he took part in the
final phase of the reflection, or rather, from his Commentary on the Sentences
onwards, he contributed brilliantly to bringing it to its fulfilment. But, at the
*
Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) et École pratique des hautes
études (EPHE), Paris, France.
1
Cf. M.-D. CHENU, La théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle, Vrin, Paris 1969,
3rd ed.
2
See my study «Théologie et politique aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles. Quelques
réflexions», Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses, 91 (2011) 507-523
3
Cf. G. DAHAN, L’exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident Médiéval, XIIe-XIVe
siècle, Cerf, Paris 1999, especially pp. 108-116.
46 GILBERT DAHAN
same time, he clearly grasped the consequences of the development, this

series of dissociations which could result in a fragmentation of learning.
Even if a separate theological science and exegetical science had been
formed, they needed to be allowed to nourish one another: if biblical
exegesis concerns itself with the descent of God towards humanity, then
theology, ascending back to God, finds its sustenance in this divine gift.
Thus, more than at any other moment in history, hermeneutical reflection
was then a necessity for the Christian thinker. It is displayed in St. Thomas
with a rare intensity (scarcely to be found in others, apart from his Franciscan
‘adversary’ Peter of John Olieu). Certainly, any study of Aquinas’s exegesis
could not be reduced to this hermeneutical reflection4: the exegete himself
must also be seen in action, at his work, using all the tools available to
him and, above all, all the ever more elaborate techniques of an emerging
academic exegesis. However interesting it might be to undertake a detailed
study of the procedures employed, such as textual criticism, grammatical
analysis, semantics, rhetoric, history, archaeology, and philosophical and
theological analysis5, I will confine myself here to considering some of the
central points of St. Thomas’s hermeneutical reflection, which are equally
the fundamental questions arising in the debates which have already been
touched upon: on the proper mode of Scripture, on the borders between
literal and spiritual exegesis, on the transition from the letter to the spirit. In
fact, these issues are subtly interconnected and can only be examined within
the very work of exegesis itself, as has already been suggested6.
4
The great study by M. R. NARVÁEZ, Thomas d’Aquin lecteur. Vers une nouvelle
approche de la pratique herméneutique au Moyen Âge, Peeters, Louvain 2012, tackles
the question from a philosophical point of view. My outlook here will be limited,
and directed towards what pertains directly to the exegesis of the Bible. See also the
important work (which, however, neglects the commentaries themselves) of M. ARIAS
REYERO, Thomas von Aquin als Exeget, Johannes Verlag, Einsiedeln 1971, and that
of M. AILLET, Lire la Bible avec S. Thomas. Le passage de la littera à la res dans la
Somme théologique, Éditions universitaires, Fribourg 1993.
5
The elements for such a study will be found in my introduction to the French
translations by Jean-Éric Stroobant de Saint-Éloi of Aquinas’s commentaries on the
Pauline epistles, all published by Cerf in Paris; see 1 Corinthiens (2002); 2 Corinthiens
(2005); Galates (2008); Ephésiens (2012); Philippiens (2014).
6
To situate the commentaries and theological works within the evolution of
Thomas’s thought and teaching, see J.-P. TORRELL, Initiation à Saint Thomas d’Aquin.
Sa personne et son œuvre, 2ème Édition revue et augmentée, Éditions universitaires de
Fribourg Cerf, Fribourg – Paris 2002.
THOMAS AQUINAS: EXEGESIS AND HERMENEUTICS 47
1. Litteral sense, spiritual sense
1.1. Multiple Senses
I will discuss a juxtaposition, rather than an opposition, between the

literal and spiritual meanings. As a component of Christian exegesis, this
juxtaposition is based on the major presupposition that Scripture is the
Word of God, and therefore that the full wealth of the message cannot be
confined by mere human forms of expression. In a well-known passage
from the beginning of the Summa Theologiæ, St. Thomas cites St.
Gregory’s affirmation, which has become the standard point of reference
on the topic7: Sacra Scriptura omnes scientias ipso locutionis suae more
transcendit, “Sacred Scripture goes beyond all forms of knowledge and
teaching even by the mere manner of its style of speaking” (and note that
this is immediately followed by the no less famous dum narrat gestum,
prodit mysterium)8.
This is because the text of Scripture comes from a dual auctoritas: the
first is God; the inspired prophet or scribe acts as a secondary, instrumental,
auctoritas, writing at God’s dictation and so channelling the transcendent
message, translating it and adapting it to human language. The issue of
auctoritas was elaborated over the course of the Thirteenth Century9,
notably through the adoption, in the prologues to the commentaries, of
Aristotle’s four causes –the discussion here being on the causa efficiens. In
truth, Aquinas rather preferred the old schema of the accessus (which also
carries implications for the auctor)10. But the distinction had been made;
thus the prologue to Lamentations takes Ezek 2:9 as for its ‘theme’: Ecce
manus missa est ad me, in qua erat liber involutus… The ‘outstretched
7
ST Ia, q. 1, a. 10. On this article, see the commentary by H. D. Gardeil,
accompanying his translation La théologie, Ia, prologue et question 1, Desclée, Paris-
Tournai-Rome 1968, pp. 148-154.
8
Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob XX, I, 1. Ed. by M. ADRIAEN, Brepols,
Turnhout 1979, p. 1003 (CCSL, 143A).
9
Cf. A. J. MINNIS, Medieval Theory of Authorship. Scholastic literary attitudes in
the later Middle Ages, Wildwood House, Aldershot 1988, 2a ed.
10
On these schemas, see G. DAHAN, «Les prologues des commentaires bibliques
(XII -XIVe s.)», in J. HAMESSE, Les Prologues mediévaux, Brepols, Turnhout 2000,
e
pp. 427-470 [republished in Lire la Bible au moyen âge. Essais d’herméneutique

mediévale, Droz, Genève 2009, pp. 57-101].
48 GILBERT DAHAN
hand’ refers to the author, the wisdom of God, who in his benevolence
speaks to men; it is the fingers of this hand which write (Thomas is quoting
Jer 1:9 and Dan 5:1), and these fingers are «the prophets and other doctors»;
in this way, «man, in transmitting divine wisdom, acts exteriorly by his
ministry, whilst interiorly, wisdom herself completes the process»11. The
‘theme’ of the prologue to Isaiah, Hab 2: 2-3, is also very revealing: Scribe
visum et explana eum super tabulas…; scribe visum refers to the author,
who is the Holy Spirit, and his ‘minister’, the tongue of the prophet, who
is the instrument (organum) of the Holy Spirit12. This, of course, takes
us back to Ps 44:2, Lingua mea calamus scribae velociter scribentis, on
which Thomas comments:
Here the author of the Psalm, who is the tongue, is presented as

though he said: Do not believe me to have written this psalm on my
own initiative, but with the help of the Holy Spirit, who employs my
tongue as a scribe employs a pen. And so the principal author is the
Holy Spirit, 2 Kings 23 [2 Sam 23:2], The Spirit of the Lord speaks
by me, as an instrument13.
In the prologue to the Psalms itself, we see a demonstration of the

motif of Scripture as surpassing all human science –the other sciences
are produced by human reason, Scripture under the spur of divine
inspiration; thus «the tongue of man [hence of the human author of the
11
Opera omnia, ed. Vivès, t. XIX, Paris 1876, p. 199: «In auctore designatur
benegnitas, unde dicit: Ecce manus missa est. Haec manus sapientia Dei est, qua
omnia facta sunt […] Ipsa est quae intellectum aperit ad videndum […] Ipsa est quae
linguam expedit ad loquendum […] Ipsa est quae manum dirigit ad scribendum, Dan.
v: Apparuerunt digiti quasi hominis scribentis, qui sunt prophetae et alii doctores in
quibus sapientiae dona dividimus [?], ut totum quod homo tradendo divinam sapientiam
exterius agit ministerio, ipsa interius perficiat auctoritate».
12
In Is., ed. Leonina, t. XXVIII, Roma, 1974, p. 3 : «Actor enim Scripture sacre
Spiritus Sanctus est […] Spiritus enim loquitur misteria, sicut dicitur I Cor. xiv [2].
Minister ostenditur in scribentis actu ; dicit enim Scribe : fuit autem lingua prophete
organum Spriritus Sancti, sicut in Ps. [44, 2] dicitur […]».
13
While waiting for the critical edition, I am using Divi Thomae Aquinatis
Expositio in Iob et in primam Davidis quinquagenam, Typ. Virgiliana, Naples 1857, p.
324 : «Hic ponitur actor psalmi, qui est lingua, quasi dicat : non intelligatur quod ex
proprio hunc fecerim, sed auxilio Spiritus sancti, qui utitur lingua mea sicut scriptor
utitor calamo. Et ideo principalis actor huius psalmi est Spiritus sanctus, 2 Reg. 23 :
Spiritus Domini loquutus est per me, quasi per instrumentum».
biblical texts] is like the tongue of a child who repeats the words which
another dictates14».
This last image throws light on a theme which Thomas develops
elsewhere and which emphasises the richness of Scripture: the fact that
the text exceeds our human intelligence. The development is found in an
article from the great treatise on prophecy in the Summa Theologiae II-
II, «Whether prophets always know the things which they prophesy?»
St. Thomas’s answer is no: «In prophetic revelation the prophet’s mind
is moved by the Holy Spirit, as an instrument that is deficient (sicut
instrumentum deficiens) in regard to the principal agent. Now the prophet’s
mind is moved (movetur) not only to apprehend something, but also to
speak or to do something»15. This speaking or doing exceed the prophet’s
understanding: it is the work of the exegete to make explicit the inspired
word or action. This is not to make the exegete superhuman or superior to
the prophet: exegesis is a humble science which falls within a tradition –
but the exegete benefits from the perspective of history and this placement
within a history enables the progressive clarification of the word of God16.
This word is presented for understanding and is understood little by little
as history progresses. Thomas described the work of exegesis in forceful
terms. I will again cite the prologue to Lamentations: the second part of
the ‘theme’, the folded book17, provides the opportunity for describing this
14
Ibid., p. 146: «Notandum autem quod aliud est in sacra Scriptura et aliud in aliis
scientiis: nam aliae scientiae sunt per rationem humanam editae, haec autem Scriptura
per instinctum inspirationis divinae […] Et ideo lingua hominis se habet in Scriptura
sacra sicut lingua pueri dicentis verba quae alius ministrat», Ps 44:2 is then quoted.
15
ST II-II, q. 173, a. 4, Utrum prophetae semper cognoscant ea quae prophetant:
«Respondeo dicendum quod in revelatione prophetica movetur mens prophetae a
Spiritu sancto sicut instrumentum deficiens respectu principalis agentis. Movetur
autem mens prophetae non solum ad aliquid apprehendendum.sed etiam ad aliquid
loquendum vel ad aliquid faciendum». See La prophétie, 2a 2ae, questions 171-178,
transl., notes by P. SYNAVE and P. BENOIT, ed. J.-P. TORRELL, Cerf, Paris 2005, p. 105
(and explanatory notes, pp. 249-250 and pp. 286-293, on the «deficient instrument»).
16
I have endeavoured to show that this idea of progress is central to Aquinas; cf.
«Ex imperfecto ad perfectum: le progrès de la pensée humaine chez les théologiens du
XIIIe siècle», in E. BAUMGARTNER – L. HARF-LANCNER, Progrès, réaction, décadence
dans l’Occident médiéval, Droz, Genève 2003, pp. 171-184 [republished in Lire la
Bible au moyen âge, pp. 409-425].
17
Ed. Vivès, p. 200. The whole of the prologue is remarkable. One’s attention
is held by this note too, which brings out the work of the exegete: «Haec involutio
50 GILBERT DAHAN
work. Scriptural exegesis (the unfolding of the book) must be inspired

in the same way as the original composition was; this consists of three
remarkable steps ordered by God, the first exegete: an opening up of the
words of Scripture (Deus aperit Scripturarum verba), a disclosure of the
mysteries (revelat occulta mysteria), and a decoding of the metaphors
(explicat similitudinem). We observe that this description also solves the
problem of the coexistence of the literal and spiritual meanings.
1.2. The Four Senses
Theorists have, since the beginnings of Christian exegesis, tried to

delineate Scripture’s riches, or, at the very least, to describe the fundamental
methods which Scripture employs. Their reflections are evidently the basis
of the theories of the multiple senses of Scripture and, more particularly,
of the famous theory of the four senses, explored by Henri de Lubac18.
In Aquinas’s time, this theory was considered to be ‘canonical’, or at
least normative: it was widely accepted. It reached its final form or, more
precisely, came to be seen as ‘authoritative’, at the end of the Twelfth or
beginning of the Thirteenth Century, notably amongst the group of Parisian
exegetes who have come to be referred to as the ‘Biblical-Moral School’.
It seems to have been Stephen Langton specifically who endowed the four
senses with this authority19 (the masters of the School of Saint-Victor, a
generation or two earlier, had a different formula20). It would appear that
Spiritus sancti explicatur a sacris expositoribus, quia sacrae Scripturae eodem spiritu
sunt expositae quo sunt editae […]».
18
H. DE LUBAC, Exégèse mediévale. Les quatre sens de l’Écriture, 4 vol., Aubier,
Paris 1959-1964.
19
See B. SMALLEY, «Stephen Langton and the Four Senses of Scripture»,
Speculum, 6 (1931), 60-76; R. QUINTO, «Stefano Langton e i quattro sensi della
Scrittura», Medioevo, 15 (1989), 107-109; G. DAHAN, «Les commentaires bibliques
d’Étienne Langton: exégèse et herméneutique», in L.-J. BATAILLON – N. BÉRIOU –
G. DAHAN – R. QUINTO, Étienne Langton, prédicateur, bibliste, théologien, Brepols,
Turnhout 2010, pp. 201-239.
20
The triple schema: see notably Hugh of St. Victor, De scripturis et scriptoribus
sacris, c. 4, P.L., vol. 175, Paris 1854, col. 4 (historia, allegoria, tropologia);
Didascalicon V, 2, Ed. by H. BUTTIMER, Catholic University of America Press,
Washington D.C. 1939. p. 95: «Primo omnium sciendum est quod divina scriptura
triplicem habet modum intelligendi, id est historiam, allegoriam, tropologiam».
Langton played a major role in codifying biblical studies (he is notably

credited with having created the modern chapter divisions). But I myself
am not convinced that, however broad his biblical studies may have been,
and especially his commentaries covering a large proportion of Scripture,
Langton was a very deep exegetical theorist: as far as the four senses are
concerned, he formalised a tradition. Several of his contemporaries, whilst
taking account of the four senses scheme, did not hesitate to draw attention
to the difficulties and inadequacies in it: only look to certain passages of
Peter of Poitiers, Thomas of Chobham or Simon of Tournai, which seem
to sow the seeds of a challenge to this scheme21. It seems to have been an
artificial and barely functioning codification: the rigorous examination to
which St. Thomas submitted it reinforces this impression –even if it is
clear, as much in the hermeneutical reflection of Quodlibet VII as in the
beginning of the Summa Theologiæ, that he did accept the scheme.
But it is advisable to take the form of scholastic disputation seriously:
at least in the Faculty of Theology, the opposition of the pro and contra
arguments was neither a game nor a schoolroom exercise. If there was still a
debate over a point on which all sides were theoretically in agreement, it was
not for the enjoyment of the disputatio but because beyond the agreement
there was an awareness of the issues raised by a given affirmation. Thus it
seems to me that St. Thomas’s discussion on the four senses is a real one,
and one with high stakes22. It is principally concerned with the subject of
the language of the Bible (the importance of which we will demonstrate
later) and with the nature of allegory (the discussion of which concerns the
category of the moral sense). The four senses was rescued as a theory, but
it seemed to have been somewhat dislocated and put back into joint with
other, more essential, systems. The most noteworthy of these systems is
that which takes into account the significatio vocum / significatio rerum
pairing. Having been clearly set out by St. Augustine23, it was constantly
21
See the clarification which I suggest in «Les quatre sens de l’Écriture dans
l’exégèse mediévale», in M. ARNOLD (ed.), Annoncer l’évangile (XVe-XVIIe s.).
Permanences et mutations de la predication, Cerf, Paris 2006, pp. 17-40 [republished
in Lire la Bible au moyen âge, pp. 199-224].
22
Quodl. VII, q. 6, art. 2, ed. Leonina, t. XXV/1, Paris – Roma 1996, pp. 29-32.
I give a translation of q. 6 in Interpréter la Bible au moyen âge. Cinq écrits du XIIIe s.
sur l’exégèse de la Bible, Parole et Silence, Paris 2009, pp. 61-79.
23
De doctrina Christiana I, 2, 2, ed. and transl. by M. MOREAU, notes by I. BOCHET
and G. MADEC, Institut d’études augustiniennes, Paris 1997, p. 79.
52 GILBERT DAHAN
revisited in the course of hermeneutical reflection, including under the

variant form allegoria in verbis / allegoria in factis (or rebus)24. Several
Twelfth Century authors, especially those from Saint-Victor, made this the
main line of their exegetical theory. In applying it, the specific status of the
biblical text is made explicit: Scripture forms at the same time an enclosed
set, whose elements respond to one another and where the meanings can be
on the first level (voces referring to res, the former only having the nature
of a sign) or the second level (res referring to other res, both of them being
real), but also a set which is open to the reality of the res of this world.
For proof that the four senses theory was not truly functioning in the
work of exegesis, we could equally look to the way in which Thomas
tackled a particular scriptural problem. In the Quodlibet III, a question is
asked de arcu nubium qui dicitur yris, utrum sit signum diluuii non futuri,
«Whether the rainbow [of Gen 9: 13-16] is a sign that there will be no
further flood?” Of course, the question is not concerned with the absence of
a future flood, but with the very notion that a natural, material, phenomenon
could have the function of a sign. This is precisely what the videtur quod
non arguments emphasise: the rainbow is a natural phenomenon, similar
to other meteorological phenomena; if it were a sign that there would
definitely be no further flood, it should only have been given once, but the
rainbow is not a rare occurrence. The respondeo asserts that, «Certainly, as
for what is said in the Old Testament, the truth of the literal word must be
observed in the first place. But since the Old Testament is a figure of the
New, often certain things are placed there in such a way that the manner
of speaking designates something else in a figurative fashion (ut ipse
modus loquendi aliquid figurate designet)». After a proof based on natural
science, Thomas ends with the assertion that here Scripture is employing
such a modus loquendi and that the rainbow signifies Christ, who protects
us from all spiritual floods25. The first videtur quod non argument hangs
on the rainbow as a sign; the response to this argument is based on the
24
Cf. A. STRUBEL, «Allegoria in factis et allegoria in verbis», Poétique, 23 (1975),
342-357.
25
Quodl. III, q. 14, a. 1, c., ed. Leonina, t. XXV/2, pp. 288-289: «Dicendum
quod in hiis que in Veteri Testamento dicuntur, primo quidem obseruanda est ueritas
litteralis ; set, quia Vetus Testamentum est figura Noui, plerumque in Veteri Testamento
sic aliqua proponuntur ut ipse modus loquendi aliquid figurari designet […] Ideo
autem scriptura tali modo loquendi utitur, quia per yridem significatur Christus, per
quem protegimur a spirituali diluuio».
scientific proof which preceded it, but one might ask oneself why Thomas
didn’t immediately place it in the symbolic mode, since a recourse to
Augustine’s division between natural and conventional signs could have
provided an easier answer. An in-depth study on Thomas’s understanding
of signs would doubtless resolve this problem, but we can be satisfied with
a brief explanation, linked to the issues of exegesis. As is frequently the
case in his theological works, Thomas comes up against problems born of
statements within the biblical texts, and it is always his concern to save the
literal meaning in spite of these difficulties. As a secondary consideration,
certainly, in this quaestio de quolibet Thomas recalls the necessity of
another reading (which he here calls figurative) of the Bible, or at the very
least of the Old Testament. Note that the scheme of reference is not the four
senses but the binary juxtaposition of the literal and another (spiritual?)
meaning.
1.3. Letter and Spirit
This quaestio de quolibet necessitates going further than this simple

acknowledgment. On the one hand, we can be reassured by noting that
beyond the programmatic statements, Thomas engaged in a true exercise
of spiritual exegesis (except for the Book of Job where he said that what
Gregory the Great had already written on the subject more than sufficed26).
Even if, as in all commentaries of exegesis of the University, literal
considerations in their widest sense27 make up a far greater proportion of
the work than ‘mystical’ passages, the presence of the latter is definitely
felt, as much for the Old Testament as the New28. But the relationship
26
In Iob, ed. Leonina, t. XXVI, p. 4: «Intendimus enim compendiose … librum
istum qui intitulatur Beati Iob secundum litteralem sensum exponere; eius enim
mysteria tam subtiliter et diserte beatus papa Gregorius nobis aperuit ut his nihil ultra
addendum videatur».
27
That is to say, as described by, for example, Hugh of Saint-Victor, consisting
of littera (grammatical or rhetorical study…), sensus (the historical or institutional
context…) et sententia (the theological and philosophical reflection).
28
Here are some examples only taken from the Expositio super Isaiam, which is
defined as literal: on Isa 5:1, ed. Leonina, t. XXVIII, p. 39, distinctio on vinea («vinea
multiplex : carnalis concupiscentie, fidelis anime, militantis Ecclesie, celestis patrie»);
the majority of spiritual interpretations are given as quotations (thus, on Isa 2:10, p. 23,
Thomas cites Bernard; on Isa 3:9, p. 27, he cites the Glossa, etc.).
54 GILBERT DAHAN
between a literal and spiritual meaning is not always clear; St. Thomas often
highlights problematic cases. It is a matter, of course, of the problem of the
‘hermeneutical leap’, which will be addressed later. It might be wondered
whether there wasn’t an attempt to smooth over the transition from the
literal to the spiritual by the reduction of one of the elements. This time, it
is the commentary on Ps 29:2 which will enlighten us. Domine, eduxisti ab
inferno animam meam: it is supposed to be David speaking these words,
but, Thomas tells us, «This cannot be literally (ad litteram) understood of
David, because he had not been freed from hell when he composed this
Psalm. It could be understood of him in a metaphorical sense, as if he
were freed from a mortal danger. But it is literally understood of Christ,
whose soul was drawn out of hell by God: Ps 15 [:10]: Ne derelinquas
animam meam in inferno29». For Thomas, the Christological interpretation
of the psalm was a literal one: this agrees with the assertion already
discussed on prophetic inspiration: David was expressing, literally, facts
which he did not understand and which only the course of history would
verify. Let us bring this together with the passage on the rainbow: there,
the Christological meaning belonged to spiritual (figurative) exegesis.
These differing situations allow for the conclusion that there is neither a
rupture of the literal meaning nor an erasing of the spiritual meaning, but
that varying biblical texts have different statuses and that the exegete must
be attentive to the type of text on which he is commenting. A preliminary
typology could be roughly outlined, which would distinguish between the
historical books of the Old Testament, entailing a literal reading and an
allegorical (figurative) reading; the prophetic books, principally entailing
a literal reading (in a Christological sense); and the New Testament,
entailing a literal reading and a spiritual (somewhat tropological) reading.
The exegete’s first step, therefore, would be to analyse the language of
Scripture.
29
In Psalm. 29, p. 251: «Domine, eduxisti etc. hoc ad litteram non potest
intelligi de David, quia non erat erutus de inferno quando hunc psalmum fecit. Potest
intelligi de eo secundum metaphoram, quasi liberatus sit a mortali periculo. Sed ad
litteram intelligitur de Christo, cuius anima educta est de inferno a Deo, Psal. 15 : Ne
derelinquas animam meam in inferno». Note that the Jewish exegesis interprets the
verse metaphorically; cf. for example David Qimhi (beg. of XIIIth cent.): «Explanation
of hell [she’ol] and of grave: the.Gehenne, i. e. the law of the wicked», in A. DAROM
(ed.), Commentary on Psalms (Heb.), Mosad ha-Rav Quq, Jérusalem 1974, p. 71.
2. Analysis of Scriptural Language
2.1. The Principle of the Analysis of the ‘Modi’
If, for St. Thomas and his contemporaries, the doctrine of the four
senses, whilst keeping its authoritative value, seemed insufficient, another
hermeneutical system was needed, if not to replace it, then at least to
complete it. This system is what can be called the analysis of the modi or
of the language of Scripture: it was a complement and not a replacement,
as appears in a text from the beginning of the Fourteenth Century, placed
after a De expositione sacre Scripture contemporary with Alan of Lille30.
Probably copied by a student present at a biblical principium, this short text
does indeed juxtapose the list of the four senses, under the most banal form,
with a list of seven modes, here called enigmatice obscuritatis genera quibus
celatur sacra Scriptura, the list leaving no doubt that it is what is generally
designated by the term modi: (genus) poeticum, historicum, propheticum,
transsumptivum, imaginativum, comparativum and proverbiale; there are
seven modes here, but their number and names are not stable. Although
there were antecedants (notably in certain analyses of the language of the
Psalms provided in the prologues of commentaries on the book adopting
the accessus scheme), this system of modi was definitively born in the
discussions around the modus procedendi or tractandi, in the prologues
to the commentaries on the Sentences between 1235 and 1260. Aquinas’s
contribution to this discussion sets out the terms of the problem clearly.
In his prologue to the Sentences, q. 1, art. 5, Thomas asks Utrum modus
procedendi sit artificialis, which I propose to translate as «Whether the
style is scientific?»31 Evidently, the difficulty lies in saying what the word
‘style’ is referring to: it is at the same time the book of the Sentences
30
Ms. Paris, BnF lat. 614, ff. 21v-22r ; I give the text as an appendix of my study
«L’allégorie dans l’exégèse chrétienne de la Bible au moyen âge», in G. DAHAN – R.
GOULET (edd.), Allégorie des poètes, allégorie des philosophes. Études sur la poétique
et l’herméneutique de l’allégorie de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Vrin, Paris 2005, p.
230 [republished in Lire la Bible au moyen âge, pp. 316-317].
31
In I Sent., ed. P. MANDONNET, t. 1, Lethielleux, Paris 1929, pp. 16-19. Now
see A. OLIVA, Les débuts de l’enseignement de Thomas d’Aquin et sa conception de
la «sacra doctrina», Vrin, Paris 2006, pp. 328-332: «Nobilissime scientie debet esse
nobilissimus modus. Set quanto modus est magis artificialis, nobilior est. Ergo cum
hec scientia sit nobilissima, modus eius debet esse artificialissimus».
56 GILBERT DAHAN
and the discipline contained in this book, theology, still understood as

the speech of God and speech about God. The first argument heading
towards a substantive answer rests on a syllogism: theology is the noblest
of sciences; the more a mode is scientific, the nobler it is; therefore the
noblest of sciences must use the most scientific mode (artificialissimus); the
subsequent arguments allow a definition of this scientific mode: it is based
on univocity and prohibits metaphor and enthymeme32. This definition of
scientific language concurs in a certain way with what Paul Ricœur said in
his reflection on the opposition between speculative and poetic language33.
The sed contra is based solely on the presence of scriptural passages
implying a rhetorical argumentation. But the solutio takes into account
the totality of the data on the issue: the science in question, theology, is
revealed; it uses different modes, including the poetic mode, described in
terms which recall that, apart from Aristotelian reasoning, the reflection
on the language of Scripture was also fuelled by the thought of Pseudo-
Dionysius, who provided it with a number of solutions:
Since the principles of this knowledge are not proportionate with

(non sunt proportionata) human reason in its present state, which
ordinarily receives its information through sensitive reality, it must
be guided (manuducitur) towards the knowledge of these principles
through similitudes with the sensitive world; therefore the mode of
this science must be either metaphorical or (sive) symbolic or even
(vel) parabolic34.
The response to the third argument highlights well that theology

concerns those truths which are beyond reason and that, like poetry, it
has recourse to the symbolic mode35. The text also sets out in passing the
32
This is how I translate modus argumentativus.
33
P. RICŒUR, La métaphore vive, Seuil, Paris 1975, pp. 323-384 (the «Thomist
doctrine of the analogy of being» takes a center stage there).
34
Ed. MANDONNET, p. 17, ed. OLIVA, p. 330: «Quia etiam ista principia non sunt
proportionata humane rationi secundum statum uie, que ex sensibilibus consueuit
(Oliva conuenit) accipere, ideo oportet ut ad eorum cognitionem per sensibilium
similitudines manuducatur ; unde oportet modum huius scientie esse metaphoricum
siue symbolicum uel parabolicum».
35
With this very fine remark on the poetic: «Poetica scientia est de hiis que
propter defectum ueritatis non possunt a ratione capi», ed. MANDONNET, p. 18; ed.
OLIVA, p. 331.
narrative and argumentative modes, and finds in this variety a basis for
the famous four senses36. But what particularly interests us is the fact that
the diversity of the modes of Scripture was taken as a given and that the
reason for this diversity was sought in the multiplicity of the biblical text’s
objectives. This allowed theology, a discourse on God and on the given
reality of faith, having become a science, to keep the scientific language –
characterised by univocity and resort to division, definition, and synthesis.
The prologues to the biblical commentaries provide us with the chance
simultaneously to see this theory of modi put into practice and to better
grasp some of its distinctive features. The commentary on Lamentations,
previously cited, describes the poetic mode: the book is triply enfolded –in
the verbal ornamentation, in the depth of the mysteries, and in the variety
of the metaphors. As stated, the mode is not a uniform characterisation of
a given book but really a key which provides a hermeneutical orientation.
Three levels of reading are outlined for the Book of Lamentations: rhetorical
study, spiritual exegesis, and analysis of the metaphors –the placing of the
analysis of the metaphors confirms the importance which St. Thomas, here
as elsewhere, granted them37. The prologue to Jeremiah briefly describes
the mode of the book, which is also in the poetic mode: «he proceeds by
similitudes and figures, this is the proper mode of prophets»; this remark,
as we shall see, is of great importance38. However, it must be realised that
a reflection on the mode (in the scheme of the accessus or in the study
36
Ed. MANDONNET, pp. 17-18, ed. OLIVA, p. 329: «Respondeo. Dicendum quod
modus cuiuscumque scientie debet inquiri secundum considerationem materie […]
Principia autem huius scientie sunt per reuelationem accepta; et ideo modus accipiendi
ipsa principia debet esse reuelatiuus ex parte infundentis […] et oratiuus ex parte
recipientis […] Oportet etiam quod modus istius scientie sit narratiuus signorum que
ad confirmationem fidei faciunt […] Secundum hoc etiam potest accipi quadruplex
modus exponendi sacram Scripturam: quia secundum quod accipitur ipsa ueritas
fidei, est sensus hystoricus; secundum autem quod ex eis proceditur ad instructionem
morum, est sensus moralis; secundum autem quod proceditur ad contemplationem
ueritatis eorum que sunt uie, est sensus allegoricus; eorum que sunt patrie, est sensus
anagogicus».
37
Op. cit., p. 199: «Est idem iste liber involutus ornatu verborum, unde et
metrice descriptus et rethoricis est ornamentis coloratus […] Est etiam involutus
profunditate mysteriorum […] Est etiam involutus varietate similitudinum, sicut et
ceteri prophetarum libri».
38
Op. cit., p. 67: «Ex officio enim patet modus: procedit enim per similitudines et
figuras, qui proprius modus prophetarum est».
58 GILBERT DAHAN
of the formal cause in the scheme of the four causes) does not always
lead to a linguistic analysis properly speaking. Thus in the prologue to
John it is indeed a question of four modes; but here it is about the ways
of coming to the understanding of the truth39 (one step prior, therefore,
to the transmission of this truth in written form). The prologue to the
Psalms is situated at the crossroads of these two ways: Thomas describes
three modes of prophecy; and each one of them gives rise to a particular
expression: per sensibiles res (Thomas gives the example of Dan 5:5, the
writing on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast), per similitudines imaginarias
(Pharaoh’s dreams in Gen 41), per ipsius veritatis manifestationem (the
vision of the divine throne in Isa 6:1)40; one is again directed towards the
different exegetical procedures (spiritual exegesis, analysis of metaphors,
literal theological exegesis). This prologue furnishes us with other precious
elements for our enquiry, to which we shall return.
We have just seen that the theory of the modi provides a code for
reading St. Thomas (and his contemporaries); it seems to me that it also
gives us a key, or at least an easier access, to the way in which the masters
of the Thirteenth Century understood their work of exegesis. I will give
priority to three of these modes, which are named by Thomas in the
prologue to the Sentences: the narrative mode, the parabolic mode, and
the poetic mode. These appear to me to constitute the backbone of his
hermeneutical system. Now we will enter into the concrete details of the
work of exegesis.
39
I am using the Marietti edition, S. Thomae Aquinatis in Evangelia S.
Matthaei et S. Ioannis commentaria (4th ed., Marietti, Turin 1925), t. II, pp. 1-2: «In
hac autem contemplatione Ioannis circa Verbum incarnatum quadruplex altitudo
designatur, auctoritatis […] aeternitatis […] dignitatis seu nobilitatis naturae […] et
incomprehensibilis veritatis […] Istis enim quatuor modis antiqui philosophi ad Dei
cognitionem pervenerunt».
40
Op. cit., p. 146: «Triplex est enim modus prophetiae. Per sensibiles res,
Dan. V [5], Apparuerunt digiti, quasi hominis scribentis etc. rex aspiciebat articulos
manus scribentis. Per similitudines imaginarias, sicut patet de somno Pharaonis et
interpretatione facta per Ioseph, Genes. XLI. Per ipsius veritatis manifestationem, Is.
vi [1], Vidi Dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum etc. Et talis modus
prophetiae convenit David [edd. Danieli] qui solius Spiritus sancti instinctu sine omni
exteriori adminiculo suam edidit prophetiam». I have corrected the text: the quotation
of Is. 6:1 illustrates the third mode; it is about David and not Daniel.
2.2. The «modus narrativus»
This is the mode of the historical books of the Old Testament and the
gospels. There have been great advances in ‘narratology’ over the past 40
years and it might be tempting to search amongst the medieval authors for
the equivalent of the analyses of the Structuralists (Roland Barthes or the
Entrevernes Group) or advocates of the literary approach to sacred texts
(such as Northrop Frye, Robert Alter et al.). This is, it seems to me, not a
completely outrageous suggestion, in so far as Structuralists and ‘Literists’
are only rediscovering standard procedures of traditional exegesis –which
is linked to the Christian medieval commentators, obviously including
Aquinas. The most prominent of these procedures are:
1. Contextual analysis (in contrast to the scientific exegesis which breaks
the sacred text up into micro-units of different origins, the two movements
discussed above and Thirteenth Century exegesis place the greatest emphasis
on the situation of the given text, not only in its immediate context but also
in its intertextual relationship, bringing the whole of Scripture into play –we
find there the hermeneutical presupposition of the fundamental unity of the
biblical text, Old and New Testaments mixed in together);
2. The analysis of the structure of the text, which draws lessons from
within the construction of the text itself (in the Thirteenth Century context,
the technique of divisio textus41).
However, even beyond the questions of forms of expression (e.g.
vocabulary or processes of exposition), there are also profound differences,
even if only because traditional exegesis acknowledged the inspired
character of the sacred texts. A more extensive comparison would go too
far, but there seems to be some merit in having drawn the parallel.
A single example will suffice, the story of the demoniacs in Matt 8:
28-3442. First, a reminder of how the prologue to the Sentences justifies the
modus narrativus. As a mode of revelation, it is based on the credibilia ex
41
On the importance of the divisio, see M. M. ROSSI, «La divisio textus nei
commenti scritturistici di S. Tommaso d’Aquino : un procedimento solo esegetico?»,
Angelicum, 71 (1994) 537-548; and more generally G. DAHAN, «Le schématisme dans
l’exégèse mediévale», in C. HECK (ed.), Qu’est-ce que nommer? L’image légendée
entre monde monastique et pensée scolastique, Brepols, Turnhout 2010, pp. 31-40.
42
The choice of this example is clearly not an accident; the episode of the
Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:1-20) is at the heart of the volume Analyse structurale et
exégèse biblique, R. BARTHES – F. BOVON (eds.), Delachaux et Niestlé, Genève 1971.
60 GILBERT DAHAN
doctrina predicantis, “things to be believed in the teaching of the preacher”.

Since a certain number of truths are beyond the direct perception of the human
intellect, just as in Physics principles are inferred from observation of the
physical world, so the truth of the preacher is confirmed by the relating of
miracles; from which is derived what Thomas called the modus narrativus
signorum ad confirmationem fidei ; the pointed narrativus signorum inviting
the reader not to be satisfied with a passive reception of the narrative but in
addition to undertake immediately his own work of interpretation (signa,
of course, is to be understood as ‘miracles’, but the miracle is then a sign
to interpret). Matthew’s story of the Gadarene demoniacs is first linked
to its context43: «Once the miracles in which the Lord delivered several
people from exterior perils have been told, here are placed those in which
people are liberated from interior or spiritual perils». The exterior perils
were leprosy and various illnesses; here attention is drawn to the fact
that the Gadarene demoniacs were spiritually attacked, in contrast to the
numerous demoniacs whom Jesus cured in verses 16-17, whose illness
is considered to be on the same level as other exterior dangers. What is
fascinating is that the exegesis of the story unfolds on two different levels:
on the one hand, there is the level of formal analysis, which is particularly
expressed through the divisio and the questiones. Although not of huge
hermeneutical interest, the divisio nevertheless helps to stress the spiritual
aspect of the illness since it brings out the demons’ cruelty, impatience, and
spitefulness44. The questiones are based on the process of intertextuality:
the connection with the corresponding accounts in Mark 5:1-20 and Luke
8: 26-39 (which talk of a single possessed man), the relationship with 1 Cor
2:8 (and the issue of the link between responsibility and knowledge), the
eschatological dimension arising from the link between verse 29 (Quare
venisti ante tempus torquere nos) and Matt 25:41 (Ite, maledicti, in ignem
eternum) etc. On the other hand, the exegesis also unfolds on another level,
which could be called that of symbolic interpretation. Thomas establishes
two main themes in the story: the demons and the pigs. The movement
from one to the other provides a key to the narration: the demons are the
43
Ed. Marietti, t. I, pp. 124-125.
44
Ibid. p. 124: «[…] hic ponuntur miracula quibus fit liberatio a periculis interioribus
sive spiritualibus. Et primo ponitur miraculum, secundo effectus […] Et circa primum
primo ostenditur malitia daemonum quantum ad saevitiam quam in homines exercent;
secundo quantum ad impatientiam, ibi: Et ecce clamaverunt etc.; tertio quantum ad
nequitiam, quia animalibus brutis nocuerunt, ibi: Daemones autem rogabant eum etc.».
perverse tendencies within man, enumerated in the divisio; the pig, a totally
base animal, is the only creature which the devil can totally destroy45: it is
therefore the visible manifestation of the perversity which was previously
hidden; once unmasked, it can be eradicated. It is indeed about an interior,
spiritual, peril, and its healing. Thus this ‘symbolic’46 level of interpretation
allows for a moral interpretation, which transcends the simple morality of
the story and, in bringing its structures up to date, draws the most readily
applicable teaching from it. This example might provide a possible answer
to the problem of the transition towards a spiritual exegesis.
2.3. The «modus parabolicus»
The problems tied to parable and to the modus parabolicus are most
gripping for anyone interested in the mechanics of exegesis. Thomas
delivered his reflections on the parable in three main sections of his work.
In the prologue to the Sentences firstly, he underlines the necessity of the
use of similes, since the principles of theology are beyond human reason,
which receives its information especially from the sensitive world. The
language which expresses similitude is that of metaphor or of symbol and
that of parable47. We may not find a very precise definition here, but let us
at least note that the parable serves to express realities beyond sensitive
human experience. Many other passages confirm this, notably q. 42 of
the IIIa, Utrum Christus omnia publice docere debuerit, which speaks
of it being useful for the crowd «to be instructed in the knowledge of
spiritual things, albeit hidden under the garb of parables», sub tegumento
parabolarum spiritualium doctrinam audire. The second place which
contains a reflection on parable is in the prologue to the Summa Theologiæ:
how to reconcile the parable with the traditional four senses? Is it not
an additional sense? The answer to this argument relies on the fact that
the parabolic meaning belongs within the literal meaning, for things are
45
Ibid., p. 125: «[…] in quo denotatur quod nullus a diabolo totaliter potest
extingui, nisi porcum se exhibeat, id est totaliter immundum».
46
On the use of the notion of symbol in the study of medieval exegesis, I refer to
my study: «Symbole et exégèse mediévale de la Bible», PRIS-MA. Recherches sur la
littérature d’imagination au Moyen Âge, 26 (2010) 3-31.
47
Sent., prol. q. 1, a. 5, ed. MANDONNET, pp. 17-18, ed. OLIVA, p. 330 (text cited
supra n. 34).
62 GILBERT DAHAN
signified both properly and figuratively within the literal meaning48. The
parabolic sense, whilst belonging to the literal sense, is nevertheless a
vehicle of transcendent truths. Note also another passage from the Summa
Theologiae, Prima Pars, q. 111, art. 3: the response to the fourth objection
affirms that the similitudines caused to appear in the imagination by angels
do not lead people into error any more than Christ led anyone into error
when he presented in parables many things which he did not explain49; this
brief remark thus sets the parable as text requiring interpretation.
The third, and fullest, exposition of the doctrine is the commentary
on Matthew 13, a chapter in which Jesus speaks seven parables. Thomas
gives no theory of parable here, but the very work of the exegete enlightens
us50. Thomas first explains why Jesus spoke in parables: on the one hand
it was suitable to hide sacred realities from unbelievers; on the other hand,
parables allow for the education of the coarse masses. This implies two
levels of the exegetical framework: 1. a narrative approach but one which
contains a teaching within itself; 2. a deeper study to decode the abscondita
(but not proceeding along the sense of spiritual or mystical exegesis) –this
links back to what was said in the prologue to the Sentences on the means
which allow the inexpressible to be expressed. The next affirmation, on the
multiplicity of parables, also has two points: 1. diversity is necessary so that
teaching may be adapted to different personalities (ut congrueret diversis
affectibus); 2. the multiplicity of parables is indispensable, since spiritual
mysteries cannot be made totally manifest in temporal realities (spiritualia
occulta non plene manifestari possunt per temporalia); in support of this
assertion, Thomas cites Job 11: 5-6: «But oh, that God would speak, and
open his lips to you, and that he would tell you the secrets of wisdom!
For he is manifold in understanding»51. The passage on the multiplicity of
48
ST I, q. 1, a. 10, arg. 3.
49
Utrum angelus possit immutare imaginationem humanam: «Ad quartum
dicendum quod angelus causans aliquam imaginariam visionem, quandoque quidem
simul intellectum illuminat, ut cognoscat quid per huiusmodi similitudines significetur ;
et tunc nulla est deceptio. Quandoque vero per operationem angeli solummodo
similitudines rerum apparent in imaginatione : nec tamen tunc causatur deceptio ab
angelo, sed defectu intellectus eius cui talia apparent. Sicut nec Christus fuit causa
deceptionis in hoc quod multa turbis in parabolis proposuit, quae non exposuit eis».
50
Ed. Marietti, t. I, pp. 181-201.
51
The commentary on these verses, in the Expositio in Iob, ed. Leonina,
pp. 75-76, describes the deficient character of human reason, which can only know the
parables gives us a fitting description of one of the foundational principles

of Midrashic Jewish exegesis, the working out of a reality beyond human
experience though a multitude of short narratives (aggadot or meshalim).
Thomas had only a second-hand knowledge of Jewish exegesis but he
knew Scripture perfectly and his intelligence and sensitivity (helped, of
course, by a long tradition) allowed him to rediscover some fundamental
mechanisms of exegesis in Jesus’s time and Jesus’s own exegesis52. Be
that as it may, the commentary on the chapter itself puts into practice the
principle of diversity, since Thomas takes into account the set of parables
as a whole, which, he tells us, contains a teaching relative to the truth of the
gospel, the divisio highlighting the obstacles, progress, and dignity of the
doctrina evangelica (note in passing that this divisio is that of many of the
recommandationes sacrae Scripturae).
Turning to the exegesis on the parables themselves, there is something
quite surprising. Many parables, as we know, were explained by Jesus
himself; Matthew 13 is thus composed of two categories of text whose
statuses differ: parables and explanations of parables. Thomas comments
on the explanations in an extremely literal way; but the parables themselves
are explained as allegories. This leads to several observations. The first
concerns the status of the modus parabolicus and its relation to allegory;
specialists from Adolf Jülicher onwards have shown essential differences
between the two; in an excellent study, Michel Le Guern cites Clement
of Alexandria saying that one should «only consider the principal subject
and pay attention to nothing but the goal and spirit of the parable, gliding
over the words when they err in certain respects»53; on the contrary,
Thomas notes in his commentary on Matthew 13 that singula verba habent
magnam significationem, as is also the case in allegory. I do not think that
he was misinformed: the issue of literary genres in the Bible was well
debated by the Thirteenth Century authors (even if the exact terms used
invisibilia Dei through creation and which cannot come to a complete understanding
of the ordo of creatures. Note that the prologue to Job mentions Maimonides’ thesis
which sees a parable in this book, in order to break away from it, but in observing that
this issue is unimportant.
52
For the use of the categories of Jewish exegesis in medieval Christian exegesis,
see DAHAN, Lire la Bible au moyen âge, pp. 37-45.
53
M. LE GUERN, «Parabole, allégorie et métaphore», in J. DELORME (ed.), Parole
– figure – parabole, Presses Universitaires, Lyon 1987, pp. 23-35, here p. 26; the
quotation comes from Diderot’s Encyclopedie.
64 GILBERT DAHAN
to define them are different from ours); when Thomas strongly maintains
that parable belongs to the literal sense, he thereby clearly differentiates it
from allegory, which properly belongs to spiritual exegesis. Apart from the
point of view which will be suggested in the last part of this presentation,
this treatment may be explained in another way, and this is our second
observation: Jesus’s explanation of the parables uses the categories of
rabbinical exegesis (the mashal, ‘parable’, gives an interpretation but
must itself be interpreted), Thomas’s explanation uses the categories of
Christian exegesis (dissociated from Jewish exegesis by the recourse to
allegory). The parable therefore has a twofold status in Thomas’s exegesis:
on the one hand that of a mashal explained by Jesus, on the other hand that
of an account belonging to a sacred text and therefore having to undergo
the same type of interpretation as the other elements of that sacred text.
This twofold status suffices for the exegesis of parables to be considered as
having a specific modus54.
2.4. The «modus poeticus»
Although the modus poeticus is the object of some penetrating analyses

by St. Thomas, we will be brief on this point. Several key terms allow us
to outline this modus, notably metaphor and symbol, the generic approach
being that of similitudo, a term which must be translated in its widest sense55:
comparison, analogy, or quite simply similitude. As much in the prefaces
to the biblical commentaries as in the Sentences and the Summa, the modus
poeticus is presented as the proper mode of the prophetic books, whence its
importance. The most remarkable thing about it is precisely that it should
be one of the modes of biblical language. Poetry, here and throughout the
work of Thomas, appears to be the discipline which is the most opposed
to theology – and rightly so since it is mere fiction. But theology and
poetry have this in common: that they exceed the limits of human reason,
poetry through a lack of truth and theology through an excess of it. Both,
therefore, must go beyond rational language and appeal to the resources
of metaphor, symbol, and similitude. Quodlibet VII is concerned with
the relation between theology and poetry, both of which have recourse to
54
It will be necessary to deepen the analysis on this point.
55
On the understanding that it often designates metaphor more precisely.
metaphorical language. Leaving aside the observation that one is truth and
the other fiction, the questioning retains its force if we place it back into the
movement which, from the Twelfth Century, aimed to seek a philosophical
or moral truth beyond the integumenta of secular fables56. If, in the Twelfth
Century, the movement prudently kept away from the field of theology,
in the Thirteenth Century the revival in Dionysian thought allowed it to
become incorporated into the domain of the sacred and, thus, to declare the
possibility of poetic language being present in the holy books, language
which was alone capable of saying the unsayable, that is to express truths
which transcend reason, on the condition, however, of requiring a work of
interpretation on the part of the reader.
By way of example, we cite the particularly interesting remark which
Aquinas makes in his commentary on Job 1:6:
Lest anyone think that the adversities of just men happen apart from
divine providence and because of this might think human affairs are
not subject to divine providence, it is first explained how God has
care of human affairs and governs them. This is set forth in symbol
and enigma according to the usual practice of Holy Scripture, which
describes spiritual things using the images of corporeal things […]
Now, even though spiritual things are conceived using the images of
corporeal things, nevertheless what the author intends to reveal about
spiritual things through sensible images do not pertain to the mystical
sense, but to the literal sense because the literal sense is what is first
intended by the words whether properly speaking or figuratively57.
56
See notably M.-D. CHENU, «Involucrum. Le mythe selon les théologiens
mediévaux», Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge, 22 (1955)
75-79; É. JEAUNEAU, «L’usage de la notion d’integumentum à travers les gloses de
Guillaume de Conches», Arch. d’hist. doctr. et litt. du Moyen Âge, 24 (1957) 35-100;
P. DEMATS, Fabula. Trois études de mythographie antique et mediévale, Droz, Genève
1973; P. DRONKE, Fabula. Explorations into the Uses of Myth in Medieval Platonism,
Brill, Leiden 1974.
57
Ed. Leonina, p. 7: «Et ne quis putaret adversitates iustorum absque divina
providentia procedere et per hoc aestimaret res humanas providentiae subiectas non
esse, praemittitur quomodo Deus de rebus humanis curam habet et eas dispensat.
Hoc autem symbolice et sub aenigmate proponitur secundum consuetudinem sacrae
Scripturae, quae res spirituales sub figuris rerum corporalium describit […] Et, quamvis
spiritualia sub figuris rerum corporalium proponantur, non tamen ea quae circa spiritualia
intenduntur per figuras sensibiles ad mysticum sensum <pertinent> sed litteralem, quia
sensus litteralis est qui primo per verba intenditur, sive propria dicta sive figurate».
66 GILBERT DAHAN
So we have a magnificent summary of Thomas’s hermeneutics, which

integrate symbol and enigma into the literal sense, «specifically concerned
first of all with the words themselves», the exegete’s mission is therefore
to distinguish the proper sense from the figurative sense.
3. The hermeneutical leap
It may seem that the theory of the modi sidesteps the problem of the
‘hermeneutical leap’, the transition from the letter to the spirit, a problem
which seems to be amongst the most difficult and most important in
Christian hermeneutics. How may this transition be explained? Certainly,
we could be content with an affirmation of faith, which would recall the
central place of Christ within the whole of Christian thought. But medieval
exegesis (especially in the Thirteenth Century) was at the same time
‘confessing’ and ‘scientific’, in so far as it endeavoured to subject the fact
of Revelation to reason or, at least, to integrate it harmoniously into a unit
in which reflection, research, and reason also had their place. The theory of
the modi could, in effect, allow such an extension of the literal sense that
the spiritual sense would be completely engulfed within it –and this would
particularly be the case in the exegesis of the prophetic books. And yet,
it remains true, as we have already observed, that Thomas gave mystical
interpretations, whose veracity and validity he upheld, which imply the
ontological rupture of this leap from the letter to the spirit. His work does
not contain a theory of the ‘hermeneutical leap’, but quite a number of
elements contribute towards an explanation: we look to scattered reflections,
not necessarily in the commentaries, above all around questions linked to
metaphor and allegory.
3.1. The operation of metaphor
Does the operation of metaphor provide a response to the problem of

the ‘hermeneutical leap’? In a previous work58, having tried to dispel an
58
G. DAHAN, «Saint Thomas d’Aquin et la métaphore. Rhétorique et
herméneutique», Medioevo, 18 (1992) 85-117 [republished in Lire la Bible au moyen
âge, pp. 249-282].
initial ambiguity and establish that metaphor is first of all a figure whose
decoding belongs within literal exegesis, I endeavoured to show that the
very mechanism of metaphor, as occasionally described by St. Thomas,
provided an explanation, by a sort of second degree analogy. Just as to
explain a metaphor one uses analogical reasoning, so the operation of the
transition to a spiritual sense supposes an analogical mechanism of a similar
nature. If one wants to explain, for example, the metaphor of the lion for
God, beyond the simple figure of style, one must resort to an analogy of a
philosophical type, the nature of which in the thought of St. Thomas has
been well studied59. Can one transpose this reasoning to spiritual exegesis?
Amongst the arguments used to support this line of thought, the strongest is
probably that which places in the centre of the two movements (metaphor
and spiritual exegesis) the equivocal character of the referents and the
impossibility of an essential equivalence: in the example given there is, on
the one hand, no relation of equality between a lion and God and, on the
other hand, a man could equally well be compared to a lion in a metaphor
and God could equally well be designated by the metaphor of a rock or a
stone etc. In the same way, in Christological exegesis on the character of
Jacob, for example, it goes without saying that the historical person Jacob
is not Christ (because the literal sense exists in its fullness) and that Christ
can be the countertype of other characters (Abraham, Isaac, Moses etc.);
on the other hand, there is almost never a constant univocity in typology:
even Moses, figure of Christ par excellence, can be a negative figure (for
example, when, at the waters of Meribah he doubts for a brief moment, he
then becomes a figure of the Jewish people). The relation of analogy is at
play in the case of metaphor and that of spiritual exegesis: since at least
the Twelfth Century, theoreticians have been repeating over and over again
that the spiritual sense may not be developed arbitrarily and that it must
stem from precise symmetries. Is the spiritual sense then to be considered
in some way as a metaphorical reading60? One would then have not an
59
See for example, B. MONTAGNES, La doctrine de l’analogie de l’être d’après saint
Thomas d’Aquin, Publications Universitaires – Nauwelaerts, Louvain – Paris 1963.
60
Metaphor does indeed belong to the literal sense; a remarkable example is
provided in the commentary on Is. 4:6, ed. Leonina p. 35, in which Thomas opposes
his own, literal interpretation, («hic describit idem beneficium per metaphoram
tabernaculi»), with the spiritual one of the Gloss, («Glosa autem tangunt duplex
misterium. Quidam exponunt septem mulieres pro ecclesiis…» –the second
interpretation sees in the seven women the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit).
68 GILBERT DAHAN
explanation but only a description. Is it possible to go further, still working

from the hermeneutical thought of St. Thomas?
3.2. The problem of allegory
The other area which will prove a suitable avenue for study is that of
allegory, the term here designating not the rhetorical figure but the process
of exegesis taken as a whole, as seen in Ia q.1 art.1061 as well as in various
other passages. The term allegoria is not taken at random: it is that which
is found in the very origins of Christian exegesis, in Gal 4:24, a verse
on which Thomas, as other commentators, provides a little hermeneutical
development62. We will consider a few elements: the classical definition of
allegory 63; a reminder that allegoria is sometimes used to designate mystical
exegesis in general and sometimes to designate one of the spiritual senses64;
and finally, the placing of metaphor (situated within the literal sense)
and allegory on different levels from one another 65. This latter point is
probably the most important for us: even if literary theorists remain vague
over the relationship between metaphor and allegory, the dissociation used
by Thomas and a number of his contemporaries makes it necessary for us
to refine the analysis. Whereas, on account of the analogy of proportion,
metaphor is rooted in some way in the literal, allegory completes the break
between signifier and signified. Futhermore, we note than in metaphor one
of the two terms does not exist in reality (e.g. the goat symbolising the king
of Greece in Dan 866), while in (biblical) allegory both terms exist (e.g.
Jacob and Christ). The non-existence of one of the terms forces one to find
61
«Sola allegoria […] pro tribus spiritualibus sensibus ponitur».
62
In Gal., pp. 620-621.
63
«Allegoria est tropus seu modus loquendi quo aliquid dicitur et aliud
intelligitur».
64
«Attendendum est quod allegoria sumitur aliquando pro quolibet mystico
intellectu, aliquando pro uno tantum ex quatuor […]».
65
«Per litteralem sensum potest aliquid significari dupliciter, scilicet secundum
proprietatem locutionis, sicut cum dico homo ridet; vel secundum similitudinem seu
metaphoram, sicut cum dico pratum ridet. Et utroque modo utimur in sacra scriptura
[…] Et ideo sub sensu litterali includitur parabolicus seu metaphoricus».
66
This is the very example which Thomas gives, Quodl. VII, q. 6, a. 2, ed.
Leonina, p. 29.
a meaning on the same level, whereas the existence of the two allows for
one framework to be superimposed on another.
3.3. Christology and History
Therefore allegory, in its widest sense, seems to provide the best

description, if not the explanation. Could the explanation itself be provided
in expressions such as ratio allegorica or causa allegorica (and similar
turns of speech)? We find for example in the respondeo to Ia-IIae q. 102
art. 3, recourse to the causa figuralis sive mystica to justify the ceremonial
laws of the old Law, in so far as they were formulated in reference to
Christ67.
Another type of expression may also contribute to this explanation: the
terms which concern adaptation68, the most important being the verb aptare.
For example, in Question 4, art. 1 of Disputed Questions de Potentia, on a
scriptural topic, Thomas points out that salva circumstantia litterae, other
senses can be adapted (and it is in reference to this that he states the adage
sub una littera multi sensus, on which much has been written and which
has excited some perhaps vain discussion on the plurality of literal senses).
It is most striking that in this article Thomas opposes the ipsa rerum veritas
with Moses’ exposition on the origins of the world69. How do things stand
then with the truth of Scripture?
The solution seems to be that which was suggested from the beginning,
albeit briefly. Scripture is the Word of God, which speaks eternally and
takes shape within human history. The text can be considered from an
67
ST I-II, q. 102, a. 3, Utrum possit assignari conveniens ratio caeremoniarum
quae ad sacrificia pertinent, resp.: «Dicendum quod […] caeremoniae veteris legis
duplicem causam habebant : unam scilicet litteralem, secundum quod ordinebantur
ad cultum Dei; aliam vero figuralem sive mysticam, secundum quod ordinebantur ad
figurandum Christum».
68
I clearly do not mean the «accomodatory sense» fashionable at the beginning
of the Twentieth Century.
69
De Pot. q. 4, a. 1, Utrum creatio materiae informis praecesserit duratione
creationem rerum, resp.: «Dicendum quod, sicut dicit Augustinus, circa hanc
quaestionem potest esse duplex disceptatio: una de ipsa rerum veritate, alia de sensu
litterae qua Moyses divinitus inspiratus principium mundi nobis exponit» and further
on: «Omnis veritas quae, salva litterae circumstantia, potest divinae Scripturae aptari
est eius sensus».
70 GILBERT DAHAN
objective standpoint –a stable point of reference which directs man’s

conduct– and from a subjective point of view –a speaker who addresses man
in his particular historical situation. In Thomas’s work, in his exegetical
reflection, Christ is the causa figuralis that gives the text its truth –this
ancient story speaks of Him, it is an ever-current word, immersed in human
history70.
These seem to be the major themes in Aquinas’s hermeneutics. Other

aspects have been neglected, particularly the question of symbolism,
and, on another level, the relationship with Pseudo-Dionysius’s and
Maimonides’ exegeses. These are not minor points: explicitly for one and
implicitly for the other, Pseudo-Dionysius and Maimonides enrich certain
aspects of Thomas’s exegetical thought, or at least lead him to exercise
his perspicacity. However that may be, it seems indeed that the question
of the relationship between the literal sense and the spiritual sense is at
the heart of St. Thomas’s reflection. The Word of God is the object of
an objective analysis (which appears clearly in the commentaries on the
Pauline letters), which integrates into itself its scientific dimension71, while
always being received within an approach of faithful profession. In this
way, various paths are opened, from which contemporary exegetes could
profitably borrow72.
Translated from the French by

Catherine Wallis-Hugues
70
See for example for the Psalms: P. ROSZAK, «Collatio sapientiae. Dinámica
participatorio-cristológica de la sabiduría a la luz del Super Psalmos de santo Tomás
de Aquino», Angelicum, 89 (2012) 749-769.
71
Cf. T. F. TORRANCE, «Scientific Hermeneutics according to St. Thomas Aquinas»,
Journal of Theological Studies, 13 (1962) 259-289.
72
I would like to see in this present work the outline of a more ambitious project,
which, in addition to undertaking a description of the procedures of Thomistic exegesis
(an aspect which has not been taken into account here), would go further in the analysis
of hermeneutical principles. – I would like to thank warmly Ms. Catherine Wallis-
Hugues for having translated this study; she has also translated most of the quotations.
ELISABETH REINHARDT*
THOMAS AQUINAS AS INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE IN

THE LIGHT OF HIS INAUGURATION LECTURES
1. Introduction
The reception of Thomas Aquinas through the centuries has its own
history and is still object of research. It shows that transmission has often
been accompanied, if not conditioned, by interpretations according to
particular interests or viewpoints, by a partial use of texts or by not paying
attention to the context. As a consequence, it has not always been easy to
distinguish between Thomas and Thomism. A parallel problem has been
the slow development of critically secure texts. These problems, once
detected, called first of all for a serious historical treatment. In fact, there
have been considerable advances in historical knowledge of Aquinas,
especially from the middle of the twentieth century onwards1. At the same
time, and with the help of historical research, efforts have been made in
approaching his real identity, which had become somewhat blurred by an
excess of reading him through interpretation.
According to Jean-Pierre Torrell, this new line of research has led
to important results. It has highlighted a very simple fact of primary
importance: that Thomas Aquinas is first of all and principally a theologian,
who also achieved an enormous philosophical knowledge which is
both different from and integrated in his theological work according to
necessity. The one-sided insistence of neo-thomists on the perennial aspect
of his doctrine has been corrected by showing him as a man of his time,
involved in discussions and the solution of problems, and by distinguishing
between texts of temporal significance and those of permanent value. In
contrast with a one-sided methodological view of Aquinas, stressing only
his speculative skill, recent research has shown him to be an outstanding
positive theologian, who also pays serious attention to historical truth. And,
*
Professor of Historical Theology (until retirement in 2007), Faculty of Theology,
University of Navarra, E-31080 Pamplona (Spain), erein@unav.es
1
Cf. E. ALARCÓN, «Advances in our historical knowledge of Thomas Aquinas»,
Anuario Filosófico, 39 (2006) 371-399.
72 ELISABETH REINHARDT
according to Torrell, there is another important aspect, hardly considered in

analyses of his life and work, which is spirituality, or in other words, Saint
Thomas as a «spiritual master» 2.
The recent historical studies about Thomas Aquinas and his work
present him as a theologian whose primary interest and principal source
is the Bible. By examining this aspect in his systematic work, such as the
Summa Theologiae, it can be observed that the scriptural quotations are
not a mere technical instrument but the frame of reference and the source
of theological argumentation3. Together with these findings, there has been
a notable increase in appreciating his specifically biblical work, which
comprises at least as many pages as his systematic treatises. Apart from the
quantity of production, Thomas Aquinas has lectured and written about the
Bible during his entire life, beginning with Jeremiah and Isaiah when he
was cursor biblicus at the Studium Generale of Cologne under Albert the
Great, until the lectures on the Psalms as regent master at the University
of Naples in 12734. In fact, he commented extensively the whole Corpus
Paulinum, the four Gospels and the book of Job; almost all of these works
are still awaiting their critical edition5, whereas the translation into modern
languages has been advancing in the last decades.
Within the biblical work of Thomas Aquinas it is easy to overlook the
so-called Catena aurea, originally titled Glossa continua in Matthaeum,
Marcum, Lucam, Ioannem. Although the initiative for this work is due
to Urban IV, Aquinas put it into practice with a personal interest from
1263 to 1267, during his stay in Orvieto and Rome, in the midst of
other commitments6. One might think that there was no need for another
reference work of patristic sources, as any scholar of that time made
2
J.-P. TORRELL, Nouvelles recherches thomasiennes, Vrin, Paris 2008, pp. 189-
198.
3
TORRELL, Nouvelles recherches thomasiennes, p. 196.
4
The itinerary of Aquinas’ specifically biblical work can be obtained from the
following chronology: J.-P. TORRELL, Saint Thomas d’Aquin. L’homme et son œuvre,
Cerf, Paris 2012, pp. 353-356.
5
The Leonine Edition offers up to now: Expositio super Isaiam ad litteram (1974)
and Expositio super Iob ad litteram (1965); the rest of the biblical commentaries are
in preparation.
6
J. A. WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas d’Aquino: his life, thought and works, Blackwell,
Oxford 1974, pp. 171-174.
THOMAS AQUINAS AS INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE 73
use of the various glossae that circulated, including Aquinas himself7. It

has been demonstrated, however, that the Catena is quite different from
these collections, in method and display as well as concerning the sources
themselves, because he increased the number of quotations from the
Greek Fathers and sometimes even corrected the existing ones with the
help of competent translators8. In the nineteenth century, this work called
the attention of John Henry Newman, who considered it a masterpiece of
compilation and translated it into English together with other scholars of
the Oxford Movement9.
The present study has the purpose of observing Thomas Aquinas as
theologian with the title Magister in Sacra Pagina which he obtained
passing the academic examination called inceptio. His inception texts,
corresponding to the different parts of the exam, will enable us to find out
if they have a programmatic character and to which extent they involve
Sacred Scripture. If this can be confirmed, it will be possible to locate
some examples of how this program is applied in his specifically biblical
work. As this would be a long-term enterprise, the option has been to select
only one of the commentaries and offer one or two examples related to
each of the points identified as programmatic. The text chosen for the
examples is the Expositio on Saint Paul’s Letter to the Romans for the
following reasons: although the critical edition is still being elaborated by
the Leonine Commission, Aquinas most probably lectured twice on this
epistle in Italy and corrected his text up to and including chapter eight,
7
About the history and the different types of glossae that circulated in the
thirteenth century, see: L. SMITH, The Glossa Ordinaria. The making of a medieval
Bible commentary, E.J. Brill, Leiden 2009, pp. 17-78.
8
TORRELL, Saint Thomas d’Aquin, pp. 200-203.
9
St. Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea, John Henry Newman, Translator, Cosimo
Classics, New York 2007 [1845], preface, vol. I-1, pp. iii-iv: «[…] it is impossible to read
the Catena of S. Thomas, without being struck with the masterly and architectonic skill
with which it is put together. A learning of the highest kind, −not a mere literary book-
knowledge, […] but a thorough acquaintance with the whole range of ecclesiastical
antiquity, so as to be able to bring the substance of all that had been written on any
point to bear upon the text which involved it – a familiarity with the style of each
writer, so as to compress into few words the pith of a whole page, and a power of
clear and orderly arrangement in this mass of knowledge, are qualities which make
this Catena perhaps nearly perfect as a conspectus of Patristic interpretation. Other
compilations exhibit research, industry, learning; but this, though a mere compilation,
evinces a masterly command over the whole subject of Theology.»
the rest being a reportatio by Reginald of Piperno10; it is a commentary

belonging to the years of maturity with all his experience of Aristotelian
commentaries, patristic studies and systematic theology; besides, it covers
a wide range of theological subjects.
2. Magister in Sacra Pagina
The approach to the objective mentioned above comprises a reference

to the context of the academic examination and a brief analysis of the
lectures given by Thomas Aquinas on that occasion.
2.1. The context
In 1252, Thomas Aquinas began his second stay in Paris as sententiarius

under the direction of the Dominican master Elias Brunet. In February
1256, when he had finished this period of formation by the degree of
baccalaureus formatus, the chancellor of the University of Paris, Aymeric
of Veire, gave him the licence for ‘incepting’ in theology and encouraged
him to prepare for the Master’s degree11. The circumstances were anything
but favourable: first of all, because the applicant had not reached the age
of thirty five established by the university statute, but mostly because of
the antimendicant controversy promoted by secular masters who denied
Dominicans and Franciscans the access to university chairs12. After an initial
10
For this question, we follow Jean-Pierre Torrell, who worked eight years in the
Leonine Commission and was able to confront his own studies with Gilles de Grandpré,
who prepares the edition of the Pauline commentaries: J.-P. TORRELL, Initiation à saint
Thomas d’Aquin. Sa personne et son œuvre, Éditions universitaires – Cerf, Fribourg
– Paris 1993, pp. 365-371. At a later date, and also with reference to the research of
Gilles de Grandpré, it seems that the revisions and annotations of Aquinas reach up to
chapter 13, lect. 3, according to a note in a recent English edition: St. Thomas Aquinas,
Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans, Transl. by F. R. LARCHER, Ed.
by J. MORTENSEN – E. ALARCÓN, The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine,
Lander WY 2012, p. iii.
11
WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, p. 87; TORRELL, Saint Thomas d’Aquin,
p. 67.
12
See, for instance: WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, p. 80-92; TORRELL,
Initiation à saint Thomas d’Aquin, pp. 73-74.
resistance, but confiding in God’s assistance, Thomas acceded to prepare

for the academic exercise of inception, in the months between March
and June 1256. This examination was designed to prove the applicant’s
skill in the three principal tasks of a master in theology: legere, disputare,
praedicare, which means reading and commenting Sacred Scripture,
the dialectic procedure of argumentation, and preaching in the sense of
oral communication of doctrine. For this purpose it comprised different
sessions: the discussion of four questions proposed by the candidate for
academic dispute and two lectures to be delivered by him. Two of the
questions used to be discussed at vespers before the day of inception and
the other two during the ceremony of inception after the lecture called
principium. The process concluded with another lecture called resumptio
on the first day of the new master’s teaching activity, but the real access
to a chair depended on the acceptance by the entire community of masters
and the vacancy of a chair.
This general procedure has been recognized as applied to Thomas
Aquinas. The two lectures are identified as Rigans montes and Hic
est liber, respectively13. As for the questions, there exists substantial
agreement that the second and the third were presented and concluded
by Thomas himself, on the senses of Scripture and on the obligation of
manual work, respectively. These questions seem to have been included
at the end of Quodlibetum VII where, after a more detailed examination,
they appeared to be strange among the rest of this group of disputed
questions14. On the other hand, there are plausible reasons for these two
questions belonging to the inception process: the first one, about the
senses of Scripture, complements the two lectures, where this important
13
S. Thomae Aquinatis Opuscula Theologica, Marietti, Taurini 1954, vol. I: De
commendatione Sacrae Scripturae (Rigans montes), pp. 441-443; De commendatione
et partitione Sacrae Scripturae (Hic est Liber), pp. 435-439. The first one has been
recognized as such in this edition; the second one is presented in the same edition as
belonging to the year 1252, when Aquinas began his second Parisian stay supposedly
as a Biblical Bachelor, but according to more recent research it is considered with
some security as a part of the resumption that took place in 1256, see WEISHEIPL, Friar
Thomas d’Aquino, pp. 103-104, followed by Torrell and other reknowned thomists.
14
S. Thomae Aquinatis Quaestiones Quodlibetales, Marietti, Taurini 1956,
qq. 6-7; in critical edition: Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera Omnia, T. XXV: Quaestiones
de quolibet, Commissio Leonina – Les Éditions du Cerf, Roma – Paris 1996, qq. 6-7.
subject of theological discussion is not mentioned15; the other question,

with its theological and moral analysis of work, could be an intelligent
and poignant answer to the antimendicant polemic, which at that time
had reached its height16. Once the inception was concluded, Aquinas was
allowed to assume his functions as a regent master, although the official
acceptance by the academic community did not take place until a year
later because of these same difficulties17.
2.2. The texts
Since their identification, the two lectures and the questions have been
the object of research and commentary by specialists18.
Rigans montes
The first lecture is inspired by Ps 103:13 (Vg): «Rigans montes de

superioribus suis: de fructu operum tuarum satiabitur terra», which seems
to have been the heavenly answer to his anguished and fervent prayer
in the difficult situation already mentioned19. He spontaneously became
aware of the wide range and the depth of these words, so that he discovered
in them the profile and task of a theologian. By using Dionysian and
Augustinian principles, he applies the metaphoric language of the Psalm
to Divine Wisdom that communicates itself from the heights by means
15
M. TÁBET, Le trattazioni teologiche sulla Bibbia. Un approccio alla storia
dell’esegesi, San Paolo, Milano 2003, p. 55.
16
WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, pp. 105-110. Weisheipl gives the reasons
which make this hypothesis plausible, being followed by other thomists, whereas the
Leonine edition of the Quaestiones Quodlibetales discards it.
17
For more details, see: WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, pp. 111-115.
18
The studies and commentaries, apart from the biographical works of Weisheipl
and Torrell, can be found in the following publications: A. LOBATO, «Santo Tomás,
Magister in Sacra Theologia. El Principium de su Magisterio», Communio, 21 (1988)
49-70; L. ELDERS, Conversaciones teológicas con Santo Tomás de Aquino, Ediciones
del Verbo Encarnado, San Rafael (Mendoza) 2008, pp. 48-55; P. S. FAITANIN, «A
dignidade de ensinar e aprender a Teologia segundo Tomás de Aquino, a partir do texto
Rigans montes», Aquinate, 5 (2007) 221-240; this author refers only to the first lecture.
19
For the sources of this event, see: TORRELL, Initiation à saint Thomas d’Aquin,
pp. 74-75; WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, p. 96.
of the masters −symbolized by the mountains− and through them flows

down to the listeners −meant by the earth−. In this communication of
gifts he distinguishes four aspects, which constitute the four chapters
of the text: the sublimity of the doctrine, the dignity of the teachers, the
receptive disposition of the listeners and the order to be followed in this
communication. The height of the sacra doctrina is due to its divine
origin, its depth is explored in different levels according to the degree of
preparation of the receivers, and its sublimity comes from its final end which
is eternal life. The sacri doctores have a particular dignity because of their
proximity to heaven, which means to Christ, who is doctor doctorum and
whom they ought to imitate; like the mountains, they are first in receiving
the light; and like them, they constitute a defence. Therefore, the masters
in Sacred Scripture or theologians need to excel through integrity of life,
clear intelligence and capacity of defending the truth; this corresponds to
the threefold task of the masters, already mentioned: praedicare, legere,
disputare. The listeners, compared to the earth watered from above, have
to be humble in order to receive the doctrine well; besides, they need to be
firm and righteous in discernment, and bear fruit. The last aspect refers to
the way of communicating the doctrine: it has to be with common sense,
which means not transmitting all they know, but according to need, like
the earth which absorbs the water necessary to fructify; the masters are
not the owners of doctrine, but receivers, so that the power of transmitting
is not theirs but God’s, and for the same reason the fruit does not belong
to them but to God; in other words, they are servants and therefore they
need innocence, learning, zeal and obedience, and they have to ask with
confidence the help of God.
This text, beautiful in its simplicity −contemplating the words of the
Psalm and the cycle of nature− contains the profile of a theologian and
most probably a guideline for Thomas himself. As far as the interpretation
of the Bible is concerned, the lecture shows two characteristics. One is the
capacity of deriving a whole program from one sentence, beginning with
the highest principles contained therein, down to concrete applications.
The second is the method of explaining the Bible by the Bible, with the
necessary references to the Church Fathers. In fact, the few pages are
clustered with biblical quotations: twenty three from the Old Testament
and sixteen from the New. It does not seem a mere technique of quoting
to confirm or explain the personal ideas of the author, but rather –as Leo
Elders suggests- his thoughts are developed in a biblical climate20; or,

as Abelardo Lobato puts it, the text seems a tissue of biblical quotations
starting from the main one which is then unfolded and explained in
particular21. In between there are three patristic references: the Pseudo-
Dionysius, Augustine and Gregory the Great, used in order to illustrate the
scriptural references.
Hic est liber
The second lecture, which was pronounced at the resumption, also

begins with a biblical quotation: «Hic est liber mandatorum Dei, et lex
quae est in aeternum: omnes qui tenent eam pervenient ad vitam» (Ba 4,
1). It has two parts: the praise of Sacred Scripture and its interior structure.
The first part begins with a reference to Augustine about the qualities
of any lecture or speech: it has to instruct, delight and move. This aim,
according to Thomas, is excellently achieved by Sacred Scripture, because
it instructs firmly (docet firmiter) by its eternal truth, it delectates smoothly
(delectat suaviter) by its utility and it moves efficiently (flectit efficaciter)
by its authority. Then he applies these three qualities to the three parts of
the quotation of Baruch: authority (Hic est Liber), truth (et lex quae est in
aeternum), utility (omnes qui tenent eam pervenient ad vitam).
The authority of Scripture is efficient for three reasons: first of all,
because of its origin in God who is the truth and speaks truth; second,
because of its firmness in prescribing the truth that leads to salvation;
third, because of the uniformity of teaching (uniformitas dictorum), in
the sense that all transmitters of revelation have taught the same doctrine
unanimously, and this is meant by Hic est liber: there is only the one book22.
20
ELDERS, Conversaciones teológicas, p. 49.
21
LOBATO, «Santo Tomás, Magister in Sacra Theologia», p. 65.
22
Miguel Ángel Tábet explains that the expression uniformitas dictorum is
comparable with the term «analogy of faith» used nowadays, and refers to the profound
harmony existing in the biblical texts, so that they illustrate and enlighten each other.
This author observes that Thomas Aquinas was well aware of the fact that the inspired
books are the work of many hagiographers with their personal aptitudes and talents, so
that each book has its own characteristics, but they all performed their task illumined
and guided by one and the same Master and Spirit who, acting in them, filled them
with one and the same wisdom, affection and interest during their work of writing.
Therefore, this uniformitas dictorum was for Aquinas an important tool and supreme
The truth contained in this book is immutable and eternal (et lex quae est
in aeternum). And it is of the highest utility, because it leads to true life in
three aspects: life of grace, life of justice through good works, and eternal
life. By this brief explanation Thomas Aquinas expresses the dimension of
the Bible as doctrine and practice, showing its origin and final end in God,
which is typical of his theology.
The second part of the lecture develops the practical dimension of
the Bible in so far as it really conduces to the life it teaches, and this in
two ways, namely by the commandments (Old Testament) and through the
grace given by the legislator in the New Testament, according to Jn 1:17:
‘though the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come
through Jesus Christ’. Thereby he pretends to highlight the difference
and continuity between both Testaments (quae duo tanguntur). After
this general statement and following the teaching practice in use, but
establishing a scheme of his own, he enumerates and characterizes all the
books of the Old Testament in order to show its interior unity. Ultimately
this unity is due to the announcement of Christ the Saviour, in particular
through the four major prophets, who preannounce the mystery of the
incarnation (Isaiah), the mystery of the passion (Jeremiah), the mystery
of the resurrection (Ezekiel) and the divinity of Christ (Daniel). Besides
the doctrinal questions, Aquinas applies also historical criticism with
the means at hand, by entering into the discussion between Jerome and
Augustine about the Hebrew text and the Greek version of the Septuaginta,
where his personal option is to follow the approbation of the Church in
case of doubt. This means that he distinguishes between authenticity and
canonicity, respecting the Magisterium of the Church.
As to the New Testament, he divides the books according to the
viewpoint of grace: in the Gospels we find the origin of grace, in the Letters
of Saint Paul, the power of grace23 and in the rest of books the distribution
of grace from the beginning of the Church to its consummation. Ultimately,
the unity of the books is given by the open announcement of Jesus Christ in
the four Gospels, in parallel with the four prophets of the Old Testament:
Matthew shows the mystery of incarnation, Luke the mystery of passion,
norm of exegesis. M. Á. TÁBET, «La perspectiva sobrenatural de la hermenéutica

bíblica de Santo Tomás», Scripta theologica, 18 (1986) 184-185.
23
Ad Rom., no. 11, prologue. There, Aquinas establishes a theological order of the
epistles according to divine grace within the mystery of Christ.
Mark the mystery of resurrection and John highlights particularly the

divinity of Christ. From the exegetical point of view, Aquinas is aware of
what later would be called the synoptic question, because he is aware of the
difference of style and contents, explaining that they are complementary.
This second part of the lecture could be considered as the layout of
a moral treatise obtained from the different subjects of the books, in a
progression from law and virtues to grace, until the summit is reached
in the consummation of the Church: «in quo totius Sacrae Scipturae
continentiam Apocalypsis concludit, quousque sponsa in thalamum Iesu
Christi ad vitam gloriosam participandam.»
Like in the previous lecture, in Hic est Liber we find abundant
scriptural quotations: thirty three from the Old Testament and twenty
two from the New; there are three patristic references, all of them taken
from Saint Jerome. This commendatio and partitio Sacrae Scripturae is
similar to other lectures given on such occasions by the new masters, but
it is outstanding through its comprehensive and interiorized knowledge
of Sacred Scripture offering at the same time a synthesis of the different
books, which is useful for theological science.
De sensibus Sacrae Scripturae
We shall refer only to one of the disputed questions of the inception

process, which deals with the interpretation of Scripture and seems directly
related to both lectures as a necessary concretion of what is said there24.
In the form of an academic discussion, Aquinas affronts the question of
a plurality of senses in the biblical texts. In three articles he analyzes the
problem like unfolding it. The first article asks whether there are other
senses apart from the literal one. After presenting five arguments against
a plurality of senses, he gives an affirmative answer based on a biblical
quotation and a statement of Saint Jerome. The explanation is clear and
precise: the divine purpose of Sacred Scripture is to communicate the truth
necessary for salvation. A truth can be expressed by real things and by
words, because the words mean things, and a thing may signify another
thing. Now, the author of things can accommodate not only the words to
24
In a more concise form, the same theme is treated systematically in ST I, q. 1,
aa. 9-10, and in one of the biblical commentaries, on the occasion of an example: In
Gal. 4:24a, no. 253-254.
signify things, but also dispose a thing as figure of another thing. Thus,
the Bible manifests truth in a twofold manner: that the words mean things,
which is the literal sense; and that things figurate other things, which is
the spiritual sense. Once he has made this general statement, in the second
article he analyzes the meaning of ‘spiritual sense’. Taking up a distinction
made by the Venerable Bede in his commentary on Genesis and already
classical among the scholastic theologians of his time, Thomas affirms
that there are four senses: literal o historical, which is the basic one and
comprises all that belongs to the direct meaning of the words, and is
therefore the only sense valid for theological argumentation; the spiritual
sense aims at believing correctly and acting correctly, so that it can be
subdivided into allegorical or typical (the New Testament prefigured by the
Old), tropological or moral, which refers to commandments and virtues, and
finally the anagogical sense where both Testaments refer to the final victory
of Christ at the end of history. Though, as Weisheipl specifies, the spiritual
sense in its different forms is not a personal, subjective interpretation, but
has an objective reference25. The third article concludes that there exists
no other written document with these characteristics, the Sacred Scripture
being unique in this respect. This statement is based on Gregory the Great
(Moralia, XII) who says that the Bible is unique, because when narrating
facts it also transmits the mystery included within the same words: «quia
uno eodemque sermone, dum narrat gestum, prodit mysterium». Aquinas
explains this as a way of acting the divine providence in the things created.
3. The profile of a theologian
The above analysis of the inception texts permits us to discover in them

an approach to Aquinas’ idea of a theologian and his concept of theology as
a science based on Sacred Scripture. What presides and stimulates the idea
of theology and the theologian is the so-called ‘praise of Scripture’ in the
two lectures of inception. The Bible is praised because of its sublime origin
25
WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, p. 106: «Moreover, the spiritual sense is
not a personal or private interpretation (sometimes called an “accommodated” sense).
Rather it is a true sense explicitly indicated as such in other parts of Scripture. In other
words, the spiritual sense is a true, objective sense intended by the Holy Spirit». The
author refers as examples of allegorical sense, the idea of Christ as the new Adam, the
brazen serpent elevated by Moses in the desert, or the paschal lamb.
and purpose: it is given by God and its utility is salvation, having thus its
final end in God; it is doctrine, because it instructs in the eternal truth;
and it is practice, because it attracts smoothly and moves efficiently by
its authority. The profile of a theologian is drawn according to this praise
of Sacred Scripture. It is the reason for the dignity of those who teach
it and demands certain qualities in them: first of all, proximity to Christ.
Then, they need integrity of life, intelligence and capacity of defending the
truth in order to fulfil their threefold task: praedicare, legere, disputare.
The teachers of theology are not the owners of doctrine, but its servants;
consequently, they are not fruitful by their own power, but rather need to
ask the help of God. Besides, as teaching is a bilateral process, there are
also certain dispositions required in the listeners, such as humility, firmness
and fruitfulness.
The text of the commentary Ad Romanos reflects this self-understanding
of Thomas Aquinas as Magister in Sacra Pagina. He puts into practice
the three tasks of legere, disputare, praedicare, a fact that can be proved
throughout the text, so that descending to examples would take us too far.
Of course the reading and understanding of the text in its literality is the
first task and of primary importance, but when an apparent contradiction
appears in the sources he uses or when it is necessary to affirm orthodoxy
against heresy, Aquinas displays his skill of disputation. And where the
text is apt for moral exhortation or spiritual consideration, he does not
hesitate to develop it.
4. A program of theology
In the inception texts we find the main guidelines for lecturing on the
Bible: some of them can be derived from Thomas’ own practice of exposition,
while others are hermeneutic procedures explained by him as such.
4.1. Insight of one sentence
Sometimes he understands one sentence of the Bible in a wide and

deep range, thus perceiving in it a synthesis of what he desires to explain,
as for instance the two quotations that open the lectures Rigans montes and
Hic est Liber.
There a numerous examples for drawing a whole argument from

one scriptural sentence, which Aquinas usually situates at the beginning
of a commentary. For instance, the prologue to Ad Romanos begins with
the words «Vas electionis est mihi iste» (Acts 9:15), spoken by the Lord
to Ananias about Saul of Tarsis, so that he may receive him without
fear upon his arrival in Damascus26. These few words are the base for
the portrait Aquinas designs of Paul on the pages that follow, the only
text where he describes in a detailed manner the person of the Apostle.
He begins with the biblical image of God as a potter who produces his
vessels as he pleases. Any vessel has four characteristics: the make, the
content, the use and the utility. Now, Paul is a vessel of gold through
the brilliance of his wisdom; solid, through the virtue of charity and
adorned with the precious stones of his virtues. It is completely filled
−in knowing, willing and living− with the precious liquor of the name of
Christ. The vessel is destined for a noble use, which is for carrying the
name of Christ to those far from God, and Paul really carried the name
of Christ in his body by imitating Him in His life and passion, and he
carried it in his mouth through the great frequency in naming Him. The
task given to Paul −spreading the name of Christ− reached a universal
extension, in a geographical as well as historical sense concerning the
future course of history. The mode of carrying this name everywhere was
excellent through the grace of divine election, the fidelity in his response
and the extraordinary generosity with which he fulfilled his task. Finally,
the utility of the vessel symbolizing Paul was extremely high because
of his moral purity and the absence of error in his doctrine. Last but
not least, reconsidering all he had said, Thomas applies the Aristotelian
scheme of the four causes: the efficient cause is Paul himself as author
of the epistles; the material cause is the content; the mode of carrying
it −as a written message by means of letters− is the formal cause; the
fruit or result is the final cause. Similarly, all the other prologues to
the Pauline Letters begin with a biblical sentence that characterizes the
whole Letter.
26
The complete verse is: «Go, for this man is my chosen instrument to bring my
name before gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel».
4.2. Explaining the Bible by the Bible
A secure and connatural tool for explaining the Bible is the Bible
itself, by using cross references which confirm or shed a new light on a
certain text. These references are intentional, not random, and presuppose
a wide and deep knowledge of Sacred Scripture, a quality that Aquinas
had already acquired to a great extent when he delivered his lectures of
inception. It is a procedure based on his conviction of the uniformitas
dictorum mentioned above.
This is a constant practice of Aquinas, therefore the examples would
be too numerous. For instance, the author of the French translation of
Ad Romanos offers a list of 2862 biblical quotations and references in
the course of this commentary, which proceed from all books of both
Testaments, except Jonas and Agee27. One example may suffice because
of its high significance, namely the commentary of Aquinas on the word
evangelium in Rm 1:1: ‘From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been
called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News’28.
This short text contains six literal quotations: four from the Old Testament
and two from the New. They are inserted not in a forced manner, but within
the natural flow of theological thought caused by the biblical text.
4.3. The role of tradition
The role of the Church Fathers as witnesses of tradition is essential

for Thomas Aquinas and he considers them as a privileged authority for
27
Thomas d’Aquin, Commentaire de l’Épître aux Romains, traduction et tables
par Jean-Éric Stroobant de Saint-Éloy, Annotation par Jean Borella et Jean-Éric
Stroobant de Saint-Éloy, Avant-propos par Gilles Berceville, Les Éditions du Cerf,
Paris 1999, pp. 537-567.
28
Ad Rom. 1:1, no. 23-24, ch. 1, lect. 1: «Evangelium autem idem est quod
bona annuntiatio. Annuntiatur enim in ipso coniunctio hominis ad Deum, quae est
bonum hominis, scundum illud Ps. LXXII, 28: Mihi autem Deo adhaerere bonum est.
–Triplex autem coniunctio hominis ad Deum annuntiatur in evangelio. Prima quidem
per gratiam unionis, secundum illud Io. I, 14: Verbum caro factum est.– Secunda per
gratiam adoptionis, prout inducitur in Ps. LXXXI, 6: Ego dixi: Dii estis et filii Excelsi
omnes. – Tertia per gloriam fruitionis, Io. XVII, 3: Haec est vita aeterna. Is. LII, 7: Quam
pulchri super montes pedes annuntiantis. Haec autem annuntiatio non humanitus sed
a Deo facta est, Is. XXI, 10: Quae audivi a Domino exercituum, Deo Israel, annuntiavi
vobis. Unde dicit in Evangelium Dei.»
interpreting the Bible. He uses various names for referring to them: Sancti,
because of their familiarity with God; Patres and Doctores antiqui, through
their historical proximity to the origin of revelation; sacri Doctores, because
of their religious science, also Doctores fidei or Doctores catholici; and
more specifically, expositores sacrae Scripturae29. In fact, his increasing
knowledge of their writings is a light which makes him discover the range
of meaning and the nuances of the biblical texts. These references are not
used as additional sources, but only when they are needed, thus leaving
untouched the primacy of Scripture.
Aquinas regularly consults the Glosa30 and other patristic sources,
to which he has access through his own research. His reading is not
only reverential, but also critical and, when necessary, he resolves
discrepancies and apparent contradictions between the different patristic
sources, trying to apprehend the scriptural meaning as clearly as possible.
There is an interesting example for this procedure in his commentary on
Rm 2:5: «Your stubborn refusal to repent is only adding to the anger God
will have towards you on that day of anger when his just judgements
will be made known». Aquinas mentions the commentary offered by
the Glosa, where it says that «stubborn refusal to repent» means a sin
against the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable, and he decides to analyse
as exactly as possible what is a sin against the Holy Spirit and why it is
unforgivable. He takes up the patristic information given by the Glosa,
examines it historically, distinguishing between the Fathers before and
after Augustine as well as Augustine himself, and adds other patristic
sources. After contrasting the different points of view, he concludes
with a complete explanation, affirming six species −or three twofold
species− of sins against the Holy Spirit, giving the reason of why they are
unforgivable31. His conclusion, when referred again to Rm 2:5, coincides
with the meaning and it can be seen that the explanation, in a certain way,
has ‘opened’ the versicle.
29
TÁBET, «La perspectiva sobrenatural», p. 188.
30
For the Pauline Letters, when Aquinas refers to the Glosa, he means the Magna
glossatura of Peter Lombard or Collectanea Petri Lombardi, PL 191-192.
31
Ad Rom. 2:5, n. 187, ch. 2, lect. 1. This exposition is very similar, in sources
and argument, to ST II-I, q. 14, which could have been written between both lectures
on Romans, if we follow the chronology given by Torrell.
4.4. The method of dividing the text
The so-called division of Scripture (partitio), applied in the lecture

Hic est Liber was a general practice of scholastic teachers as a literary
device, in order to explain both the diversity and the unity of the books, as
well as their doctrinal relationship. Thomas Aquinas followed this practice,
although in his own style. This method of dividing was applied also to each
book by the so-called divisio textus in order to establish the literary units
of the texts and the theological function of the sentences and words in their
near or remote context32. Aquinas uses the following procedure, in three
phases: first, he divides the text into small units; then he defines each unit;
finally, he reconnects the different units in order to be able to read the text
being aware of its interior unity33. This procedure may seem artificial or
superfluous to a modern reader, but it has the advantage of remembering
the whole content when reading the different parts of a work34.
The commentary of Aquinas on the Letter to the Romans offers a
great number of examples for this hermeneutical method, because it is
applied constantly throughout the text. Here we choose only one, which
seems paradigmatic35. First he presents the whole content of the Letter and
its finality, dividing it into its major parts: the doctrine of grace (virtus
evangelicae gratiae) and the moral instruction (executio operum) from
chapter 12 onwards. Then he continues dividing the first part, descending to
minor unities of the discourse without losing the connection of the whole.
32
M. TÁBET, «I preludi dei moderni trattati sulla natura e interpretazione della
Sacra Scrittura nel periodo medievale», Annales theologici, 15 (2001) 21.
33
For the characteristic procedure of Thomas Aquinas in his scriptural
commentaries, see: M. M. ROSSI, «La divisio textus nei commenti scritturistici di S.
Tommaso d’Aquino: un procedimento solo esegetico?», Angelicum, 71 (1994) 537-548.
34
ELDERS, Conversaciones teológicas, p. 45.
35
ROSSI, «La divisio textus», p. 541. The text selected by the author is Ad Rom.,
1:16-17, no. 97, ch. 1, lect. 6, about Rm 1:16-17: «Postquam Apostolus Romanos
fideles, quibus scribebat, sibi benevolos reddidit ostendendo affectum suum ad eos,
hic incipit instruere eos de his quae pertinent ad Evangelicam doctrinam in quam se
segregatum praedixerat. – Et primo ostendit virtutem evangelicae gratiae, secundo
exhortatur ad executionem operum huius gratiae, XII cap. ibi obsecro itaque. – Circa
primum duo facit: primo proponit quod intendit, secundo manifestat propositum, ibi
revelatur enim. – Circa primum tria facit: primo proponit virtutem evangelicae gratiae,
secundo exponit ibi iustitia enim, tertio expositionem confirmat ibi sicut scriptum est.»
4.5. Plurality of senses
Thomas Aquinas, as we have seen, follows the general practice of his

colleagues in hermeneutics, distinguishing four senses in the scriptural
texts, but he stresses the importance of the literal or historical sense,
which is the secure foundation of the others. Therefore, the literal sense
is carefully determined with the tools at hand. He generally works with
the Latin text of the so-called Bible of Saint Jacques revised by Hugh
of Saint-Cher, but he also uses other versions, if necessary, for a clearer
appreciation of the meaning. This is particularly frequent with quotations
from the Old Testament, where Saint Paul uses the Septuagint version;
in such cases Aquinas −with expressions like «sed littera nostra habet»−
makes a comparison with the direct version from Hebrew by Jerome.
Only one example: in Rm 9:17, which reproduces the words of God to the
pharaoh in Ex 9:16, the Latin version of the letter to the Romans which
Aquinas uses normally, says: in hoc ipsum excitavi te; he compares it with
servavi te in the Vetus Latina; and then with the Latin version of Jerome:
posui te. He shows that the three verbs a not synonyms, but they express
with different nuances the power and wisdom of God fulfilling his plan36.
The literal sense implies also historical references where necessary, for
instance the origin and use of the name «Paulus»37.
As for the spiritual sense in its different forms, it appears in a natural
manner during the discourse and does not seem specifically sought. A
moral interpretation can be found in the commentary on Rm 2:11: «For
there is no respect of persons with God». Aquinas explains that this is an
aspect of distributive justice, which we ought to apply in order to be just
and avoid favouritism in our actions; he explains the reasons and presents
a few examples38. Aquinas, when commenting Rm 4:11, applies both an
allegorical and an anagogical interpretation. He explains that circumcision
and all the ceremonies of the Old Testament are based on a relation with
Christ, to whom they are compared as the figure to the reality and as the
members to the body. Therefore, the bodily circumcision signifies the
spiritual circumcision to be accomplished by Christ: first in the soul,
36
Ad Rom., no. 780, ch. 9, lect. 3.
37
Ad Rom., no. 15-19, ch. 1, lect. 1.
38
Ad Rom., no. 205, ch. 2, lect. 2. This explanation is similar to the detailed
treatment of this aspect of justice in ST II-II, q. 63, a. 1.
concerning concupiscence and the effects of sin; then in regard to the body,
when in the resurrection all possibility of suffering and death is removed
from the bodies of the elect39.
4.6. Jesus Christ, the centre of Sacred Scripture
The supreme theological principle of Saint Thomas is doubtlessly the

conviction of Jesus Christ being the centre and summit of Sacred Scripture
and ultimately the reason for its unity. It seems a light that illuminates and
orders the different procedures of commenting biblical texts.
This conviction, already expressed in the lecture Hic est Liber, appears
at the very beginning of Ad Romanos, when −commenting Rm 1:3− he
affirms that Christ is the subject matter of the Holy Scriptures40. Here, it
would be impossible to show, by means of examples, the centrality of Christ
in his commentary on the Letter to the Romans. It may be sufficient to
mention the index of terms in the French version of the commentary, where
the references to Christ are presented according to a theological scheme; it
can be observed that they cover practically the whole Christology41.
4.7. The Bible, read in Ecclesia
Another principle, closely linked with the aforesaid, is that Sacred

Scripture has to be read in Ecclesia, which means that the ultimate
judgement about the canon of books and the interpretation of a particular
text belong to the authority of the Church, as we have seen commenting
Hic est Liber.
In reality, tradition represented by the Church Fathers could have been
included in this paragraph, because they are a paradigm of Sacred Scripture
being read within the Church. But a few examples may show what Aquinas
understands by the living Church being a criterion for interpreting the Bible.
He comments briefly on an interesting expression in Rm 6:17, where Paul
thanks God that the Romans ‘have obeyed from the heart unto that form of
39
Ad Rom., no. 348, ch. 4, lect. 2.
40
Ad Rom., no. 29, ch. 1, lect. 2.
41
Thomas d’Aquin, Commentaire de l’Épître aux Romains, pp. 573-576.
doctrine unto which you have been delivered.’ He affirms that this forma
doctrinae is the Catholic faith42. Commenting on Rm 10:10 ‘man believes
with his heart and so is justified; and he confesses with his mouth and so is
saved’, Aquinas distinguishes between matters of faith that have not been
perfectly manifested or declared by the Church, and in these cases it is
enough for a man to keep his faith between himself and God; but certain
things of faith have already been determined by the Church, and in these
cases one should confess one’s faith without fear43. When interpreting the
Bible in Ecclesia, he not only consults the Magisterium, but also considers
other sources present in the life of the Church as criteria of exegesis, such
as the decretal collections of Canon Law44, liturgical norms45, and the life
of saints46.
5. Conclusions and outlook
5.1 As a general impression and a kind of approach, it can be said

that Thomas Aquinas is consequent with his self-understanding as a
theologian and with his idea of theology, whose principal source is Sacred
Scripture, interpreted authentically and transmitted in and through the
Church. His way of commenting the Bible is more than a descriptive
«biblical theology», because he uses the same scientific tools he employs
in his systematic work while he follows the course of the biblical text itself
and stops occasionally in order to dwell on a certain subject suggested
by the text; therefore we can find in his biblical commentaries complete
theological arguments, similar to the ones of his systematic works. But
they are different because, instead of obeying to a previously organized
pattern −like, for instance in the Summa Theologiae−, they ‘grow’ directly
42
Ad Rom., no. 503, ch. 6, lect. 3.
43
Ad Rom., no. 1137, ch. 14, lect. 3.
44
For instance, with reference to Rom 14:5, about distinguishing between days
for fasting: Ad Rom., no. 1098, ch. 14, lect. 1.
45
About Rm 13:11, in relation to the proximity of the coming of Christ: Ad Rom.,
no. 1065, ch. 13, lect. 3.
46
About Rm 12:19 («non vosmetipsos defendentes, carissimi»): «Sed, sicut
Augustinus dicit in libro contra mendacium, ea quae in Novo Testamento a sanctis
facta sunt, valent ad exempla intelligendarum scripturarum, quae in praeceptis data
sunt», Ad Rom., no. 1011, ch. 12, lect. 3.
on the soil of the biblical text. In fact, when commenting the Bible, he
combines the highest theological principles with the concrete literal
expression of the text. His habit of methodical thinking is activated by the
text, so that he explains the faith using reason, always under the primacy of
faith: the Bible is venerated as locutio Dei, in which the mystery of Jesus
Christ is the centre. In a way, Aquinas produces integrated theology when
he comments on sacred Scripture.
5.2 The technique of exegesis, with its clearly scholastic procedure,

may seem artificial to the unaccustomed reader of the twenty first century,
yet it is not a superstructure but responds to the internal logic of the text.
So, although the procedure is not imitable now, the reader’s effort of
penetrating in the structure of these commentaries is useful and rewarding.
5.3 As we have stated at the beginning of this study, the biblical

commentaries of Thomas Aquinas have gained in interest during the
twentieth century, but mostly through quotation of meaningful sentences,
whereas the critical editions and translations of complete texts are
advancing very slowly; so, this is certainly a target to be achieved.
5.4 In this line, a similar project could be useful for a better knowledge
of the biblical background of the theologian Thomas Aquinas, that is
studying the way he uses the Bible in this systematic work, where the
aspects of disputatio and praedicatio are more evident. An interesting
example in this respect would be the Summa contra Gentiles, comparing
books I-III, where the biblical quotations are rather scarce, with book IV,
where they are abundant. This reflects the intention of the author, who
seeks the progressive approach of the readers to Christian faith.
5.5 Another possibility and certainly a desideratum could be to

continue identifying the enormously rich spiritual theology latent in the
whole of his theological work, as Jean-Pierre Torrell has already started to
demonstrate by various text studies, but it would be interesting to focus the
research specifically on the biblical commentaries.
JEREMY HOLMES*
PARTICIPATION AND THE MEANING OF SCRIPTURE
The notion of participation has come to the fore in recent discussion

of the future of Catholic biblical scholarship. Francis Martin has proposed
that the spiritual sense of Scripture, taken in the strict meaning of that term,
be defined as «the anticipatory participation of Old Testament realities in
the mystery of Christ»1. Building on the work of Francis Martin, Matthew
Lamb, and others, Matthew Levering has proposed that a key to breaking
the impasse between historical-critical methods and traditional approaches
to Scripture is seeing the participatory understanding of history at play in
the older approaches. The historical-critical approach has unreflectively
adopted a nominalist understanding of history which prevents it even
from comprehending, much less employing, the approaches of older
exegetes2. All of the scholars mentioned above are drawing on the notion
of participation found in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, who sums up
the classical metaphysical tradition3.
*
Assistant Professor of Theology, Wyoming Catholic College, 1400 City Park
Drive · Lander, WY 82520, email: jeremy.holmes@wyomingcatholiccollege.com
1
This phrase is taken from his remarks in the continuing seminar on the use of
the Old Testament in the Gospel of John at the 2005 CBA conference. In a published
collection of essays, Fr. Martin suggests the term «economic participation», which he
defines as «the fact that the events and persons, the wars and actions, as well as the
persons of Israel share proleptically but metaphysically in the reality of Christ». See
F. MARTIN, Sacred Scripture: The Disclosure of the Word, Sapientia, Naples FL 2006,
p. 274.
2
M. LEVERING, Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical
Interpretation, Univeristy of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame IN 2008. Cf. M. LAMB,
«Eternity and Time in St. Thomas Aquinas’s Lectures on St. John’s Gospel», in M.
DAUPHINAIS – M. LEVERING (edd.), Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas: Theological
Exegesis and Speculative Theology, The Catholic University of America Press,
Washington D.C. 2005, pp. 127-139, at p. 127: «To understand the concrete universality
of Jesus Christ, the reader must overcome an all too contemporary tendency, rooted in
nominalism, to oppose the universal and the particular».
3
Interest in Thomas’s teaching on participation took off just as WWII was
beginning, as C. FABRO’s La nozione metafisica de partecipazione secondo S. Tommaso
d’Aquino was published in Milan in 1939, and L. GEIGER’s La participation dans
la philosophie de S. Thomas d’Aquin in Paris in 1942. Geiger did not in fact have
92 JEREMY HOLMES
1. Participation
In several places, St. Thomas offers a concise definition of participation.

Participare nihil aliud est quam ab alio partialiter accipere: participation
is nothing other than to receive from another in a partial manner4. The
crux of the matter is in the possibility of receiving something partially. Or
as Thomas puts it elsewhere, est autem participare quasi partem capere:
«To participate» is, as it were, to take a part of something5. One might
object that someone can take a part of a cake, and yet the philosophical
tradition would not generally concede that he participates the cake. The
difficulty lies in bringing a quantitative notion of whole and part to bear on
the problem of participation: when the individual takes a piece of the cake,
what he receives in reality is a whole, even though he knows that originally
it was a part of the cake. In other words, he can take a part of the cake,
quantitatively speaking, but he cannot take the whole cake partialiter, in a
partial way. The imagination cannot illuminate Thomas’s definition.
The solution lies in Thomas’s notions of form and matter6. In the whole
which results from these two parts, we have a new kind of whole and part
which does not resolve into an assembly of many wholes. In the matter’s
reception of the form, we have a new kind of reception, which is not a
access to Fabro’s work until his work was nearly complete; the two projects emerged
independently of one another as part of a larger interest in recovering the platonism in
Thomas’s thought. Literature on Thomas’s platonism, and on participation in particular,
has burgeoned since. This article will not interact in detail with the literature, which
would turn it into an article on Thomism. Instead, aware of the rich development which
has taken place in thomistic studies, I will focus on the general notion of participation
and the promise it holds for biblical studies, in the hope that this will lead to a deeper
encounter between the biblical specialist and the thomist on these issues. For discussion
of Thomas’s own exegetical practice as including participatory thought, in addition to
the works cited above see J. KOTERSKI, «The Doctrine of Participation in Aquinas’s
Commentary on St. John», in J. HACKETT - W. MURNION - C. STILL (edd.), Being and
Thought in Aquinas, Global Academic Publishing, Binghamton – New York 2004,
pp. 108-121.
4
In Libros de coelo et mundo, Lib. 2, lect. 18.
5
In Boethii de Hebd., lect. 2: «Est autem participare quasi partem capere; et ideo
quando aliquid particulariter recipit id quod ad alterum pertinet universaliter, dicitur
participare illud».
6
Or more deeply, in the notions of act and potency, but it will be helpful to start
our discussion from what is more complex and therefore more accessible to human
understanding.
PARTICIPATION AND THE MEANING OF SCRIPTURE 93
transferal of quantity, and so is open to the possibility of partial reception.

To grasp this kind of whole and part, and this kind of reception, involves
grasping causality –something entirely beyond the imagination, as Hume
demonstrated. One cannot envision these parts apart from one another, as
the imagination can do with quantitative parts, but one must consider them
by abstraction, with the intellect.
This definition of participation as partial reception implicitly includes
two further points7. First, to participate is to receive from a source, hence
participation involves a relation of dependence. If someone happened to
resemble Christ by sharing one of his perfections but did not receive that
perfection in some way from Christ, then «participation» would not be an
applicable term. Second, this source must have the perfection in a total and
unrestricted manner. To participate is to receive partially, and so anything
that has a perfection partially has that perfection by participation and not
as the source of participation. To have a perfection by participation and to
have it as the source of participation are mutually exclusive. St. Thomas
gives physical light as an example: «Something is predicated of a subject
in two ways: by essence, and by participation. For light is predicated of
an» illuminated body by way of participation; but if there were a light
separated [from any subject], light would be predicated of it by essence»8.
If Old Testament persons and events, or New Testament sacraments for
that matter, are said to participate the mystery of Christ, then Christ himself
must have the graces and perfections in question in a total and complete
manner: «It is not by measure that he gives the Spirit; the Father loves
the Son, and has given all things into his hand» (John 3:34-5); «From his
fullness we have all received, grace upon grace» (John 1:16)9.
7
In my enumeration of these three elements of participation, I am indebted to
W. CLARKE, «The Meaning of Participation in St. Thomas», Proceedings of the
American Catholic Philosophical Association, 26 (1952) 147-160, especially 150-154.
8
Quodl. II, 2, 3: «Respondeo dicendum, quod dupliciter aliquid de aliquo
praedicatur: uno modo essentialiter, alio modo per participationem; lux enim praedicatur
de corpore illuminato participative; sed si esset aliqua lux separata, praedicaretur de
ea essentialiter».
9
Commenting on the preposition de («from») in this verse, St. Thomas explains
that Christ is the efficient cause of grace in all intelligent creatures, and that the Spirit
who proceeds from Christ in his divinity is the same Spirit who fills us with grace. «In
a third way», he continues, «the preposition de denotes partiality, as when we say, Take
this bread, or wine, i.e., take a part and not the whole; and taking it this way, note that,
in the one who receives, the part is drawn from a fullness. For he himself receives all
94 JEREMY HOLMES
To summarize, «participation» is a condensed technical way of

expressing a complex of ideas: (1) partial reception (2) in dependence on
a source (3) that possesses the perfection in a complete manner. A thing
is said to participate when it receives a perfection in a partial manner in
dependence on a source that possesses the perfection in a complete manner.
To say that the persons and events of the Old Testament participate in the
mystery of Christ is to say several things at once. It means that the Old
Testament has the same properties as does the New Testament, but in an
imperfect way. It means that the Old Testament in some way receives
those properties from the mysteries enacted in the New Testament, i.e.,
in dependence on the New Testament mysteries. Lastly, it means that the
mysteries of the New Testament have those same properties in a complete
and definitive way. This complex of statements seems to be summed up
well in the traditional formula, «The New Testament lies hidden in the Old,
and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New»10.
A corollary to the above is that certain elements in the New Testament
themselves participate in the end times. This comes out in Thomas’s
discussion of how the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were figures of
things to come11:
In the state of future blessedness the human intellect will perceive

the very divine truth in itself. And therefore exterior worship will
not consist in any figure, but only in the praise of God. But in the
state of this present life, we cannot perceive the divine truth in itself,
but the ray of divine truth must shine on us under certain sensible
figures, as Dionysius says in the first chapter of The Celestial
Heierarchy; yet in different ways corresponding to the different
the gifts of the Holy Spirit without measure, according to a perfect fullness; but we
participate some part of his fullness through him, and this according to the measure
which God alots to each one. Eph 4:7, To each one of us grace is given according to
the measure of Christ’s gift». In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 10: «Tertio modo haec praepositio
de denotat partialitatem, sicut cum dicimus, accipe de hoc pane, vel vino, idest
partem accipe, et non totum; et hoc modo accipiendo, notat in accipientibus partem
de plenitudine derivari. Ipse enim accepit omnia dona Spiritus Sancti sine mensura,
secundum plenitudinem perfectam; sed nos de plenitudine eius partem aliquam
participamus per ipsum; et hoc secundum mensuram, quam unicuique deus divisit.
Eph. IV, 7: unicuique autem nostrum data est gratia, secundum mensuram donationis.»
10
Augustine, Quaest. in Hept. 2, 73; P.L., vol. 34, 623.
11
ST I-II, q. 101, a. 2, c.
states of human knowledge. For in the Old Law the divine truth in
itself was not manifested, nor yet was the way of arriving at it set
out, as the Apostle says in Heb 9:8. And so it was necessary that the
worship of the Old Law be figurative not only of the future truth to
be manifested in the [heavenly] homeland, but also to be figurative
of Christ, who is the way leading to that truth of the homeland. But
in the state of the New law, this way is already revealed. Hence
this does not need to be prefigured [in our worship] as something
to come, but must be commemorated by way of something past or
present, and only the future truth of glory not yet revealed needs to
be prefigured. And this is what the Apostle says in Heb 10:1, «The
law has the shadow of good things to come, but not the very image
of the things»; for a shadow is less than an image just as the image
pertains to the New Law but the shadow to the Old.
Some mysteries of the New Testament are perfect and definitive,

namely the «way» to heavenly glory: we have the perfect sacrifice, the
perfect priest, the perfect king. Christ’s sacrifice is not a participation in
some further reality, nor is his priesthood, nor his kingship. But other
mysteries of the New Testament are admittedly imperfect: faith will give
way to knowledge; the imperfect exercise of Christ’s kingship we see
around us will yield to his absolute and visible dominion over the world;
the whole sacramental system of the Church, including the Eucharist, will
pass away when the end comes. This is why Thomas says that all of the
sacraments signify not only our past redemption and the grace imparted for
the present, but also our final consummation12.
Sometimes we find both perfection and imperfection in the same reality,
although in different respects. For example, manna in the Old Testament
foreshadowed that more perfect waybread, the Eucharist, which feeds not
only the body but the soul. As a support for those who are still journeying
to the Promised Land, the Eucharist is perfect. But as a reception of Christ,
it is an imperfect participation in the face-to-face vision of God the Word
that will be ours in the final consummation. The Old Testament sacrifices
foreshadowed the perfect sacrifice of Christ, which is continued in the
Eucharist. But the liturgy we celebrate now is an imperfect participation in
the heavenly liturgy celebrated by the saints and angels in light. So there is
no contradiction when we see the manna and the Old Testament sacrifices
12
ST III, q. 60, a. 3.
96 JEREMY HOLMES
as foreshadowings of or participations in the Eucharist, and yet at the same

time see the Eucharist as a foreshadowing of the heavenly banquet.
For the same reason, we can also say that the same Old Testament
reality participates in the mysteries of the New Testament in one respect,
and yet participates in the mysteries of the end times in another respect.
For example, inasmuch as the Passover meal was a sacrifice, it participated
in the mystery of Christ’s perfect sacrifice on the cross; inasmuch as
eating of the sacrifice expressed a certain communion with God, it was
a participation in the beatific union with God enjoyed by the saints. In
this way, the Passover meal foreshadows both the mystery of the cross
(and thus the Mass) and the mystery of the end times; the traditional way
of saying this would be that it has both an allegorical meaning and an
anagogical meaning.
However, as I mentioned a moment ago, the Eucharist also participates
in the mystery of our final union with God, inasmuch as sacramental
communion is an imperfect form of union with the second person of the
Trinity. So the Passover meal and the Eucharist both participate in the
same final consummation, but the Eucharist does so more perfectly, and
in fact replaces the Passover meal in the New Covenant. Seen under the
aspect of communion with God, the Passover meal is not an anticipatory
participation in the Eucharist, because the Eucharist does not possess that
particular perfection in a complete way. But given that the Passover meal
and the Eucharist are both participations in the same reality, and given
that the Eucharist is more perfect and is meant in God’s plan to replace
the Passover meal, we can say that the Passover is an anticipation of the
Eucharist—not an anticipatory participation, but simply an anticipation.
This case calls to mind Thomas’s characterization of the Old and New
Laws as two parts of a single motion towards the same goal13. Both have
the same end, namely eternal life, but the New Law is closer to that end
and therefore more perfect, as a pot of water heating on the stove becomes
hotter the closer it comes to the boiling point. The Old Law was ordered to
the New Law as a pedagogue, as Paul says in Gal 3:24.
We have discussed the way in which the Old Testament realities
received a partial share in the perfection of the mystery of Christ and the
way in which the mystery of Christ has this perfection completely. The final
component of participation still to be examined is the way in which the Old
13
ST I-II, q. 7, a. 1, c.
Testament has its share in Christ’s perfection from or in dependence on

Christ. In other words, we must state the way in which Christ is the cause
of the Old Testament realities’ share in his perfection. Fr. Martin speaks of
Christ’s crucifixion as the «exemplar and instrumental efficient cause» of
all other events in the economy of salvation, but this needs to be clarified14.
Although Thomas does say that Christ’s passion causes our salvation as an
instrumental efficient cause15, he clarifies further on that Christ’s passion
was not the efficient cause of the salvation of the Old Testament saints
because an efficient cause cannot come into being later in time than its
effect; the only kind of cause that can come into being later than its effect is
a final cause16. Again, Christ is not in the strictest sense the exemplar cause
of Old Testament realities because God did not look to Christ to receive
the pattern on which to make them; this would mean that God himself was
somehow informed by the Incarnation and passion of Christ17.
Nonetheless, there is a wider sense in which we can speak of Christ
as the exemplar of Old Testament realities. God made the Old Testament
realities to prefigure Christ similarly to the way an architect creates an
«artist’s rendering» of a house or town he plans to build. Strictly speaking
the house to be built is some species of final cause of the painting while
the exemplar of the painting is the idea in the mind of the architect, but
because the form of the painting is intended to resemble the form-to-be of
the house then we can speak of the house as the «exemplar» of the painting
in an extended sense. With these qualifications in mind, we can follow Fr.
Martin in saying that the Old Testament is dependent on the mystery of
Christ as on an exemplar.
As I mentioned at the beginning, Fr. Martin has proposed that the
spiritual sense of Scripture be defined as «the anticipatory participation of
Old Testament realities in the mystery of Christ». In light of the arguments I
have given here, perhaps we can extend his proposal to say that the spiritual
sense of Scripture is the anticipatory participation of Old Testament realities
in the mysteries of Christ’s first and second comings. Further, nothing
prevents realities of the New Testament from having a spiritual meaning
that refers to the final consummation of the second coming. Lastly, the
14
MARTIN, Sacred Scripture, p. 274.
15
ST III, q. 49, a. 6.
16
ST III, q. 62, a. 6.
17
I am indebted to Dr. John Nieto of Thomas Aquinas College for this point.
98 JEREMY HOLMES
spiritual sense also occurs when an Old Testament reality anticipates a

mystery of the first coming by having a lesser participation in the same
mystery of consummation.
2. Further Precision
As the discussion moves forward, it will be important to emphasize

that «participation» is an analogous term. The constant element in the
definition is ab alio partialiter accipere, but this does not apply univocally
to every situation. For example, King David participates humanity, Aquinas
would say, since he receives the form «humanity» in signate matter18. King
David also participates the being of God, but not by receiving the being
of God as an intrinsic form19. God is in this case the exemplar cause, or
extrinsic formal cause, of David. When we apply these distinctions to
biblical studies, we find that the same Old Testament person or event may
participate the mystery of Christ in more than one way at the same time.
Distinguishing these analogous meanings of «participation» will prevent
confusion.
One text from Aquinas illustrates the possibilities. Commenting on
Paul’s letter to the Colossians, Thomas says20:
18
In the context of his discussion of Plato (In libros Metaphysicorum, ibid.),
he says: «That which is something entirely does not participate that thing, but is by
its essence the same as that thing. But that which is not entirely one thing, yet has
something else conjoined, is properly said to participate.».[Quod enim totaliter est
aliquid, non participat illud, sed est per essentiam idem illi. Quod vero non totaliter est
aliquid habens aliquid aliud adiunctum, proprie participare dicitur.].As an example,
he notes that fire is not purely heat, but has other constituents as well; hence fire is not
the same thing as heat, but is properly said to participate heat.
19
For a detailed discussion of how creatures participate the being of God, see J.
WIPPEL, «Thomas Aquinas and Participation», in J. WIPPEL (ed.), Studies in Medieval
Philosophy, Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 1987, pp. 117-
158.
20
In Col., ch. 1, lect. 4: «Tripliciter enim aliquid potest ab alio participare: uno
modo, accipiendo proprietatem naturae eius; alio modo, ut recipiat ipsum per modum
intentionis cognitivae; alio modo, ut deserviat aliqualiter eius virtuti, sicut aliquis
medicinalem artem participat a medico vel quia accipit in se medicinae artem, vel
accipit cognitionem artis medicinalis, vel quia deservit arti medicinae. Primum est
maius secundo, et secundum tertio.»
Something can participate from another in three ways: in one way,

by receiving a property of its nature; in another way, by receiving the
thing by way of cognitive intention; in still another way, by serving
its power. For example, someone can participate the medical art
from a doctor either because he receives the medical into himself,
or because he receives knowledge of the medical art, or because he
serves the medical art. The first is greater than the second, and the
second than the third.
Thomas distinguishes three ways of participating a perfection. (1)

Most perfectly, one can receive a partial share of the source’s form as one’s
own form, as for example all living things have varying shares of God’s
life. (2) Less perfectly, one can receive the source’s form but not as one’s
own form, which is to say, one can have knowledge of the source. When
I know a tree, I receive the form of «tree» in my mind, but I receive it not
as my own form—that would make me a tree—but as a form belonging to
another. The form is only in my mind. (3) This is the most difficult mode of
participation to understand, because it is the least perfect. It is possible to
have some ordering to the perfecting source as to an end without receiving
the form of that source; this ordering can be understood by the mind as a
«participation» in the power of the source, but it is participation which is
rational instead of real. This happens whenever an agent uses something
or someone else as an instrument. For example, a painter uses a paintbrush
to cause his painting, and so the paintbrush can be said to have a share
in the power that produces the painting. Yet when we examine what the
brush really receives from the artist, it is simply a motion in this direction
and a motion in that direction, here and then there. The mind can pull all
the motions together and perceive in them an ordering to the painting, but
in the brush itself there is only a motion in a particular direction.Thomas
illustrates his division by the analogy of a doctor and his student. It is
not strictly an instance of participation, since the student can obtain as
complete a share of the medical art as his teacher has, but it is an example
of manuductio, by which Thomas leads his reader from what is more
sensible to what is less accessible by the imagination. (1) The student can
learn to be a doctor himself, thus receiving the medical art as his own. (2)
The student could study medicine and have a «text-book» knowledge of
the art, without himself being a doctor. (3) Finally, the student could assist
the doctor in his work by preparing the work room, fetching instruments,
or performing simple medical tasks that he does not understand but can
100 JEREMY HOLMES
carry out with instruction. Here we see the division Thomas is aiming at:
the student has the form «doctor» as his own, has it merely as something
known, or assists a doctor without really having the form himself. Of
course, all three kinds of participation can overlap: one could be a doctor,
have text-book knowledge of the medical art, and assist another doctor all
at the same time.
The same is true when we apply these distinctions to Scripture. An
Old Testament person or event might participate the mystery of Christ in
several ways at once. (1) King David can participate the mystery of Christ
by receiving a property of Christ in himself (kingship over God’s people);
or (2) by knowing the mystery of Christ (the messianic psalms come to
mind); or (3) by preparing for the mystery of Christ through his linear-
historical actions. All three of these modes are participations in the mystery
of Christ, but «the first is greater than the second, and the second than the
third». We will go through each more carefully now, proceeding in reverse
order from third to first.
The mode of participation that Thomas compares to a doctor’s
assistant illuminates the notion of salvation history. The journey of
Abraham from Ur to Canaan, Joshua’s conquest of the land, and David’s
wars against the Philistines all furthered God’s plan of preparation for the
Christ. They marked out a certain land, set up government, established a
monarchy, and by so doing set the stage for one who would come to God’s
chosen people and claim the Davidic kingship. Even the Assyrian and
Babylonian invasions are claimed by Scripture as serving God’s power,
and ultimately as preparing for one who would come to restore Israel. One
could compare all of these actions to the doctor’s assistant who prepares
the room for surgery, assembles the instruments and cleans them, and sets
up the table. Some of these agents had no grasp of the significance of
what they were doing, while others may have had a partial understanding,
but all performed actions that were ordered to the redemption carried out
by Christ. If we examine what the Babylonians really received from the
mystery of Christ, it is nothing more than a providential direction to go
here or do that, but the mind (enlightened by faith) can perceive in the
whole sequence of events an ordering to an end of which the Babylonians
themselves were not aware. This kind of participation, the least perfect of
the three, applies to events at what Matthew Levering calls the «linear-
historical» level. It is linear history considered insofar as Christ is its final
cause.
A more perfect mode of participation is that of knowledge: someone

might participate the mystery of Christ by receiving it in knowledge –the
prophets come immediately to mind. Their share in the mystery of Christ
was much more real than the Babylonians, because they received an actual
form in their minds. However, one must avoid thinking that the prophets
must have known the Christ in detail because they had knowledge of
his mysteries. Traditional exegesis seems at times to have overstated the
prophets’ grasp of the gospel, attributing to them an awareness even of
small details in Christ’s life21; modern exegesis tends to deny them any
prophetic foreknowledge at all22. The prophets’ knowledge at any point in
history was a greater or lesser participation in the full revelation of Christ,
albeit sometimes quite dim.
However, the chief reason modern exegetes deny prophetic
foreknowledge is not a lack of detail. Historical critics have rightly
pointed out that the prophets bore a message to Israelites of their day,
whether of judgment or of hope. Therefore, it is argued, they were not
21
See for example The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part I, Article II, trans.
by J. A. MCHUGH and Ch. J. CALLAN, Tan Books, Rockford IL 1982, p. 33: «And
indeed the Prophets, whose minds were illuminated from above, foretold the birth of
the Son of God, the wondrous works which He wrought while on earth, His doctrine,
character, life, death, Resurrection, and the other mysterious circumstances regarding
Him,-and all these they announced to the people as graphically as if they were passing
before their eyes. With the exception that one has reference to the future and the other
to the past, we can discover no difference between the predictions of the Prophets and
the preaching of the Apostles, between the faith of the ancient Patriarchs and that of
Christians».
22
R. BROWN, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives
in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Doubleday, New York 1993, p. 146: «Before the
advent of the modern critical method it was generally accepted by religious Jews and
Christians that the Hebrew prophets foresaw the distant future. In particular, Christians
thought that the prophets had foreseen the life and circumstances of Jesus the Messiah.
[…] However, this conception of prophecy as prediction of the distant future has
disappeared from most serious scholarship today, and it is widely recognized that the
NT ‘fulfillment’ of the OT involved much that the OT writers did not foresee at all. […]
[T]here is no evidence that they foresaw with precision even a single detail in the life
of Jesus of Nazareth». In The Glory of the Lord, vol VI: Theology: The Old Covenant,
trans. by B. MCNEIL and E. LEIVA-MERIKAKIS, T&T Clark, Edinburgh 1991, p. 402, H.
VON BALTHASAR states that «the historical-critical method has destroyed the old form of
the argumentum ex prophetia, which understood sayings of the old covenant as having
been spoken with direct reference to Christ».
102 JEREMY HOLMES
speaking of a far-distant Messiah, whose future coming was not relevant

to the existential needs of the people23. A partial answer to this argument
has already been given: the unity of God’s linear-historical plan implies
that far-distant events could in fact be relevant to the Israelites of ancient
times, even to their existential hopes and fears. A complete answer would
require discussion of the most perfect mode of participation, by which the
historical persons and events of ancient times could receive a property of
the mystery of Christ. To say that a prophetic utterance was made about an
ancient person or event does not exclude the possibility that the utterance
was also about Christ –a nominalistic separation of Israel and Christ.
It is this most perfect mode of participation that Fr. Martin has in
mind when he defines the spiritual sense as an anticipatory participation
in the mystery of Christ. The persons, objects, and events of the Old
Testament received various partial shares in the form of Christ’s mystery
in dependence on that mystery as an architect’s painting is ordered to the
actual house he will build. Now that we have reviewed Thomas’s notion
of participation and examined how that might play out in a discussion of
Scripture, we must see whether this corresponds in fact to the traditional
understanding of the spiritual sense of Scripture. Following Fr. Martin, I
will look to Thomas himself as «a clear exponent of the tradition»24.
3. The Spiritual Sense of Scripture
Thomas discusses the senses of Scripture in several places. He gives

the same distinction everywhere between the literal and spiritual senses, so
I will begin with what is probably his earliest but most complete treatment
of the subject in Quodlibetal 7, Question 6. Thomas discusses the senses
of Scripture in three articles: (1) whether beyond the literal senses other
senses lie hidden in the words of Sacred Scripture; (2) whether the senses of
23
See BROWN, Birth, ibid. Of course, the notion that the prophets were speaking
to the concerns of their own time did not suddenly appear in the modern era, but its use
as a hermeneutical principle to exclude prophecy of Christ is distinctively modern. For
an overview of the development of this view, see J. HAYES, «Prophecy and Prophets,
Hebrew Bible», in J. HAYES (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, Abingdom,
Nashville 1999, pp. 310-317. For some corrections on what Hayes says about Theodore
of Mopsuestia, see MARTIN, Sacred Scripture, pp. 260-262.
24
MARTIN, Sacred Scripture, p. 263.
Scripture should be distinguished into four; (3) whether the spiritual senses
are found in other writings besides Scripture. This division follows his
standard approach to a subject, namely an sit (whether any sense beyond
the literal exists), quomodo sit (how the various senses are related to one
another, etc.), and conclusions that follow upon these considerations (the
absence of these senses in non-biblical writings). By providing an account
of the existence of the spiritual senses, the argument of the an sit question
also provides a definition of the spiritual senses; this definition is extended
and clarified by the argument of the quomodo sit.
The answer to whether any spiritual sense exists is Thomas’s distinction
between literal and spiritual senses of Scripture, which is founded on the
way Augustine distinguishes them in De Doctrina Christiana. Augustine
says25:
For signs are either literal or figurative. They are called literal when
they are used to designate those things on account of which they
were instituted; thus we say bos [ox] when we mean an animal
of a herd because all men using the Latin language call it by that
name just as we do. Figurative signs occur when that thing which
we designate by a literal sign is used to signify something else;
thus we say bos and by that syllable understand the animal which
is ordinarily designated by that word, but again by that animal we
understand an evangelist, as is signified in the Scripture.
The strength of this division is that it is a division of signs as signs.

It does not divide one sense of Scripture from another on the basis of the
subject matter or on the basis of how accessible it is to the reader as Origen
seems to do, but on the basis of the way the signs themselves signify26.
On Augustine’s proposal, a literal sign signifies by convention, while a
figurative sign signifies by similarity to the thing signified. The word bos
does not resemble a beast of the field, but can signify a beast thanks to
convention; there is no convention to establish a beast of the field as a sign
of an evangelist, but the beast can signify an evangelist thanks to a certain
similarity between the two. This is a per se division of signs.
The weakness of Augustine’s approach is that it leaves no distinction
between metaphor and spiritual sense, a weakness shared by Origen’s
25
Book 2, chapter 10.
26
De Principiis 4:2.
104 JEREMY HOLMES
approach27. Thomas strikes at the root of the problem in Article 2, reply

to objection 1, where he points out that the Augustinian approach fails
to distinguish between real things and imaginary things. When someone
says «Achilles is a lion», the word «lion» conjures up the image of a lion
in the imagination, and that imaginary lion in turn signifies Achilles; there
is no real lion outside of my mind that signifies Achilles. To address this
lack in Augustine’s thought, Thomas turns to Augustine himself as a guide.
Augustine writes28:
All doctrine concerns either things or signs, but things are learned
by signs. Strictly speaking, I have here called a «thing» that which
is not used to signify something else, like wood, stone, cattle, and
so on; but not that wood concerning which we read that Moses cast
it into bitter waters that their bitterness might be dispelled, nor that
stone which Jacob placed at his head, nor that beast which Abraham
sacrificed in place of his son. For these are things in such a way
that they are also signs of other things. There are other signs whose
whole use is in signifying something. From this may be understood
what we call «signs»; they are things used to signify something.
In his attempt to distinguish between the way in which the words of

Scripture are signs and the way in which the things of Scripture are signs,
Augustine points out that the words of Scripture have no other use than to be
signs; they are ordered only to this. The things [res] of Scripture, even when
they are ordained by God to signify, also have their own proper functions
as things. Continuing the reply cited above, Thomas applies Augustine’s
own insight to the distinction between imaginary things and real things:
«The goat or other such things [used in Dan 8:5 as a metaphor for the
king of the Greeks] are not things [res aliquae], but imaginary likenesses
brought forward only for the purpose of signifying those persons. But even
those things that happen in the truth of the thing are ordered to signifying
Christ as a shadow to the truth». In Article 3, Thomas repeats Augustine’s
insight about things that have their own proper functions as things: «The
27
The confusion of metaphor and spiritual sense seems related to Augustine’s
high estimation of the hagiographer’s understanding: if the inspired writer knows fully
the spiritual meaning of the things he describes, then they will function in his text
in a way very similar to metaphor or to the figure of speech called allegory by the
rhetoricians.
28
Bk 1, ch 2, pp. 8-9.
spiritual sense of Scripture is taken from the fact that things pursuing their
own course signify something else». The reply to objection 2 contrasts
things that have their own proper course to pursue with mere metaphor:
«Poetical fictions are not ordered to anything else but to signifying; hence
such a signification does not pass beyond the mode of the literal sense.»
This phrase about things «pursuing their own course» points to the
fact that the res bearing the spiritual sense of Scripture have their own
integrity as historical persons, objects, or events. Thomas makes the same
point in another way in his treatment of the ceremonial precepts of the
Old Law29:
As the ceremonial precepts figure Christ, so also the histories of the

Old Testament, for it says in 1Cor 10:11 that «everything happened
to them in a figure.» But in the histories of the Old Testament,
besides the mystical or figural understanding [intellectum] there is
also a literal understanding [intellectum]. Therefore the ceremonial
precepts also have literal causes in addition to figural causes.
Here Thomas looks to the close relationship between sensus and

intellectum. While this discussion takes place in the context of Augustine’s
discussion of signs and signification so that «meaning» is a good translation
of sensus, Fr. Martin reminds us that for the patristic or medieval author
sensus also means intellectum, «understanding»30. Thomas’s argument
points to the fact that one can understand Scripture at the literal level as
well as at the spiritual level: what is recounted at the literal level has its own
intelligibility. Because a thing is understood through its causes, Thomas is
led to speak of «literal causes», a useful term for those linear-historical
links that establish the Old Testament res as a historical reality with its own
integrity and function apart from being a sign.
With this background, one can rightly understand Thomas’s division
in Article 1 between the literal and spiritual senses:
29
ST I-II, q. 102, a. 2, sed contra: «Sicut praecepta caeromonialia figurabant
Christum, ita etiam historiae Veteris Testamenti: dicitur enim I ad Cor. X 11, quod
omnia in figuram contingebat illis. Sed in historiis Veteris Testamenti, praeter
intellectum mysticum seu figuralem, est etiam intellectus litteralis. Ergo etiam
praecepta caeremoniala praeter causes figurales, habebant etiam causas litterales».
30
MARTIN, Sacred Scripture, pp. 249-250.
106 JEREMY HOLMES
The Author of things is able not only to mould words to signifying

something, but can even dispose one thing to be a figure of another.
In accord with this, the truth is manifested in Sacred Scripture in two
ways. In one way, according as things are signified by the words,
and in this consists the literal sense. In another way, according as
things are figures of other things, and in this consists the spiritual
sense.
Taken at face value, it would seem that ceremonies of the Old Law
that commemorate God’s benefits would signify those benefits by way of
the spiritual sense. For example, the Passover celebration is not a word of
Scripture but a thing, and it signifies the exodus from Egypt. But Thomas
argues that «the significations of ceremonial laws that are commemorative
of the benefits of God on account of which they were instituted do not go
beyond the order of literal causes»31. A ceremony such as the Passover
has its entire reason for being in its signification; it does not have its own
integrity as a linear-historical event apart from this signification; the «literal
cause» linking it to other historical realities is precisely its signification.
Properly understood, Thomas’s definition of the spiritual sense does not
apply to this case.
These distinctions are also helpful for dealing with situations in which
the human author knew and intended the spiritual sense. Augustine held
that the authors of Scripture always and fully understood the signs they
wrote about32; because on this account the human author himself intended
the signification of the thing, Augustine ends up treating the spiritual sense
as a kind of metaphor. For example, the author of the books of Kings
understood the Temple to be a sign of Christ, and so it is much the same
as though he had used «Temple» as a metaphorical way of speaking about
Christ. Although one may doubt that every human author understood every
spiritual sense in his writings –Augustine himself entertains the possibility
that the author does not know every possible meaning– still there do seem
to be cases in which the human author is aware in some way that the thing
31
ST I-II, q. 102, a. 2, ad 1: «[S]ignificationes caeremoniarum legis quae sunt
commemorativae beneficiorum Dei propter quae institutae sunt, vel aliorum huiusmodi
quae ad illum statum pertinebant, non transcendunt ordinem litteralium causarum.»
32
On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, chapter 13. The translation used is that by D.W.
ROBERTSON Jr., Liberal Arts Press, New York 1958.
he describes is a sign33. In this case, Thomas’s principles would force us

to say that the same thing is signified at the same time by the literal and
spiritual senses: that is to say, there is a real Temple that signifies Christ
and there is a mental Temple in the mind of the author that signifies Christ,
but these are two different ways of signifying. The author can cause the
Temple in his mind to signify Christ, but he cannot cause the real Temple
in its linear-historical integrity to signify anything at all34. The distinction
between spiritual and literal lies not in what is signified but in how it is
signified35.
Let me summarize what has been said to this point. The literal and
spiritual senses have different «modes» or ways of signifying, but the
difference is not between signification by convention and signification
by similarity, as it was for Augustine. According to Thomas, the literal
sense uses signs that are only signs, whose whole purpose for being is
to signify, while the spiritual sense uses signs that also have their own
historical integrity and proper functions as things. This sharpening of
Augustine’s definition is at the same time a completion of his thought and
retains the strength of his division as being a division of signs per se. It
remains true for Thomas as for Augustine that the spiritual sense operates
by way of a similarity between the sign and the signified. What separates
the metaphor from spiritual sense is that the sign, and indeed the very
similarity possessed by the sign, has the richness and integrity of a being in
the world. The necessary elements of a spiritual sense are therefore: (1) one
reality must bear a likeness to another; (2) the signifying reality must have
its own proper functions and place in the flow of history aside from being
a sign; (3) the likeness of the one reality to the other must be ordained by
the divine will to signifying the other.
33
On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, chapter 38.
34
Another example may be helpful. Supposing that during Old Testament times
there were a billboard on the road from Jericho to Jerusalem which said, «The Messiah
is coming», the billboard would be a thing, and it would signify Christ, and it would
be intended to do so. Yet the billboard’s signification would not be an example of
the spiritual sense, because a billboard’s entire reason for being is exhausted in its
signification; it is not a thing pursuing its own course apart from its sign value.
35
I am indebted to conversation with Dr. Michael Waldstein of Ave Maria
University for the point made in this paragraph.
108 JEREMY HOLMES
4. Anticipatory Participation as the Spiritual Sense of Scripture
The ontological grounding Thomas sees God as providing for

the spiritual sense lies in the resemblance between a biblical res in its
linear-historical intelligibility and the mystery signified. If the notion of
«anticipatory participation» is a development of the traditional spiritual
sense of Scripture, it will be a deeper penetration into the nature of this
ontological resemblance of Scriptural res to the mystery of Christ. For the
moment, let us take a simple example of intentionally crafted resemblance,
namely a painting. The model that stands for the painting is its exemplar
cause, the extrinsic form to which the image is adapted. The painting
receives the model’s features, but in a partial way—flat, without human
texture, perhaps with subtle flaws or intentional distortions. The painting
participates the features of the model. The language of participation is able
to penetrate and illuminate the realities at play in this example, and by
extension in any similar case of an intentionally crafted resemblance.
Although the example of a painting focuses on the superficial, it is
not impossible that such a model of participation could illuminate certain
aspects of the spiritual sense of Scripture. For example, one reason God
intended the liberation from Egypt to take place by a passage through
water could be for the sake of an external resemblance to Baptism. But
the spiritual sense of Scripture is not limited to such surface features of
Old Testament realities. The exodus prefigures baptism by its nature as
a liberation from bondage to the enemies of Yahweh more than by the
surface features of water and cloud.
An example of this deeper resemblance can be found in Thomas’s
discussion of the Old Testament sacrifices36. The very nature of sacrifice,
Thomas says, is that man offers something to God from his own possessions
as though to acknowledge that he has all his possessions and indeed his
very self from God and that everything he has and is must be directed
to God. This is the most important «literal cause» of the Old Testament
sacrifice, namely the need to represent and bring about a right disposition
of the mind towards God. But the greatest gift that God could possibly
give to mankind is the gift of his own son in the Incarnation. Therefore,
the sacrifice of his own son was the most perfect of all sacrifices: «And for
this reason all the other sacrifices were offered in the Old Law in order to
36
ST I-II, q. 102, a. 3c.
figure this one unique and foremost sacrifice, as the perfect [is signifed]
by the imperfect»37. The language of participation applies well here. The
divinely instituted rituals were adapted by their Author to the likeness of
the perfect sacrifice of Christ on the cross; the Old Testament sacrifices
receive the form of Christ’s death in a partial way, while the passion itself
has the perfection of atoning sacrifice in a complete and unlimited way.
Examples like the Old Testament sacrificial rituals suggest that Fr.
Martin is correct to define the spiritual sense of Scripture as «the anticipatory
participation of Old Testament realities in the mystery of Christ». However,
we must not forget that the New Testament itself has been traditionally
understood as bearing a spiritual sense inasmuch as it prefigures the state
of glory. In this case, we can say with Fr. Martin that the New Testament
contains an anticipatory participation in the state of glory, but we have to
add that the Old Testament «anticipates» the more perfect participation
of the New while not «participating» in the New in the strictest sense of
that term. «Participation» in the strict sense only applies where the New
Testament has the final and perfect form of the mystery in question. In
these cases where the state of the New Testament is intermediate between
the state of the Old Testament and the state of glory, Thomas’s analogy of a
single motion toward a goal is helpful: while both the Old and the New are
participations in heavenly glory, the Old is less perfect than the New and
progresses toward heavenly glory precisely by passing through the New. It
does not point to the final state of glory independently of the New, but by
anticipating the New.
The development of Thomas’s thought on the spiritual senses
illustrates this last point. In his earlier treatment of the senses of Scripture,
Quodlibetal 7 Question 6, he first divides the spiritual sense into those
meanings ordered to right belief and those meanings ordered to right action,
and defines the latter as the moral sense. Then he says that the allegorical
sense is that sense founded on the way the Old Testament signifies the
New, while the anagogical sense is that sense founded on the way the Old
and New Testaments together signify the state of heavenly glory. Stated
this way, it seems that the Old and New Testaments are equal with regard
to the moral and anagogical senses: both Old and New can signify what
a Christian should do and what a Christian will be. In his later works he
37
ST I-II, q. 102, a. 3c.
110 JEREMY HOLMES
adopts a different division38. Insofar as the Old Testament signifies the New
Testament there is the allegorical sense; insofar as the mysteries enacted in
Christ signify what we should do, there is the moral sense; insofar as these
same mysteries signify the state of glory, there is the anagogical sense. In
this division, the moral and anagogical senses of Scripture are signified
exclusively by the mysteries enacted in Christ, and he stipulates that the
Old Testament signifies the Christian life and the state of glory only insofar
as it signifies Christ.
In light of this point, we can define the spiritual sense of the Old
Testament as the anticipatory participation of Old Testament realities in
the mystery of Christ’s first and second comings, provided it is understood
that the Old Testament participated in the mystery of Christ’s second
coming precisely by anticipating the mystery of his first coming. With
the same caveat in mind, we can define the spiritual sense more generally
as the meaning placed by God in the realities of Scripture insofar as the
Old Testament participates in the New Testament, the New Testament
participates in the state of glory, and –to include the moral sense– the body
of Christ participates in the Head.
As a last note I want to point out that in speaking of the very linear-
historial realities of the Old Testament rituals as a participation in the
mystery of Christ, we must be careful that we do not empty the Old
Testament realities of intrinsic theological worth39. A comparison with
Thomas’s treatment of the speculative sciences is helpful in this regard. In
his treatise on beatitude, Thomas asks whether man’s beatitude can consist
in pondering the speculative sciences. Of course, Thomas will say that
man’s beatitude is in heaven, in face-to-face communion with the triune
God, but he does not resort to an either/or approach40:
38
In Gal., ch. 4, lect. 7; ST I, q. 1, a. 10c.
39
Cf. B. CHILDS, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture,
Eerdman’s, Grand Rapids MI 2004, p. 163, «Although Thomas’s ontological approach
acknowledges the theological substance of the Old Testament, his great emphasis on
the New Testament as the goal of the Old Testament promise is such that its theological
role can become blurred or even concealed». In other words, Childs sees Thomas as
more successful than those before him because of his «ontological approach», but less
than fully effective in bringing his principles into practice.
40
ST I-II, q. 3, a. 6c: «Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, duplex
est hominis beatitudo, una perfecta, et alia imperfecta. Oportet autem intelligere
perfectam beatitudinem, quae attingit ad veram beatitudinis rationem, beatitudinem
As was said above, man’s beatitude is of two kinds, one perfect,

and the other imperfect. Now one must understand perfect beatitude
as that which attains to the true notion [ratio] of beatitude, and
imperfect beatitude as that which does not so attain, but participates
a certain particular likeness of beatitude.
Note that Thomas does not deny that man’s beatitude consists in
thinking on the speculative sciences, but calls such activity an imperfect
beatitude, a participation in true beatitude. It does not have the full form or
vera ratio of beatitude, but has the form of beatitude in a partial manner. In
the same article, an objector argues that the final beatitude of man would
seem to consist in that which all men desire for its own sake; Aristotle says
that «all men desire to know», and that the speculative sciences are sought
for their own sakes; therefore it would seem that the speculative sciences
are man’s final end41. St. Thomas does not respond by saying that only God
is to be desired for his own sake, but in the language of participation: «Man
naturally desires not only perfect beatitude, but also any kind of likeness or
participation in it»42. Thomas freely grants that the speculative sciences are
desired for their own sake, that is to say, for the goodness which is in them.
They are not desired as means to a further end, to some goodness outside of
them. But the goodness in them is an imperfect form of a greater goodness,
and so love for the imperfect goodness of the speculative sciences is in fact
an implicit love for the perfect goodness of true beatitude. Thomas can say
both that we should love the sciences for their sake, and that we should
direct all our love to God.
Bringing the same principle to bear on the realities of the Old
Testament, we can say that the rituals of the Old Testament were more
than empty gestures pointing to a future of «real» worship. Precisely
because they were participations in the paschal mystery, they were good
in themselves and intrinsically worthy of reverence43. By the same token,
autem imperfectam, quae non attingit, sed participat quandam particularem beatitudinis
similitudinem.»
41
ST I-II, q. 3, a. 6, ob 2.
42
ST I-II, q. 3, a. 6, ad 2: «Ad secundum dicendum quod naturaliter desideratur
non solum perfecta beatitudo, sed etiam qualiscumque similitudo vel participatio
ipsius. »
43
Speaking of the worship offered by Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedek and
mentioned in the First Eucharistic Prayer of the Missal as reformed by Pope Paul VI,
112 JEREMY HOLMES
when David was afraid because he had laid his hand upon the Lord’s
anointed (1Sam 24:5-6), he reverenced Saul in himself, for the fact that the
Lord’s anointing was on him; but the essence of the anointing on Saul was
a participation in the fullness of Jesus the Christ, and so David’s reverence
was in fact a reverence for Christ44.
Conclusion
We have seen how a participatory understanding of reality leads

one to the both/and of Catholic thought. Further precision about the
analogical meanings of participation made it possible to see salvation
J. RATZINGER says, «The Fathers were right to see ‘types’ of Christ in the three figures
who are mentioned […] The true meaning of what people call ‘inclusivism’ becomes
apparent here: it is a matter, not of absorbing other religions externally, on the basis
of a dogmatic postulate, as would do violence to them as phenomena, but of an inner
correspondence that we may certainly call finality: Christ is moving through history
in these forms and figures, as (again, with the Fathers) we may express it». See Truth
and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, trans. by H. TAYLOR, Ignatius,
San Francisco 2004, p. 97.
44
Lacking the technical precision of Thomas’s doctrine on participation, Augustine
appears intuitively to recognize but verbally to deny the intrinsic worthiness of the Old
Testament realities. In On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, chapter 6, he seems to recognize
the value of the temple and sacrificial rituals even as his conceptual structure of «sign»
and «thing» inhibits his expression: «But this servitude among the Jewish people was
very different from that of others, since they were subjected to temporal things in such
a way that the One God was served in these things. And although they took signs of
spiritual things for the things themselves, not knowing what they referred to, yet they
acted as a matter of course that through this servitude they were pleasing to the One
God of All whom they did not see». The participatory exposition given above seems
to bring this insight of Augustine to its natural completion. Similarly, in Book 17,
chapter 6 of The City of God, Augustine says of Saul that «the oil with which he was
anointed, and from that chrism he is called Christ, is to be taken in a mystical sense,
and is to be understood as a great mystery; which David himself venerated so much in
him». This seems very close to what the participatory interpretation of David’s insight
given above, yet Augustine goes on to say, «Therefore he showed so great reverence
to this shadow of what was to come, not for its own sake, but for the sake of what it
prefigured». See The City of God, trans. by M. DODS, The Modern Library, New York
1993, p. 583. This tension in his exposition arises from an appreciation of the spiritual
meaning of Old Testament realities combined with a lack of philosophical tools for
expounding it.
history, prophecy, and the spiritual sense of Scripture in a complex unity

of anticipatory participation in the mystery of Christ. We have seen that
the philosophical notion of participation deepens the traditional view of
the spiritual sense of Scripture at its heart, namely in the ontologically
grounded likeness of biblical realities to the mysteries of Christ’s first and
second comings, while simultaneously insuring the value of the literal sense
by illuminating the intrinsic worth of those past persons, institutions, and
events. As conversation continues about the renewal of Catholic biblical
scholarship, I propose that Thomas’s doctrine on participation will offer a
path to the fruitful recovery and deepening of traditional exegesis.
PIOTR ROSZAK*
THE PLACE AND FUNCTION OF BIBLICAL CITATIONS IN

THOMAS AQUINAS’S EXEGESIS
Commendations of Aquinas’s exegesis have resounded since the

times of Peter of Tarentaise (died in 1276) and even Erasmus of Rotterdam
himself praised Aquinas for his exegetic meticulousness, the profoundness
of his genius, reliable erudition and ability to use all the scientific aids
(subsidia scientifica) which were available in his times1. Furthermore,
contemporary Protestant exegesis, which is visible in the publications of
Marcus Barth2, perceives Aquinas as a valuable and sensitive interpreter of
the Holy Scripture, frequently referring to his suggestions. Nevertheless,
the interpretation of the biblical commentaries of Aquinas, frequently
constructed from biblical citations which are not seemingly connected by
any theological motif and based only on terminological associations, may
cause numerous difficulties for the contemporary reader accustomed to
other methods of interpretation of a biblical text.
To understand the Summa Theologiæ and not to be deluded by a
superficial reading, it is vital to discover first the governing plan which
gives the reflection a natural rhythm and determines the role of each
element of quaestio in the Summa. A similar procedure has to be applied
to biblical commentaries. It is important to understand the «supporting
structure» of the commentary which somehow lifts the remaining elements
and organises the interpretation. One such element which is frequently
omitted during the reading of Thomas’s text is biblical references to other
books of the Old and New Testament3. They are quoted at various stages
of text interpretation with the commentary introducing or explaining their
*
Adjunct Professor; Faculty of Theology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, ul.
Gagarina 37, 87-100 Toruń (Poland), piotrroszak@umk.pl
1
D. ERASMUS, In Novum Testamentum annotationes, Basilea 1535, p. 336 (In
Rom 1,4).
2
M. BARTH, Ephesians. Translation and commentary, Doubleday, New York
1974. It is worth mentioning that M. Barth in his interpretation of the Letter to the
Ephesians quotes Thomas Aquinas 76 times.
3
R. COGGI, «Le caratteristiche fondamentali dell’esegesi biblica di S. Tommaso»,
Sacra Doctrina, 35 (1990), 534.
116 PIOTR ROSZAK
function or without any formula. It is frequently very visible on the first

pages of the commentaries that Thomas simply juxtaposes the citations, as
is the case with the prologues to individual books, when he selects a citation
which according to him explains the content of the book. An example of
this is his commentary on Colossians, where 1 Mac 3:3 («He protected his
camp with his sword») marks the division of the letter; as Thomas points
out directly, the words used in this citation from the Book of Maccabees
congruunt reflect the subject matter of the book4.
Reflecting on the function of citations in biblical hermeneutics of
Aquinas, it is worth emphasising that his style of exegesis, typical of
the academic environment in the Middle Ages, is characterised by its
symptomatic brevity in which biblical citations cannot be treated only
as an ornament in the text or simple exemplification of the conducted
reflection. The aim of this article will be to present the basic functions of
biblical citations in the commentaries of Aquinas to the books of the Old
and New Testament, the main models of their presence and, especially,
to uncover the theological foundations hidden behind this practice. The
following should not remain unnoticed: using citations from other biblical
books, explaining the Old and New Testament by means of the other,
but also giving voice to certain citations and distinctions suggested by
them, which later shape the form of the explication argument of the given
book or even divisio textus, which is crucial for a medieval exegete5. It is
governed by a certain logic which testifies to the «depth» of the biblical
text; Thomas’s probe explores areas much more complex than simple
philological and intertextual analyses. A biblical citation embedded by
Aquinas in his exposition plays the role of a hermeneutic channel which
reaches to the resources of the revealed truth whose topicality cannot be
limited to one historical period only. Thomas understood perfectly well
the topicality of the Word of God. Therefore in his commentaries there
are no reinterpretations or a retrospective treatment of citations but an
in-depth investigation of the biblical text and illumination with the light
4
In Col., prol.; See J. HAMESSE, Les Prologues médiévaux, Brepols, Turnhout
2000 (Textes et Études du Moyen Âge, 15).
5
Cf. M. HEALY, «Aquinas’s Use of the Old Testament in His Commentary on
Romans», in M. DAUPHINAIS - M. LEVERING (edd.), Reading Romans with St. Thomas
Aquinas, Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2012, p. 183. It will
not be possible here to present an exhaustive historical study of this topic; however, in
certain cases we will rely on other earlier authors or Aquinas’s contemporaries.
THE PLACE AND FUNCTION OF BIBLICAL CITATIONS 117
coming from other fragments of the Sacra Scriptura. Thomas does not use
citations in a manner which would suggest their instrumentalisation or in
order to prove the previous theses but citing resembles the uncovering of
the subsequent layers of the text, going lower as if going to the bottom in
order to discover all the connections and layers of the biblical text. Simply,
Thomas speaks plainly through the citation. This is also his voice which
the reader of the commentary cannot ignore.
Therefore citations appear practically at every stage of Thomas’s
exegetic study, starting from the prologue, in proposed major and minor
divisions (divisio maior and menor) and in detailed explanations.6 The
citations are frequently interwoven in Thomas’s own argument and
explained with a specific authorial intrusion so that each part of the
sentence cited from the Scripture has its own clarification: «I Io III,
2 cum apparuerit, id est, revelabitur, similes ei erimus, scilicet omnia
scientes»7. As may be observed, the citation has been divided into parts
in order to be commented with the use of intrusions which start with id
est or scilicet.
Thus quotations are preceded by the introduction revealing their
function, namely, the justification of the undertaken theme, differentiation
and confirmation of a chosen interpretation. It is clearly visible thanks to such
expressions as ut dicit or unde dicitur and other introductory formulas8. But
there exists one more formula of citations in which they remain somehow
«pasted» in the argument, included without any commentary at the end of
Thomas’s interpretation of a given biblical passage, frequently quoted one
by one, including one to four citations. The text of the commentary quotes
only the first words of the citation, probably assuming their familiarity
among the listeners. Especially this second case will be the subject of my
reflection in this article.
6
See A. T. SULAVIK, «Principia and Introitus in Thirteenth Century Christian
Biblical Exegesis, with Related Texts», in G. CREMASCOLI - F. SANTI (edd.), La Biblia
del XIII secolo. Storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi, Galluzzo, Firenze 2004, pp. 269-
321.
7
In Col., cap. II, lect. 1.
8
Rabbis used the formula «as it is said»; St Paul in his letters slightly modified it,
using the expression «as it is written».
118 PIOTR ROSZAK
1. The Outline of Biblical Citations in Patristic and Medieval Literature
Thomas, who is described by some modern researchers even as

Doctor graecus, educated in both the monastic school lectio divina and
the faculties in Paris and Cologne, knew the method of exegesis typical
of the Church Fathers he quoted in the course of his study. However, it
cannot be forgotten that he became acquainted with the patristic exegesis
when working on Catena Aurea9. This is a special work in which citation
plays a key role and it is not a simple compilation as it leads Thomas’s way
of reasoning. Before I proceed to the reflection on citations in Aquinas’s
exegetic system it is worth contrasting them briefly with the earlier practice.
Rabbinic exegesis, whose medieval version could be accessible to
Aquinas thanks to Moses Maimonides10, was, on the one hand, almost
legendarily literal, carefully analysing particular words and terms, as well
as restrictive when it comes to using the Word; however, on the other hand,
it was frequently arbitrary and used a particular verbiage11. It also focused
on explaining the biblical text word by word using a characteristic homiletic
approach based on moving specific historical events to different times.
Rabbinic exegesis was based on illustrating or preceding the thoughts of
the author with a citation or biblical maxim and also on a clear or implicit
reasoning which combined the text with the presented theses12.
Patristic exegesis which developed typologies emphasising the central
role of Christ in the history of salvation and experienced the tension
between literary and allegorical interpretation, which found its expression
in the discussions of the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools, had to refer
to this rabbinic practice. When patristic authors quoted biblical texts in
9
D. M. GARLAND, «St. Thomas, Doctor Graecus? A Rapprochement Between
Irenaeus and Aquinas on Salvation», Heytrop Journal, DOI: 10.1111/heyj.12047.
10
Maimonides, named by St. Thomas as Rabbi Moyses, appears almost 78 times in
the whole Corpus Thomisticum. Aquinas frequently refers to his knowledge of Jewish
customs and interpretation of the Old Testament: see W. Z. HARVEY, «Maimonides and
Aquinas on Interpreting the Bible», Proceedings of American Academy for Jewish
Research, LV, Jerusalem – New York 1988, pp. 60-77; L. JANSEN, «Thomas von Aquin
liest Maimonides: eine argumentationstheoretische Analyse», Kirche und Israel, 19
(2004) 121-138.
11
See J. J. COLLINS, «Rabbinic exegesis and Pauline exegesis. 1, Rabbinic
exegesis», Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 1(1941) 15-26.
12
For more details, see: R. GORDIS, «Quotations as a Literary Usage in Biblical,
Oriental and Rabbinic Literature», Hebrew Union College Annual, 22 (1949) 157-219.
their apologetic works, the texts were frequently condensed and shortened,
which might have resulted from using notes. They sometimes cited a short
commentary of another author who had quoted a given passage before.13
Frequently, the authors used so-called free quotations, which played the
role of a paraphrase, or citations referring to their own memory, as it was
in the case of Justin, which rendered the main message but not the verbal
meaning14.
In the case of medieval exegesis, the most important is the proper
meaning of the quoted text and therefore Thomas took care to indicate
the source from which he quoted. In medieval biblicism it was vital for
developing theological argument. St. Bonaventure acted in a similar
way in his biblical commentaries, although it is very rare to encounter
accumulations of biblical citations without any commentary there.
Generally, the quotation is introduced with the help of a special formula15.
2. Theological Framework of Thomas’s Citation Practice
Looking back on the practice of biblical citations used by Thomas it is

worth underlining its theological background. Why is it important? What
kind of idea is hidden behind such a treatment in commentaries?
2.1. Hermeneutic Premises
The main principle of Thomas’s exegesis is the conviction about the

unity of truth and the holistic understanding of the history of salvation. It
finds its full expression in the manner of treating the Holy Scripture as a
unity and not as a conglomerate of selected books read in isolation16. It was
explained by Aquinas at the beginning of his didactic work in Principium,
13
A. VAN DEN HOEK, «Techniques of quotation in Clement of Alexandria. A view
of ancient literary working methods», Vigiliae Christianae 3(1996) 235.
14
W. PETERSEN, «Patristic Biblical Quotations and Method: Four Changes to
Lightfoot’s Edition of Second Clement», Vigiliae Christinae, 4 (2006) 389-419.
15
CH. OCKER, «Medieval Exegesis and the Origin of Hermeneutics», Scottish
Journal of Theology, 3 (1999) 328-345.
16
See R. L. WILKEN, «Interpreting the Bible as Bible», Journal of Theological
Interpretation, 1 (2010) 7-14.
120 PIOTR ROSZAK
in which he established the basic dimensions of his hermeneutic method.

The priority of the unity of the salvation plan is visible in the specific
exegetic procedures which enable the author to refer to the Old Testament
when undertaking questions associated with the New Testament17.
What kind of purpose do the citations serve in exegesis? Their aim
is to show the hermeneutic environment revealing all the dimensions of
the undertaken theme, which is adequate for interpretation of the biblical
text. It has to be emphasised that in Thomas’s texts those citations are not
pure indications of parallel places but their deep enrichment. It is as if
someone has been switching on subsequent lights in order to illuminate the
theme from various perspectives and has not been satisfied with the one-
sidedness of the depiction.
Thomas does not treat the citation as some type of «cemented truth»
which would serve as a simple justification of theological theses, but as
a real treasure of the Church. Relying on the biblical text signifies that
Aquinas starts his theology from the faith of the Church and Her writings.
He is directed by the conviction about the Providence of God, who marks
the direction of history, and all the biblical books render His intention
for us to be redeemed. In order to understand references to metaphysics,
surprising for modern exegetes, which Thomas discovers, for example,
in the commentary on John, it is necessary to understand history in
the biblical perspective18. The Bible locates us with regard to history
understood not only in the linear but also participatory sense; history is
an ecclesial conversatio with the Triune God, the Creator and Redeemer
of history19. Taking into consideration this particular understanding of
history we are able to grasp why Thomas, in a way that is surprising for
us, quotes biblical citations which do not seem to match a given biblical
passage. Without understanding Thomas’s historical sensitivity many of
his exegetic procedures remain unclear.
17
C. M. MCGINNIS, «Stumbling over the Testaments: On Reading Patristic
Exegesis and the Old Testament in Light of the New», Journal of Theological
18
M. M. ROSSI, «L’attenzione a Tommaso d’Aquino esegeta», Angelicum, 76
(1999) 74.
19
J.-P. TORRELL, «Le côté historien de Thomas d’Aquin», Memoire Dominicaine,
20 (2006) 11-27.
2.2. The principle locum ex loco
The use of citations cannot be artificially separated from Thomas’s

perception of the role and identity of the exegete. His aim was to create
theological synthesis and not to impose his own visions. Thomas allows
the Word of God to lead him to extract the truth from it.
Undoubtedly, Thomas fully shares the conviction that it is necessary
to interpret the Scripture through Scripture. It results from the fact that God
is the auctor principalis of the Holy Scripture and He leads the history of
mankind. This intrabiblical explanation is Thomas’s echo of listening to
the Fathers of the Church, who repeated that Novum in Vetere latet et in
Novo Vetus patet – in the Old Testament the New is concealed, in the New
the Old is revealed20. However, these connections between the New and
the Old Testament are not always visible and we cannot be deluded by
the verbal parallelism. An apt example is the prologue to the Letter to the
Colossians, in which Thomas states that «therefore the Church resembles
the camp. (Gen 32:2) This is God’s camp».21 For Thomas the prediction of
the Church in the Old Testament is an episode from the life of patriarch
Jacob, who on his way for the meeting with Esau noticed God’s angels and
called this place the «camp of God».
This conviction about the necessity of reading the Bible through the
prism of the Bible as a single work leads Aquinas to focus on the customs
of inspired authors who understood the modus loquendi of the biblical
text22. This is the case of the commentary on Ephesians which throws some
light on the method of explaining the Scripture using other fragments of
the Bible. Thomas when elucidating how St. Paul explained some complex
issue acts in the following manner:
20
It is expressed for Thomas in an allegorical way by the torn curtain of the temple
in the hour of Christ’s death, as he states in his commentary on Galatians, which is an
illustration of the permeating of two testaments and of revealing the meaning of the
Old Testament. See In Gal., cap. III, lect. 8: «vel in eam fidem, quae revelanda erat
tempore gratiae, in antiquis temporibus multis signis latens. Unde et tempore Christi
velum templi scissum est, Matth. XXVII, 51».
21
In Col., prol.
22
In Iob, cap. I: «Hoc autem symbolice et sub aenigmate proponitur secundum
consuetudinem sacrae Scripturae, quae res spirituales sub figuris rerum corporalium
describit, sicut patet Is. VI 1 vidi dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et
elevatum, et in principio Ezechielis et in pluribus aliis locis».
122 PIOTR ROSZAK
In this regard it should be known that the customary procedure

of the Apostle, when speaking of a difficult subject, is to explain
what went before by what immediately follows. This is not verbal
proliferation but an exposition; and this method the Apostle uses
here23.
In the case of the commentary on Ephesians, quoted above, Aquinas

refers to the explanation of the words of St. Paul within the letter; the
subsequent fragment of the Letter is the prism which allows us to
understand better the earlier words of the Apostle. It is clearly visible that
the quotation fulfils the role of the premise, as he himself describes it,
namely the base for the whole reflection and the foundation on which the
argument is based. According to his method of harmoniously combining
synthesis and analysis, which is not always easy to achieve, Thomas
proposes accurateness and clarity instead of hasty reflection on the Word
of God24. He encourages the listener to return to the earlier presented
exposition, which gives the lecture more legibility. It is worth remembering
that the oral form of Thomas’s expositio came first. Causing this «reverse
movement», the quotation somehow unites the statement and throws new
light on the undertaken theme.
3. Biblical citations in the hermeneutic cycle of Aquinas
As i have demonstrated before, the reflection on the use of citations

in the exegetic procedure of Aquinas, their place and aim cannot be
limited to the instrumentalisation of the biblical text, which may be freely
manipulated and treated as a simple confirmation of the previously selected
theses. This type of treatment of the biblical text is unknown to Thomas
Aquinas’s practice, which gives the theological and logical priority to the
text, behaving as a musician, to make use of an interesting metaphor by
M. Healy25, who does not «use» the notes on the score but plays them,
23
In Eph., cap. I, lect. 2: «Propter quod sciendum est, quod est consuetudo
apostoli, ut cum loquitur in aliqua difficili materia, quae immediate sequuntur, sunt
praemissorum expositio, nec est ibi inculcatio verborum, sed expositio, et hunc modum
servat hic apostolus».
24
M. PALUCH, Dlaczego Tomasz, Instytut Tomistyczny, Warszawa 2012, p. 23.
25
HEALY, «Aquinas’s Use of the Old Testament», p. 184.
creating an original interpretation, based, nevertheless, on the foundation

of the notation.
Thomas does not ruin the integrity of the citations, changing or
violating their original context, but builds a new synthesis which being
rooted in the history of salvation displays a fuller meaning of certain events.
This demonstrates that Thomas in his exegetic practice does not approach
the biblical text in closed categories, but reaches to the history of salvation
as the right point of reference in the history of the text. Quoting is not the
juggling but the sensitivity of a theologian who is aware of the participative
dimension of history26. This is not adjusting something by force to prove
the earlier thought-over thesis, but allowing the Word of God to guide you.
The reading of the Word of God was the part of the university curriculum
which was based firstly on «systematic», cursory reading, namely entering
the text of the biblical book through reading it sentence after sentence. This
is how the theological studies began and the work of a young lecturer, that
is a biblical bachelor, at the medieval Faculty of Theology was based on
it. Thomas also gave those kind of lectures as testified by the commentary
on the Book of Isaiah. This is an important aspect of medieval theological
didactics; the plunging into the Word of God, becoming acquainted with
it, which allows scholars to comment on given books and to discover
quickly analogies and interconnections27. Before medieval universities
were formed, this had been the task of monastic lectio divina, but even at
a medieval university, this method did not disappear completely; however,
the emphasis had been shifted from the spiritual to literal meaning.
Nevertheless, the practice of the closeness to the Word of God remained.
All this leads to the demonstration of the primacy of the Word of God
for Aquinas, from which sacra doctrina started. Therefore quotations are
not a group of linguistic terms or representations, but a real beginning of
theological thinking. Quoting and relying on them when forming divisions
26
Postmodern hermeneutics in such a reductionist manner interprets the whole
medieval exegesis. See A. KOCH, «Interpreting God’s truth: a postmodern interpretation
of medieval epistemology», International Social Science Review, 3-4 (2002) 47-60.
27
C. R. SNEDDON, «The ‘Bible du XIIIe siècle’: its Medieval Public in the Light
of its Manuscript Tradition», in W. LOURDAUX – D. VERHELST (edd.), The Bible and
medieval culture, Leuven University Press, Leuven 1984, pp. 127-140. See also E.
LOWE, The Contested Theological Authority of Thomas Aquinas: The Controversies
Between Hervaeus Natalis and Durandus of St. Pourcain, 1307-1323, Routledge, New
York 2003, especially chapter 1.
124 PIOTR ROSZAK
or explaining the theme of the book is not based on simple associations

but on highlighting different elements of the same reality as we are not
concerned with the circumstantial development of events but with the
logos of history.
Aquinas quotes many texts from memory, providing normally a book
and chapter and therefore his citations are not always exact. As Gilbert
Dahan, an eminent expert on Aquinas’s biblical hermeneutics, observes
it is difficult to point out unequivocally what type of biblical text St.
Thomas used in his work as a commentator28. The copies of the Bible
which Thomas owned do not suggest anything, as the study of A. Dondaine
demonstrates29. Thomas uses different variants of the biblical text. In the
case of the commentary on Psalms he himself gives examples of three
different editions of Psaltery employing characteristic formulas alia littera
or nostra littera30. However, it appears that the main text is the one similar
to the Bible of St. James but it is not treated as official or authoritative.
Therefore when reading the commentaries it is important to take into
consideration this aspect of the work of Aquinas. Only then are we able
to interpret gradually his intention of including the particular passage of
the Scripture next to the explanatory passus. Frequently, they are rooted
in traditional references to quotations, for example in emphasising
possibilities of knowing God in the First Letter to the Romans, but in many
cases they are originally authorial, revealing Thomas’s intention.
The dynamics of exposition is not diminished in Thomas’s case by the
fact that the biblical citations are clearly marked with sigla and chapters.
However, we have not answered the question why Thomas includes those
and not other quotations in his commentaries on the books of the Old and
New Testament. What determines his choice?
28
G. DAHAN, «Les éditions des commentaires bibliques de Saint Thomas d’Aquin.
Leur apport à la connaissance du texte de la Bible au XIIIe siècle», Revue des Sciences
Philosophiques et Théologiques, 89 (2005) 9-15; G. LOBRICHON, «Les éditions de la
Bible latine dans les universités du XIIIe siècle», in G. CREMASCOLI – F. SANTI (edd.),
La Biblia del XIII secolo, Galluzzo, Firenze, pp. 15-34.
29
A. DONDAINE, «Praefatio», in Thomas de Aquino, Expositio super Iob, Ed.
Leonina, t. XXVI, Romae 1965, pp. 20*-25*. These copies are now deposited in
Viterbo and Turin.
30
P. ROSZAK, «Collatio sapientiae. Dinámica participatorio-cristológica de la
sabiduría a la luz del Super Psalmos de santo Tomás de Aquino», Angelicum, 3-4
(2012) 749-769.
3.1. Accumulation of citations
When we open practically any biblical commentary of Aquinas,

especially the so-called cursoric ones, which are the result of his lectures
as baccalaureus biblicus, but also in Corpus Paulinum, we encounter not
only quotations which appear in the course of the lecture but also those
which are set together without any introductory formula. They give the
impression of abundant loose documentation which accompanies the main
idea of the lecture. What is the purpose of this «accumulation» of biblical
citations?
Undoubtedly, they build the «scriptural imagination», which acts as a
specific nervous system where interconnections are vital, creating a certain
Christological resonance. It cannot be denied that the juxtaposition of
quotations from different books of the Old and New Testament is helpful,
especially when building an allegorical interpretation. Furthermore,
those accumulations help to experience a certain theological pressure
of biblical quotations whose aim is to keep the exegesis close to the
Scripture and not to lead it in the direction of divagations unrelated
to the scriptural theme. Even in the exegetic practice of the Church
Fathers there existed a method of accumulating quotations based on
terminological similarities, for example combining biblical phrases with
the verb “to see” in order to demonstrate its meaning rich in theological
connotations. Simultaneously, this practice had also a formative aim of
creating familiarity with the Word of God and of shaping the awareness
of biblical language in the reader, thanks to which the real meaning of
history is revealed and it is possible to discover it as an event of moving
from littera to sensus31.
A good example of this type of practice of juxtaposing quotations is
Thomas’s commentary on Psalm 15, in which he uses three quotations
showing the nature of the will of Christ, who as a man obeyed his
Father:
Et sciendum, quod voluntas Patris sicut voluntas Christi est, et

inquantum homo, ut impleat voluntatem patris: Ps. 39: ut faciam
voluntatem tuam, Deus meus volui: Thess. 4: haec est voluntas
31
See W. ŚWIERZAWSKI, Egzegeza biblijna i teologia spekulatywna, Wydawnictwo
Wrocławskiej Księgarni Archidiecezjalnej, Wrocław 1984, p. 37.
126 PIOTR ROSZAK
Dei sanctificatio vestra: Jo. 6: descendi de caelo non ut faciam

voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem ejus qui misit me, Patris, ut omne
quod dedit mihi, non perdam, sed resuscitem illud in novissimo die32.
We can see three quotations (Ps 39, Thess. 4 and Jn 6) connected by

the term voluntas one by one. However, our reflection cannot be finished
now as each of the quotations shows a somehow further way for an exegete.
They focus on the question of fulfilling God’s will, understanding God’s
will by Jesus and on the meaning of «God’s will» as such. It may be seen
that this is not a phenomenon of simple resonance when one quotation
evokes the other on the basis of straightforward linguistic associations but
a thematic opening of exegesis for new questions. It may resemble the
widening of circles which encompasses a diverse range of motifs. Thus,
the accumulation of quotations serves to emphasise the multifacetedness
of the theme.
Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the accumulation does not
refer only to the testament but Thomas attempts to introduce a «circular»
movement. It is visible in the lecture on the Ephesians where he indicates
the triple sources of God’s sublimity, seeing them in the sublimity of
divinity, universal range of given grace and in the realm of His power
which encompasses everybody. In order to express it Thomas resorts to a
number of quotations from the Old and New Testament.
Dignitatem autem eius commendat ex tribus. Ex altitudine

divinitatis, cum dicit qui est super omnes. Ps. CXII, 4: super omnes
gentes dominus, et cetera. Ex amplitudine eius potestatis, cum dicit
per omnia. Ier. c. XXXIII, 24: caelum et terram ego impleo, et
cetera. Ps. VIII, 8: omnia subiecisti sub pedibus, et cetera. Lc. X, 22:
omnia mihi quippe tradita sunt, quippe quia omnia per ipsum facta
sunt, Io. I, 3. Sed modo quo dicitur Sap. XI, 21: omnia in numero,
et pondere, et mensura disposuisti. Ex largitate gratiae, cum dicit et
in omnibus nobis, scilicet per gratiam. Ier. XIV, 9: tu autem in nobis
es, domine, et cetera33.
The implications of the same truth are juxtaposed: the presence of God
in the world sustaining everything in existence (Jer 33), dependence of the
32
In Ps., 15, n.3.
33
In Eph., cap. IV, lect. 2.
creation on the Creator, who gave man dominion to rule over the world (Ps
8), but everything was surrendered to Christ (Lk 10) because through Him
everything was created (Jn 1). Using one quotation, which is the fifth one
in order, accompanied by a short introduction, he develops the content of
the last quotation emphasising “how” the world was organised according
to measure, number and weight (Wis 11).
Intrabiblical associations, which Aquinas introduces to his interpre-
tation of the Scripture, may «slow down» exegesis, but this practice indicates
that too hasty exegesis may miss some important «door» which opens up.
The door which gives hope for the light. However, it is necessary to pose a
question what type of criteria governs the choice of the quotations. There
appear to be two main criteria, namely, the terminological and thematic
associations.
3.2. Per verbum
Although this kind of treatment may surprise with its rigidity it is a

watermark of Thomas’s exegesis. This is a very specific form of the so-
called reference exegesis which constructs the network of connections
between the texts based on verbal associations. An example of this method
is the lecture on Galatians in which Thomas, reflecting on patience
(patientia), places two quotations side by side, so that this word is used in
different contexts:
Sed ad hoc perficit Spiritus Sanctus per patientiam, quae facit

adversa patienter tolerare, et ideo dicit patientia. Lc. XXI, 19: in
patientia vestra possidebitis animas vestras. Iac. I, 4: patientia opus
perfectum habet34.
However, the role of an exegete is not finished when the appropriate

material is accumulated because Thomas’s verbal associations introduce
34
In Gal., cap. V, lect. 6. A similar practice is visible in the lecture on the Letter
to the Ephesians when the word beneplacitum is used: In Eph., cap. I, lect. 3: «Licet
autem quidquid Deo placet, bonum sit, hoc tamen beneplacitum Dei anthonomastice
bonum dicitur, quia per ipsum ad perfectam fruitionem bonitatis perducimur. Ps.
CXLVI, 11: beneplacitum est domino super timentes eum, et cetera. Rom. XII, 2: ut
probetis quae sit voluntas Dei bona, et beneplacens, et perfecta».
128 PIOTR ROSZAK
the «circular movement».35 Another example of this method of conducting

exegesis is the passage from the lecture on Colossians where the word
solicitude (sollicitudo), characteristic of the apostolic work of St. Paul,
finds its apposition in two quotations: Rom 12:8 and Lk 2:1836. Insofar as
the first reference does not surprise («If you are in a position of leadership,
lead with diligence and zeal»), the reference to the shepherds guarding
their sheep in Bethlehem fields demands from the reader some questions.
What is Aquinas’s concern? In Lk 2:18 the word sollicitudo does not appear
in a straightforward manner but it is referred to the word custodire. It is
commonly known that the image of guarding sheep by shepherds is present
in the Bible, but Lk 2: 18 seems to suggest something more, namely the
care not to close the sheepfold itself and separate it from others but to
bring it closer to Christ. The superior of the community is a person who is
watchful to hear the voice of the Lord, like the shepherds in Bethlehem. He
does not come to Jesus alone but with his sheep.
3.3. Per ideam
Biblical citations appear in Aquinas’s commentaries in order to reveal

the wider historical context and connect events with each other as the
main hermeneutic assumption is the existence of the one salvation plan. It
signifies that when reading citations it is not sufficient to rely on the verbal
associations only but it is necessary to investigate res and their message in
the same way as it is with faith which does not concentrate solely on the
word (it is not the faith in words) but goes further towards the reality which
is represented in the faith formulas from the credo.37 This is the reason why
Thomas does not limit himself in the commentaries to presenting what
Evangelists and St. Paul thought on a given subject, but he penetrates the
essence of those issues asking about the nature of God’s providence and
justice. Using the citations he creates a specific mosaic which is an answer
35
G. DAHAN, «Exégèse et théologie dans le commentaire de Thomas d’Aquin
sur la Seconde Epître aux Corinthiens», in Thomas d’Aquin, Commentaire de la
Deuxiéme Épître aux Corinthiens, trad. J.-É. STROOBANT DE SAINT-ÉLOY, Cerf, Paris
2005, p. XV-XXVI.
36
37
ST II-II, q.1, a.2, ad 2: «Actus credentis no terminatur ad annuntabile, sed ad
rem».
expressed in various tones, to the key questions concerning the mystery of

God. It is not only the answer coming from the text but what the truth of
the sentence is.
An example of such a procedure is the reflection on faith which is
described by both a very precise definition and by three biblical references:
unde dicit fides, quae est cognitio quaedam invisibilium cum

certitudine. Gen. XV, 6: credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est
ei ad iustitiam. Hebr. XI, 6: accedentem ad Deum oportet credere,
et cetera. Et ideo Eccli. I, v. 34: beneplacitum est Deo fides, et
mansuetudo, et cetera38.
In this fragment it is clearly visible that we deal with a complementary

description through a definition and quotations. These two elements cannot
be separated because only together do they express Aquinas’s idea. Pointing
to Gen 15:6, Heb 11:6, Sir 1:34 Thomas does not rely on a pure linguistic
game as he reaches for different terms, fides and credere, but there is a very
thorough explication of the quotation. In the definition it is explained what
type of cognition characterised by invisibility and certainty Thomas refers
to and the quotations move the reflection on faith to a different level of trust
in God and His plans, as was the case with Abraham; faith is seen as an
introductory condition of a developed relation with God and the awareness
that the attitude of faith is beloved of God.
Continuing with the theme of faith and its proclamation, in the
commentary on Ephesians Thomas quotes two citations to illustrate the nature
and dynamics of this ministry. Both quotations come from the Old Testament:
Sir 24:30 («qui audit me, non confundetur») and Pro 15:30 («auris quae
audit increpationes vitae, in medio sapientium commorabitur»)39. Similarly
to earlier analysed examples, they are also a very interesting extension of the
main interpretative motif referring to the Old Testament.
4. In the Web of Citations?
Using quotations as an integral tool of his exegetic method, Thomas

does not juxtapose side by side loose end biblical allusions but he also
38
In Gal., cap. V, lect. 6.
39
In Eph., cap. IV, lect. 5.
130 PIOTR ROSZAK
assesses and selects one out of many interpretative options, which is testified
by the formula sed prima expositio est melior40. It is worth emphasising
that the «cycles» of quotations created in this manner are wider and such a
reading of the commentary is not tedious when one recognises the hidden
aim of the author. It is not some form of mnemonic practice but it is an
in-depth theological method of creating a basis for reflection which does
not concentrate on secondary motifs but from the centre heads for the
periphery41.
Although the arrangement of quotations in the commentaries creates
a certain sequence, it is worth highlighting that it forms a coherent lecture
which leads to an extensive undertaking of vital questions. It is clearly
visible in the commentary on Ephesians where Aquinas stops at the term
veritatem facientes. He explains that the truth is a positive work which
cannot be only listened to or preached but it should be realised, which
Thomas bases on 1 Tim 4:16, Jas 1:22, Rom 2:13 in order to notice that
love is the best form of realising the truth (its form), which he confirms
referring to 1 Cor 16:13 and 1 Cor 13:342. These quotations are separated
with the formulas propter quod dicitur, ut habetur or ut dicitur. Perhaps
an inexperienced reader may encounter difficulties studying the stitched
pattern of quotations which resembles a carpet observed from the wrong side
where different threads of various colours and dimensions are entangled,
but when he turns it to the other side everything makes sense and has its
irreplaceable position. It is similar with Thomas’s quotations, which give
the impression of being tangled but once the key has been found it reveals
for the reader of the Word of God the significant plan of the Creator.
40
In Eph., cap. V, lect. 6.
41
K. F. MORRISON, «Interpreting the fragment», in P. J. GALLACHER – H. DAMICO
(eds.), Hermeneutics and medieval culture, State University of New York, Albany
1989), pp. 27-37.
42
In Eph., cap. IV, lect.5: «Veritas autem quandoque dicitur omne opus bonum,
ut Tob. I, 2: in captivitate tamen positus viam veritatis non deseruit. Faciamus ergo
veritatem, scilicet omne opus bonum, vel veritatem doctrinae: quia non sufficere nobis
debet audire vel docere veritatem, sed oportet facere; propter hoc dicebat apostolus I
Tim. IV, 16: hoc enim faciens, et teipsum salvum facies, et eos qui te audiunt. Estote
ergo factores, etc., ut dicitur Iac. I, 22; quia factores iustificabuntur, ut habetur Rom. c.
II, 13. Et hoc si fiat in charitate, quae est forma boni operis. I Cor. XVI, 13 s.: viriliter
agite, et confortetur cor vestrum, et omnia opera vestra in charitate fiant: quia certe
aliter nihil valerent. I Cor. XIII, 3: si tradidero corpus meum, ita ut ardeam, charitatem
autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest».
Thomas repeatedly gives the key to the reading of his text and leads the
reader through asking questions to the texts as is the case in the lecture on
the Letter to the Ephesians where he reflects on the Christian vocation. After
using the quotations from Heb 3:1 and 1Cor 1:26, which are the calling to
cherish hope, Thomas asks: «could anyone explain who has called us and
why?» Thomas’s answer is composed of two quotations 1 P 5:10 and Rev
19:9. He does not use his words as the Scripture is the answer.
5. Models
Having presented the criteria and principles of the selection of biblical

citations i wish to pay attention to several varieties of their presence in the
works of Thomas Aquinas. The selection criterion is the function which
biblical citations fulfil in exegesis as their role in each case is not identical.
This classification attempt is not exhaustive but merely emphasises the
most important use of citations in the biblical commentaries of Thomas
Aquinas.
5.1. Hermeneutic breakthrough – a quotation which transforms

interpretation
Sometimes Thomas’s quotations act as a «railroad switch» which

changes the direction of text interpretation introducing a new train of
thought. It is associated with the conviction which has been mentioned
earlier that the quotations play the role of premises for the undertaken
reflection and are not merely the illustration of the theme. Frequently, the
sequence of quotations whose common denominator is a certain primary
verbal association, for example being far from God, ultimately indicates
new interpretative directions, especially spiritual ones: there is a place for
those who came from afar (Is 60:4) or like in Mk 8:3, where there is a
fragment in which Jesus’ listeners came from afar, not in the sense of a
faraway place but that they were far in terms of merits43.
Sometimes the interpretative breakthrough in Aquinas’s exegesis is
marked by a certain didactic formula known from quaestiones disputate.
43
In Eph., cap. II, lect. 4.
132 PIOTR ROSZAK
An example might be videtur quod, which makes the impression of

anticipating possible questions of the reader towards the text. This practice
is well-illustrated in the lecture on Ps 43(44) where Thomas, introducing
divisions, quotes Ps 120 «My refuge in the Lord». This particular passage
raises a question about the situation in which it appears that man has no
refuge in God. Exegesis being under the clear influence of Ps 120 follows
a different route which is delineated by the biblical text itself44.
5.2. Simile habetur. A quotation which extends interpretation
Explaining a biblical text Thomas also employs the so-called parallel

places characteristic of Christian exegesis. He does so through the formula
«likewise we have» (simile habetur), which as Corpus Thomisticum
demonstrates, is used only in biblical commentaries. Reading Jesus’ call
to follow him and the request of one of the listeners to bid farewell to his
family at home (Mt 8) Aquinas notices that a similar scene took place in
the life of Eliseus because the prophet bid farewell to his family there.
This raises a question about the differences when following Jesus45. In
another situation, during the prayer in Gethsemane Jesus leaves in order
to pray before His passion. For Aquinas, this gesture of abandoning the
disciples brings to mind the scene with Abraham, who on his way to
sacrifice Isaac on Mount Moriah asks his servants to remain at the foot of
the mountain (see Gen 22:5)46. It is difficult to believe that these are only
superficial associations. For Thomas every detail is important like in the
Gothic cathedral. It is symptomatic that the analogy between these two
scenes has not been explained in a straightforward manner as it is done by
contemporary exegetes; it seems that Aquinas «leaves» his listener with this
text all alone. Undoubtedly, it is significant that Thomas practises a certain
model of teaching and the ideal of a master whose role is to accompany his
disciple on the way to understand the text himself and not to understand
the text for him. It is worth accentuating this didactic motif which is the
foundation of many procedures of Thomas Aquinas47.
44
In Ps., 43, n. 5.
45
In Matt., cap. VIII, lect. 3.
46
In Matt., cap. XXVI, lect. 5.
47
Coggi, Le caratteristiche fondamentali, p. 534.
The extension of interpretation through a quotation is a characteristic

feature of Aquinas’s commentaries. They may astonish a contemporary
reader as is the case with the lecture on Colossians. In order to explain
why Paul is accompanied by Timothy as mentioned in the Letter, Thomas
simply quotes Pro 18:19: «A brother who is helped is more steadfast
than a fortress», opening in this way an exceptionally complex reflection
on the communal character of apostolate so familiar to the Dominican
spirituality48. Similarly, in the Gospel according to Matthew, Aquinas
proves that the Church has the special right to be named the house because
Christ dwells there corporally through the sacrament» (corporaliter in
sacramento). After these words he quotes Ps 147:20 «this he has not done
for other nations»49.
Simultaneously, according to Thomas’s explanation, the original
association of the word opens a new context, namely, the renewal of
everything which happens through the mystery of Christ results from the
fact that it is done because of man. As a confirmation Thomas quotes Am
9:11, where God obliges Himself to restore the temple of David and wall
up its breaches, etc. The quoted passages demonstrate that Thomas is not
satisfied with one level of interpreting the text as almost every thought is
based on double levels as if he has been looking for new dimensions, being
afraid of depriving the text of its deeper meaning50.
5.3. Propter hoc dicitur. Quotation which exemplifies interpretation
Quotations which appear in Thomas’s exegesis frequently confirm the

accepted interpretation and are the sign of medieval exegetic thinking51.
However, it does not stop at the simple «evidence in a case» in the form of
today’s quotation whose aim is to guarantee the correctness of reasoning.
Thomas proceeds further. An excellent example is the commentary on
Psalms and, especially Ps 4, where Aquinas stops at the words: Signatum est
48
In Col., cap. I, lect. 1. See A. GHISALBERTI, «L’esegesi della scuola domenicana
del secolo XIII», in La Biblia nel Medio Evo, a cura di G. Cremascoli, EDB, Bologna
1996, p. 299.
49
In Matt., cap. XXI, lect. 1.
50
In Eph., cap. I, lect. 3.
51
L. DE SANTIS, «L’esegesi biblica di Tommaso d’Aquino nel contesto dell’esegesi
biblica medievale», Angelicum, 71 (1994) 509-536.
134 PIOTR ROSZAK
super nos lumen vultus tui, Domine, which he interprets in the perspective of
the baptismal way of imitating Christ. Enumerating all the «marks» which
take place in Christian life he points out that this fragment refers to being
marked with the cross which was impressed on us during baptism and with
which we have to imprint ourselves every day52. This idea is illustrated by
Thomas with a slightly surprising reference to Song 8:6 «Set me as a seal on
your heart». Is it only a simple, instinctive association of a theologian who
knows the Scripture or makes use of concordance? Through the quotation
Thomas expresses more, demonstrating a certain ideal of exegetic work
which sends us further opening up new interpretative directions. This
insatiable hunger for the Word of God, typical of Thomas, is visible here
in a humble manner. In the context of Song 8:6 it is an indication of the
firmness of the sealed cross, which is the sign of «remembering» love.
On a cursory examination of the same quotation from Song 8:6, which
appears in Aquinas’s texts four more times and functions in other contexts,
illustrating other elements, we reach the conclusion that Thomas’s idea is
to indicate a concern so that baptism will not be forgotten in everyday life
but shape it and become a «seal of love».
We cannot be misled or misdirected by the formulas unde dicitur or ut
dicitur, which for the contemporary reader of biblical commentaries act as a
certain «reduction of pressure» and therefore may be omitted when reading
the work. However, it is not the case, as similarly to propter hoc dicitur
the above mentioned formulas establish a theological relation between a
systematic reflection of Aquinas and a quotation. Simultaneously, they
create a network of intrabiblical associations revealing the sense of certain
plans of God53.
52
In Ps., 4, n. 5: «Signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui, domine et cetera. Vultus
Dei est id per quod Deus cognoscitur; sicut homo cognoscitur per vultum suum, hoc
est veritas Dei. Ab hac veritate Dei refulget similitudo lucis suae in animabus nostris.
Et hoc est quasi lumen, et est signatum super nos, quia est superior in nobis, et est quasi
quoddam signum super facies nostras, et hoc lumine cognoscere possumus bonum. Ps.
88: in lumine vultus tui ambulabunt et cetera. Super hoc autem signamur signo spiritus.
Eph. 4: nolite contristare spiritum sanctum in quo signati estis. Et iterum signo crucis,
cujus signaculum nobis impressum est in Baptismo, et quotidie debemus imprimere.
Cant. 8: pone me ut signaculum super cor tuum».
53
In Eph., cap. V, lect. 9. Cf. A. PARETSKY, «The Influence of Thomas the Exegete
on Thomas the Theologian: The Tract on Law (Ia-IIae, qq.98-108) as a Test Case»,
Angelicum, 71 (1994) 565.
On the one hand quotations may serve as a simple exemplification of

a discussed truth constituting a strictly biblical documentation but on the
other hand, they may visualise a realisation of God’s prediction and promise.
Gifts of grace and glory which are mentioned in the lecture on Ephesians
are illustrated in Ps 83:17, 2 P 1:4 and in the Old and New Testament using
the future tense (dedit) and the past tense (donavit)54. We touch upon an
important reference and function of quotations, namely their aim to position
a reader in a broad historical and salvation context. Another interesting
example is the same commentary to Ephesians (Eph 4:9), where Thomas
indicating two possible interpretations of “descending in the lower parts of
the world” decides that the more appropriate is the one which refers not so
much to the lower part of the world as being «beneath the heavens» but to
hell. As a confirmation of such a reading he uses simply three quotations:
Zec 9:11 («I shall release your prisoners from the ancient cistern»), Rev 10:1
(«Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven») and Ex 3:7
(«I have seen the humiliation of my people in Egypt»).55 All these quotations
have, as a common denominator, God’s intervention, saving from a desperate
situation, where God demands for the faithful to keep to the Law of God.
Thomas associates this descending of Christ for those enslaved by sin with
Israel’s exodus from slavery, the symbol of lack of food and with the Last
Judgment over the world. This is the exemplification the reading of which
must take place on a deeper level after discovering a common denominator.
5.4. Quotation which introduces the spiritual sense
If the literal sense is associated with discovering the meaning of the text
(quem auctor intendit),56 the spiritual sense, in contrast, refers to the things,
54
In Eph., cap. IV, lect. 3: «Non solum autem homines a Diaboli captivitate eripuit,
et suae servituti subiecit, sed etiam eos spiritualibus bonis dotavit. Unde subditur dedit
dona hominibus, scilicet gratiae et gloriae. Ps. LXXXIII, 12: gratiam et gloriam dabit
dominus. II Petr. I, 4: per quem et pretiosa nobis promissa donavit, et cetera».
55
In Eph., cap. IV, lect. 3: «Et sic videtur hoc eis convenire quod dixerat:
captivam duxit captivitatem. Zach. IX, 11: tu quoque in sanguine testamenti tui
eduxisti vinctos tuos de lacu, in quo non erat aqua. Apoc. X, 1: vidi alium Angelum
fortem descendentem de caelo, et cetera. Ex. III, 7: vidi afflictionem populi mei qui est
in Aegypto, etc.; et sequitur: et descendi liberare eum».
56
Th. PRÜGL, «Thomas Aquinas as Interpreter of Scripture», in R. VAN
NIEUWENHOVE – J. WAWRYKOW (eds.), The Theology of Thomas Aquinas, Notre Dame
136 PIOTR ROSZAK
institutions or events rendered or described by the text. They illuminate

and indicate the culmination of God’s plan in Christ (the allegorical sense),
new quality of life in Christ (the moral sense) or final realisation in glory
(the anagogical sense). For Thomas, as M. Healy observes, this is the key
to proper exegesis, as «whereas human beings write with words, God
writes with history»57. The uniqueness of the Holy Scripture is based on
the presence of the spiritual sense, its incomparability with any other book
because God is the author of the Scripture and He may make some events
predict the mystery of Christ58. Therefore it is not surprising that in many
cases the citations clearly and silently assume the Christological sense.
In the interpretation of the spiritual sense, for example circumcision
in the lecture on Romans, Thomas frequently follows St. Paul, rarely
suggesting his own solutions59. In the case of the commentary on Psalms
it is a very common procedure but it appears also in relation to Corpus
Paulinum. Explaining the Letter to the Colossians and elucidating the truth
about the nature of Christ’s resurrection as the act of the Father and also
of the Son, Thomas surprisingly cites the fragment of Ps 107:3 «I will
awake the dawn»60. It is clear only if we realise that Psalms are for Thomas
the voice of Christ according to the Augustinian interpretation, which
perceived Psalms as the voice toti Christi, the Head and the members.
This indicates clearly that one of the significant functions of quoted
citations was to discover the spiritual sense. Thomas remained consistent
in his method, repeatedly accentuating the primacy of the literal sense on
which the spiritual sense could rely. It constituted a certain barrier against
the uncontrollable practice of entire liberty and arbitrariness in the choice
University Press, Notre Dame 2005, pp. 386-415, here p. 405. It is worth emphasizing
that Thomas understands intendere not as a subjective authorial intention, but rather
in the philosophical sense which reflects a more objective reference established by the
text. The literal sense is always definitely associated with the plan of God, who is the
main author of the Scripture.
57
HEALY, «Aquinas’s Use of the Old Testament», p. 188.
58
See Quodl., VII, q.6, a.3; In Ps., prol.: «Notandum autem, quod aliud est in sacra
Scriptura, et aliud in aliis scientiis. Nam aliae scientiae sunt per rationem humanam
editae, haec autem Scriptura per instinctum inspirationis divinae».
59
In the case of the Letter to the Ephesians (In Eph., cap. I, lect. 8) he follows, for
example, Dionysus –«Christus, etiam secundum quod homo, Angelos illuminat et in
eis influit, ut Dionysius probat ex verbis Is. LXIII, 1 scilicet: quis est iste, qui venit de
Edom, etc., dicens haec verba esse supremorum Angelorum».
60
of the spiritual sense and, within it, the allegorical one, which tempted
many of Thomas’s contemporaries. Still, Thomas remains a master of
“balance”. It cannot be forgotten that, for Thomas, similarly to many
other medieval exegetes the border between the literal and spiritual sense
was not a demarcation line but rather a flexible one where the spiritual
interpretation appears spontaneously as the sign of the vitality of the Word
of God and the possibility of understanding it on many levels.
The model of such an interpretation might be the reflection of Aquinas
on the nature of contemplation which is present in the lecture on Ps 54,
the last one that survived to our times. He interprets there the flight of the
raven and dove set free by Noah in order to check the state of the earth after
the deluge as the division into two types of people contemplating the truth.
The first group are the philosophers who keep the learning of the truth for
themselves whereas a dove returning with an olive branch resembles saints
who are able to sympathise with others like a simple, kind and lamenting
dove. Furthermore, ascending, and flying denotes contemplation61.
In some cases, Thomas not only supplies an exact allegorical
commentary but also dissects the quotation itself, introducing his spiritual
interpretation. Commenting the Letter to the Ephesians he introduces at some
point a note (notandum quod), in which he emphasises that in heaven we
will rejoice with knowing God and the glorious understanding of mankind,
which is confirmed by his interpretation of J 10:9: «ingredietur, scilicet
in contemplatione divinitatis, et egredietur, scilicet in contemplatione
humanitatis, et pascua inveniet»62.
Thomas rendered the significance of the spiritual sense with a beautiful
metaphor inspired by Ps 8, where the title of the psalm refers to torcular,
a tool which was used for pressing grape juice in the production of wine:
«Item a verbis litteraliter positis separatur sensus spiritualis»63. A similar
sense is found in the reading of the miracle about the multiplication of the
loaves related in Mt 14. For Thomas, the leftovers that filled twelve baskets
are, in a mystical way, the spiritual sense which wise people are able to
gather.64
61
In Ps., 54, n.5.
62
In Eph., cap. III, lect. 5: this is the quotation: «I am the gate. Whoever enters
through me will be saved; he will go in and out freely and find food».
63
In Ps., 8, n.1.
64
In Matt., cap. XIV, lect.2: «Mystice per fragmenta intelligitur sensus spiritualis,
qui a turbis non capitur, sed in cophinis, idest in sapientibus».
138 PIOTR ROSZAK
5.5. Citations in sed contra
Biblical quotations appear also in a particular context, in the question

which although not as expanded as in the Summa Theologiæ, nevertheless
is present in the course of the exegetic lecture. Quotations do not appear
in isolation but Thomas attempts to precede them with various formulas
(hoc quod dicit) which interrupt the explanation and lead to sed contra. In
contrast to the Summa, the aim of sed contra in the biblical commentaries
is not simply to refute the argument of the opponent but to notice a possible
contradiction of various texts or recommendations of the Scripture. An
example is the commentary on the Letter to the Galatians, where Thomas
discovers in the Scripture the controversy about the quoted numbers: 430
or 40065. In another place, where St. Paul uses the term insipiens, he reflects
how to reconcile it with the Lord’s call not to address anybody with the
term Raca (Mt 5:22)66. The answer comes in the distinction of describing
your neighbour with this word in anger (ex ira) or for his correction (ex
correctione), which is the next contribution to discovering the literal sense
for Thomas.
In order to solve those and other similar challenges of the biblical
text Aquinas acts in a different manner than modern exegetes who search
for answers in the history of the text or in professing different theologies
by biblical authors. Instead of contrasting different interpretations Thomas
notices their complementarities, which result from the divine authorship
of the Bible67. It is a clear application of a hermeneutic of faith which was
characteristic of the patristic exegesis and for which Pope Benedict XVI
has appealed recently68.
Open conclusions
For Thomas Aquinas the use of biblical quotations in the course of his
exegetic argument is not the artificial «biblicising» by force of systematic
theological reflections but a deliberate intention whose aim is familiarity
65
In Gal., cap. III, lect. 6.
66
In 1 Cor., cap. XV, lect. 5.
67
J. BOYLE, «St Thomas Aquinas and Sacred Scripture», Pro Ecclesia, 4 (1995)
92-104.
68
R. E. MURPHY, «Patristic and Medieval Exegesis - Help or Hindrance?»,
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 43 (1981) 505-516.
with the Word of God. It stems from the conviction that God is the author
of the Holy Scripture and His plan of salvation is realised at all stages of
history. Thanks to it, one biblical quotation is able to illuminate another.
Therefore the effort directed to ad intellectum litterae69 demands from
Thomas as a biblicist receiving the «whole-canon hermeneutics»70.
The accumulation of quotations which Thomas cites relying on verbal
or ideological associations initially hinders the contact with Thomas’s
commentaries for the contemporary reader; however, later they turn out
to be the sign of Thomas’s deep concern about a certain type of reading
of the Holy Scripture. This is the reading which is deeply immersed in
the Word of God from which it derives refreshing juices. It is not a game
with quotations as arguments but it is similar to the process of admiring
a tapestry. When we look at it from the other side we see only a tangle
of insignificant threads of different colours and lengths but when we turn
it, a beautiful pattern intended by the author is revealed. Quotations fulfil
the role of such threads which present the Scripture as a particular sign of
God’s love for man.
69
In Hebr., cap. IX, lect. 2.
70
M. LEVERING, Scripture and Metaphysics. Aquinas and the renewal of Trinitarian
theology, Blackwell Publ., Malden 2004.
MAURICIO R. NARVÁEZ*
INTENTION, «PROBABILES RATIONES» AND TRUTH: THE

EXEGETICAL PRACTICE IN THOMAS AQUINAS
THE CASE OF EXPOSITIO SUPER IOB AD LITTERAM
When Chenu in his famous Toward Understanding Saint Thomas

(Introduction à l’étude de Saint Thomas d’Aquin)1 describes the characteristics
of the scholastic exegesis, he uses the expression that Friar Thomas used to
define the way in which the Book of Job, according to him, was written: «per
probabiles rationes»2; but Chenu evokes this reference to insist not so much
on the «probabiles» character of the words contents in the biblical book, but
on the importance that scholastics give to look of «reasons» everywhere in
the understanding of sacred texts.
Another step, and here we are at the peak of this scholastic exegesis.
The quest is for reasons, the reasons for things, for events, for
words, for steps taken. Always it is supposed that the evangelist
or the prophet had reasons in mind. […] The Book of Job purports
to show per probabiles rationes [by means of probable reasons]
that Providence governs human affairs. […] This quest for reasons
reaches the point where the text is exegetically built up according to
reasoning procedures3.
It is interesting to highlight the link established here by Chenu

between the conception that scholastics had of the sacred text (a text
*
Institut Supérieur de Traducteurs et Interprètes. Charles Demeer 122, 1020
Brussels. mnarvaezsoto@heb.be
1
médiévales – Vrin, Montréal − Paris 1993, p. 215.
2
«Unde eorum qui divino spiritu sapientiam consecuti <sunt> ad aliorum
eruditionem, primum et praecipuum studium fuit hanc opinionem a cordibus hominum
amovere; et ideo post Legem datam et Prophetas, in numero hagiographorum, idest
librorum per Spiritum Dei sapienter ad eruditionem hominum conscriptorum, primus
ponitur liber Iob, cuius tota intentio circa hoc versatur ut per probabiles rationes
ostendatur res humanas divina providentia regi». In Iob, prol. p. 3.
3
M.-D. CHENU, Toward Understanding Saint Thomas, Translated by A.-M.
LANDRY and D. HUGHES, Herny Regnery Company, Chicago 1964, p. 252.
142 MAURICIO R. NARVÁEZ
founded, inhabited of reasons) and the way in which these medieval

exegetes approached the text («the quest is for reasons»). Now, it seems
to me that we could make a similar link by exploring the other part of the
expression «per probabiles rationes» and that Chenu left totally aside: the
«probabiles» quality of these reasons. I wonder if the exegetical practice
of Thomas Aquinas could not be qualified by this «probabiles» of the «per
probabiles rationes».
In this article, we are going to explore this characteristic in the
Expositio super Iob ad litteram4. There will be three stages in our
presentation. First, we are going to identify some elements which show
the «probabiles» quality of Thomas Aquinas’ commentary. Then, we are
going to present some elements which, at first sight, are in conflict with
the first ones (logical structures, axioms, etc.); and finally, we are going
to explore the articulation of these elements throughout the question of
the dialogical intention (that is, the understanding of the biblical dialogues
engaged between the different characters).
A. Probabiles rationes
The expression «probabiles rationes» involves a fundamental tension

which could be peculiar to the interpretation of texts, that is, for the exegesis
or, more widely, for the hermeneutical practice. This tension, included
in the «tendit» of «intentio auctoris», would mark at the same time the
fundamental will of the commentator to grasp the «truth of the text» that is
the «real meaning of the text» and a degree of uncertainty concerning this
understanding. The place of the hermeneutical activity would thus be a will
of grasping the truth and a possibility to approach it and an uncertainty on
the fact of having grasped or not this truth, or in which degree.
The question is to know whether the exercise of understanding
and explanation of the Book of Job shows actually the marks of this
«per probabiles rationes». Some insignificant particles presents in the
Commentary in a constant, almost excessive way, will bring, according to
me, the answer to our question.
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio super Iob ad litteram, ed. Leonina, t. XXVI,

4
Rome 1965.
INTENTION, «PROBABILES RATIONES» AND TRUTH 143
1. Insignificant expressions
1.1. idest
Throughout the commentaries, each verse which is commented is

quoted and reformulated at first. This reformulation already marks at the
same time a distance with regard to the original text and an attempt of
equivalence or comprehension. The term «idest» claims this equivalence
in the reformulation (extremely frequent, it appears 643 times in Expositio
super Iob ad litteram)5, but it is an initial explanation, a clarification or a
reformulation theoretically positioned.
[…] et hoc est quod dicitur Eratque vir ille magnus inter omnes
Orientales, idest honoratus et famosus6.
[…] sicut in Exodo dicitur «sedit populus manducare et bibere et
surrexerunt ludere», idest fornicari vel idolis immolare7.
[…] nisi in faciem benedixerit tibi, idest manifeste maledixerit,
supple ‘male mihi accidat’8.
This formulation appears in any commentary of Thomas Aquinas

(biblical or not), it appears especially in interpretative contexts, what
explains that the number of cases in Summa theologiae (864 of 1573434
words) is inferior than in Super Ioannem (899 of 320019) or Sententia libri
Metaphysicae (986 of 260960 words).
5
R. BUSA, «Index Thomisticus», in Corpus Thomisticum web edition by E.
BERNOT and E. ALARCÓN, http://www.corpusthomisticum.org.
6
In Iob, cap. 1:3, p. 6. (English translation: «[…] and this is what the text means
saying, So this man was accounted great among all the peoples of the East, that is, he
was honored and respected.»). Throughout this article, I shall propose at the bottom of the
page an English translation of texts quoted in Latin in the main part of this article. I shall
quote the translation realized by B. MULLADAY and published on-line by J. KENNY (http://
dhspriory.org/thomas/SSJob.htm). I did not modify this translation, I just adapted the
format to that of the Leonine edition. Afterward, I simply will indicate «B. MULLADAY
translation». For the references, I shall always quote those of the Leonine edition.
7
In Iob, cap. 1:5, p. 7. (B. MULLADAY translation: «[…] as Exodus says, The
people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play, (32:6) that is, to fornicate and to
sacrifice to idols»).
8
In Iob, cap. 1:11, p. 11. (B. MULLADAY translation: «[…] by taking it away, If
he does not bless (benedixerit) you to your face, i.e. curse you openly (literally, “may
misfortune come upon me”)»).
1.2. Quasi dicat
But the reformulation of a verse is not always introduced by «idest».

In the Expositio super Iob ad litteram, it is connected 243 times to the
expression «quasi dicat / diceret / dicerent»9. This expression is particularly
interesting, because it marks more clearly the distance between the
biblical verse and the statement which comments or reformulates it. It is
not a question here of equivalence. It is about approximation, an attempt
of formulation or reformulation which recognizes not to be the exact
expression of the verse. This expression indicates explicitly at the same
time a recognized distance and an attempt of closeness between text-source
and comment, without any claim to a real equivalence.
Hoc igitur bonum a nocte praedicta removet dicens non computetur

in diebus anni nec numeretur in mensibus, quasi dicat: nox illa
non est memoria digna cum nihil insigne in ea acciderit sed magis
aliquid dolorosum10.
Et quia hoc etiam videbatur irrationabile quod aliquis vitam
abhorreret cum omnibus desiderabile sit esse et vivere, ostendit ex
qua ratione id dixerit cum subdit nec abstulit mala ab oculis meis,
quasi dicat: non ipsam vitam propter se abhorreo sed propter mala
quae patior; etsi enim vita secundum se desiderabilis sit, non tamen
vita miseriis subiecta11.
The use of this expression, at first sight banal, becomes significant

as soon as we compare its frequency to other Friar Thomas’s works. At
first, concerning the called systematic works, in the Summa theologiae
9
BUSA, «Index Thomisticus», http://www.corpusthomisticum.org.
10
In Iob, cap. 3:7, p. 22. (B. MULLADAY translation: «He removes this good from
the night about which he is speaking saying, Let it not be reckoned among the days of
the year; let it not be numbered among the months. Here he says in effect: That night is
not worth remembering since nothing important happened on it, but rather something
which causes sorrow»).
11
In Iob, cap. 3:10, p. 23. (B. MULLADAY translation: «But since it also seems
irrational for someone to detest life, when being and to living are desirable for all, he
shows the reason why he has said this. Nor hide trouble from my eyes, as if to say: I do
not detest living because of life itself, but from the evil which I suffer. For although life
itself is desirable, yet a life subject to misery is not»).
«quasi dicat» appears only 17 times12 (and always in hermeneutic context,

obviously); in the disputations (Quaestiones disputatae and Quaestiones
quodlibetales), the expression is practically absent (twice in total)13. Then,
concerning the commentaries of Thomas Aquinas, the expression appears
merely 49 times in the whole of Aristotle’s commentaries14, while in the
biblical commentaries of the Old Testament it is used 77615 times (Expositio
super Isaiam ad litteram 47 times from 100322 words16; Super Ieremiam
et Threnos 105 times; Expositio super Iob ad litteram 233 times from
115239 words17; Super Psalmos 391 times 193567 words18). Regarding the
Commentaries of the New Testament, I shall quote only the Super Ioannem
which contains 269 times from 320019 words19 this expression and which
exceeds widely in frequency all other New Testament’s commentaries. This
quantitative superiority of both the biblical commentaries on Aristotle’s
commentaries, and the Commentary of Job and of Psalms in the Old
Testament requires an explanation.
In fact, in order to accept the validity of the above data, it would be
necessary to distinguish the critical editions of others; it would be also
necessary to distinguish the works of Sententia type of those of Expositio
type, and finally, it would be necessary to compare the number of occurrence
with the total number of words contained in each work.
Let us compare two works of the critical editions contained in the
Index Thomisticus, one of Sententia type and the other of Expositio type.
Instead of comparing the total number of words, let us make the comparison
between both here evoked expressions: «idest» and «quasi dicat».
For Sententia libri Ethicorum we have 555 times «idest» while the
expression «quasi dicat» appears only 6 times20.
In the Expositio super Iob ad litteram «idest» is present 643 times and
«quasi dicat» 233 times21.
12
BUSA, «Index Thomisticus», http://www.corpusthomisticum.org
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
The difference is clearly illustrative. The almost complete absence

of critical editions of biblical commentaries does not allow us to make
systematic analysis. However we notice that in the current state of the
Super Psalmos, the presence of this expression is very high, as well as
in the Super Ioannem. The presence in these two commentaries is so
massive that I doubt that the critical edition would change in a substantial
way the number of occurrences, but let us stay with the only data of the
commentary of the Book of Job and let us try to explain this difference
compared to Aristotle’s commentaries. It seems to me that «quasi dicat»
intervenes especially or more frequently in two occasions: where the
statement commented expresses itself in figurative language and where
this expression introduces the comment of a dialogue expressed in the text-
source. Exemple:
[…] Sed hoc ostendit Iob esse contra naturam sensitivam:

nam sensus non potest non refugere id quod est nocivum vel
inconveniens, et ideo dicit aut poterit comedi insulsum quod non
est sale conditum?, quasi dicat ‘non’, quia videlicet huiusmodi
insipida non conveniunt ad delectationem gustus; et similiter
ea quae non sunt delectabilia non potest cor hominis libenter
acceptare, et multo minus illa quae sunt amara et noxia, unde
subdit Aut potest aliquis gustare quod gustatum affert mortem?,
quasi dicat ‘non’; et sicut hoc est impossibile in sensu exteriori, ita
impossibile est quod ea quae per sensus interiores apprehenduntur
ut noxia, sine tristitia recipiantur22.
22
In Iob, cap. 6:5, pp. 41-42. (B. MULLADAY translation: «Job demonstrates this
to be against sensitive nature. For sense cannot but repulsed by the unsuitable and the
harmful. So he says, Can tasteless food be taken without salt? implying the answer
‘no’, because such food without flavor is not fit to delight the sense of taste. Similarly,
the heart of man cannot freely tolerate things which are not pleasant, much less things
which are bitter and harmful. So he continues, Or can someone taste what once tasted
brings death?, as if to say, ‘no’ here. Just as this is impossible for the exterior sense,
so it is impossible that what is apprehended by the interior sense as harmful should
be received without sadness»). «Et ad magnificandum huiusmodi tremorem subiungit
et omnia ossa mea perterrita sunt, quasi dicat: tremor non fuit superficialis sed
vehemens, qui etiam ossa concuteret; simile est quod habetur Dan. x8 “Vidi visionem
hanc grandem et non remansit in me fortitudo, sed et species mea immutata est in me
et emarcui nec habui in me quicquam virium”». In Iob, cap. 4:14, p. 30.
1.3. Ac si dicat
«quasi dicat» is one of the most representative expressions, but not

the only one. We can quote others in hermeneutical context that have a
similar role («videtur», «ut sit sensus», etc.). But let us stop a moment at
the expression «ac si dicat (diceret, dixisset)». This expression indicates
at the same time an attempt of reformulation, understanding and distance.
This one expresses what was not being said but what would have being
able to be said. It sometimes goes farther than «quasi dicat» in the mark of
distance regarding the text-source because it expresses impossibility:
Sic igitur Iob quia secundum partem sensibilem vitam sub adversitate
repudiabat, volebat se numquam natum vel conceptum fuisse, et hoc
est quod dicit Pereat dies in qua natus sum, ac si diceret ‘numquam
natus fuissem!’ […]23.
Sic igitur ostensa multipliciter immensitate divinae potentiae
et profunditate divinae sapientiae, concludit propositum, quod
scilicet suae intentionis non est cum Deo contendere, et hoc
est quod dicit Quantus ergo ego sum, idest quam potens, quam
sapiens, qui respondeam ei, scilicet Deo interroganti potentissimo
et sapientissimo, et loquar verbis meis cum eo, examinando facta
eius et dicendo «cur ita facis?», ac si diceret: non sufficiens sum ut
contendam cum Deo; contentio enim in respondendo et obiciendo
consistit24.
Concerning the presence of «ac si dicat» in the work of Thomas

Aquinas, the case is rather similar to that of «quasi dicat»: enough little
presence in the systematic works and in the disputations (Summa theologiae
23
In Iob, cap. 3:3, p. 21. (B. MULLADAY translation: «So therefore because Job
repudiated life in adversity from the point of view of the senses, he wished that he had
never been born or conceived. He expresses this saying, Let the day perish on which I
was born, saying in effect, ‘Would that I had never been born!’»).
24
In Iob, cap. 9:14, p. 62. (B. MULLADAY translation: «Therefore, after he has
shown in many ways the immensity of the divine power and the depth of the divine
wisdom, he draws the conclusion to the proposition, namely that his intention is not to
argue with God. He explains this when he says, Am I great enough, how powerful and
how wise, to answer him, i.e. to answer the most powerful and most wise God when
he interrogates me and to address him in my own words. This means by examining
his deeds and saying, “Why do you do this?” (v. 12) as if to say: I am not sufficient to
argue with God, for argument consists in answering and making objections»).
63 times from 1573434 word25, questions −disputatae and quodlibetales−

45 times26) and more presence in commentaries as well as in Aristotleʼs than
biblical (144 times from 1141084 words in Aristotle’s commentaries27, 79
times in commentaries of the Old Testament28, and 25 times from 320019
words in Super Ioannem29).
1.4. «(videtur/ potest) referri ad»
Let us mention a last case: «referri ad». This is another expression

which is bound to the interpretation of texts. It appears twice in the
Quaestiones quodlibetales, 9 times30 in the Quaestiones disputatae,
18 times31 in the Summa theologiae, merely 12 times in the Aristotle’s
Commentaries32. On the other hand, it appears 19 times in Expositio
super Iob ad litteram and 28 times in Super Psalmos33. The interest
of this expression for our investigation is double: at first, because it
underlines the probable, not sure, characteristic, of an interpretation,
thanks to the fact that it is often preceded by a «videtur» or by a «potest»;
second, because it is often used to introduce a plurality of readings of a
text (situation about which we shall speak farther). Let us quote some
examples:
[…], et ideo quasi admirative quaerit et sic repente praecipitas me?,

quasi dicat: hoc inconveniens videtur si quem prius fecisti sine
causa nunc destruas. Vel quod dixit fecerunt me potest referri ad
constitutionem substantiae, quod autem dixit et plasmaverunt me
totum in circuitu potest referri ad ea quae substantiae adveniunt,
sive sint bona animae sive corporis sive exterioris fortunae34.
25
BUSA, «Index Thomisticus», http://www.corpusthomisticum.org
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
In Iob, cap. 10:8, p. 70. (B. MULLADAY translation: «[…] and so he asks almost
in surprise, and so will you cast me down unexpectedly? He seems to say: It seems
Subiungit aliam utilitatem nubium cum dicit et nubes spargunt lumen

suum, quod potest referri vel ad lumen coruscationum, secundum id
quod supra in praecedenti capitulo praedixerat «si voluerit extendere
nubes et fulgurare lumine suo»; vel magis potest referri ad lumen
quod resplendet in aere ex radiis solis reverberatis ad nubes et
quodammodo contemperatis per ipsas: unde claritas solis apparet in
aere ante ortum solis et etiam post occasum propter reverberationem
radiorum solis ad nubes quae sunt in loco sublimiori, ad quas citius
accedunt radii solares et tardius eas deserunt35.
In the second case, besides the opened presentation of the interpretation

indicated by the «potest», Thomas Aquinas offers us two readings of the
same verse. He indicates a preference among these two readings, but he does
not exclude the other one36. This case leads us to the second characteristic
of Friar Thomas’s commentaries which shows us that the interpretation
and the explanation of the sacred text do not proceed by necessity but by
probable reasons; does not claim to offer an unambiguous, but opened,
even explicitly multiple, reading.
2. «potest dupliciter hoc verbum intelligi»
By different expressions, Thomas Aquinas introduces a plurality of

interpretations (generally two). In Expositio super Iob ad litteram this
unfitting for you now to destroy without cause someone you earlier made. Or the words,
made me, can refer to the constitution of the substance and the words, They fashioned
me wholly round about, can refer to those things which modify the substance, whether
they are the goods of the soul or of the body or of exterior chance»).
35
In Iob, cap. 37:11, p. 195. (B. MULLADAY translation: «He adds another useful
feature of the clouds when he says, and the clouds pour out their light, which can
refer either to the light of lightning flashing according to what he already said in the
preceding chapter, “If he wills to extend the clouds or to make flash with his light”
(36:29). Or this can more refer to the light which shines in the air from the suns rays
reflected off the clouds and mixed with them in some way. So the brightness of the sun
appears in the air before the rising of the sun and also after its setting because of the
reflection of the rays of the sun from the clouds which are in a higher place, which the
solar rays reach more quickly and leave more slowly»).
36
About the multiple readings, see M. NARVÁEZ, Thomas d’Aquin lecteur. Vers
une nouvelle approche de la pratique herméneutique au Moyen Âge, Institut Supérieur
de Philosophie – Peeters, Louvain 2012, pp. 145-171 (Philosophes Médiévaux, 57).
structure is not isolated, it is constant. This dimension of the commentary

translates concretely the «per probabiles rationes». As soon as Thomas
Aquinas proposes two interpretations of a passage (often without
determining which of these interpretations to retain), he places his
interpretation in this degree of certainty/uncertainty which we can call of
«pertinence». A one reading is not pertinent, but many readings are more,
or less, or equally pertinent.
Notandum autem quod licet Iob filiis indulgeret ut convivia

agerent, tamen ipse suam gravitatem conservans eorum conviviis
se non immiscebat: unde dicitur quod mittebat ad eos, non quod
ipse ad eos iret. Modus autem sanctificationis quo per internuntium
sanctificabat potest intelligi dupliciter: vel quia salubribus monitis
eos instrui faciebat ut si quid in conviviis deliquerant emendarent,
vel etiam expiationis aliquem ritum habebant quo huiusmodi delicta
expiabantur, sicut et sacrificia etiam ante Legem data fuerunt, et
primitiarum et decimarum oblatio37.
37
In Iob, cap. 1:5, pp. 6-7. (B. MULLADAY translation: «One should note, however, that
although Job indulged his sons in allowing them to have feasts, yet he did not participate
himself in their banquets because he preserved his maturity. So the text says, He would
send for them, but not that he would go himself. The manner of this purification by which
he sanctified them through an intermediary can be understood in two ways: he either had
them instructed with beneficial warning so that if they had done anything wrong at the
banquets, they would correct it, or else that they should perform some rite of expiation in
which they could satisfy for these kinds of faults as there were sacrifices and the oblation
of first fruits and tithes even before the Law was given»). Other examples: «Quod autem
addit simul potest ad duo referri, […]», In Iob, cap. 40:8, p. 215; «Subdit autem et ad
locum alium non ferentur, quod potest ad duas intentiones referri […]», In Iob, cap.
41:14, p. 225; «Vel potest hoc ad aliam intentionem referri […]», In Iob, cap. 13:19, p.
87; «[…] et benedixerint Deo in cordibus suis. Quod quidem dupliciter intelligi potest»,
In Iob, cap. 1:5, p. 7; «[…] nunde subdit maledicant ei qui maledicunt diei, qui parati
sunt suscitare Leviathan. Quod quidem secundum litteram dupliciter potest exponi:
[…]», In Iob, cap. 3:8, pp. 22-23; «[…] sed hoc excludit dicens ad terram tenebrosam,
ad quam scilicet vadam post mortem. Et potest hoc exponi dupliciter: […]», In Iob, cap.
10:21, p. 73; «Quod autem subdit qui excelsos iudicat potest dupliciter adiungi: […]», In
Iob, cap. 21:22, p. 125; «[…] et quantum ad hoc subdit et nudos spoliasti vestibus, quod
potest intelligi dupliciter:[…]», In Iob, cap. 22:6, p. 128; «[…] devratur, quasi absorptus
a magnitudine materiae de qua loquitur, secundum illud Prov. XXV27 “Qui perscrutator
est maiestatis opprimetur a gloria”. Vel potest aliter intelligi ut sit sensus: […]», In Iob,
cap. 37:20, p. 197; «[…] unde subdit nec intuitus est, scilicet eam, oculus vulturis, qui
tamen valde a remotis solet videre; vel potest aliter exponi: […]», In Iob, cap. 4:6, p. 152.
B. Truth
The elements which we have just mentioned are sufficient to

establish, that in the concrete understanding and explanation of the
sacred text, Thomas Aquinas proceeds «per probabiles rationes»,
that is by readings and explanations which try to be «pertinent» and
which do not claim to be unequivocal, or unique. But then, why does
the reading of the commentaries of Thomas Aquinas often give the
opposite feeling (that of a text with a rigour in the structure and in the
logical developments such as it really leaves no place, to doubt, or to the
multiplicity of readings)?
The tension towards the truth, indicated by the term «probabiles»,
requires from Thomas Aquinas to introduce a rather complex set of formal
structures (logical), of arguments and axioms, considered true, which aim
at giving to the sacred text its true meaning. That, in the case of the biblical
text, is a step toward the truth as such.
All this is well known since the works of Chenu, but what is less
known is the articulation of this «machinery» made up of logic and truth
with the hermeneutical flexibility which we have just shown.
Before giving an example concerning the articulation of these two
dimensions of the Thomas Aquinas’ commentary, I am going to state three
«véritative» tools (tools of truth)38 which intervene in the commentary.
I call tool «véritative (tool of truth)» any element which beforehand is
considered either true (axioms, for example), or a means to reach the truth
(logical structures) or as an element possessing a certain truth (biblical
quotations). These tools have in common the capacity to place the
commentary at the level of the truth and to try by its intervention to return
the text commented in its truth.
1. Logical structures
The presence of these structures of classification, of hierarchical

organization, of definition, is everywhere. From the beginning, it is
this kind of structures which guide the progression of the commentary.
Sometimes these logical tools are disappointing, other times they give
38
For this notion, see NARVÁEZ, Thomas d’Aquin lecteur, pp. 249-283.
excellent results. The following quotation is a good example; it concerns

the number of children, boys and girls, of Job:
Describitur igitur primo eius prosperitas quantum ad fecunditatem

prolis, cum dicitur Natique sunt ei septem filii et tres filiae.
Convenienter numerosior multitudo marium quam feminarum
ponitur
quia parentes magis affectare solent filios quam filias,
tum quia id quod perfectius est desiderabilius est, mares autem
comparantur ad feminas sicut perfectum ad imperfectum,
tum quia in auxilium rerum gerendarum solent esse parentes magis
nati quam natae39.
As we may notice at first that Friar Thomas proposes three possible

interpretations without giving preference to one of them. Nevertheless,
this time the hermeneutical flexibility depends on a single principle
of categorization rather unfortunate. Indeed, we wonder if within the
framework of a literal interpretation, it was necessary to find an explanation
to the difference in number of boys and girls; and then if it was pertinent
to introduce a logical qualitative graduation to explain this quantitative
difference.
The three explanations proposed by Thomas Aquinas (by affection,
by perfection, by utility) introduce a graduation. This reading is neither in
Saint Gregory the Great’s Moralia in Iob40 (who proposes no explanation
39
In Iob, cap. 1:2, p. 5. (B. MULLADAY translation: «Therefore, Job’s prosperity is
first described in terms of the fertility of his children when the text says, There were
born to him seven sons and three daughters. The number of the men is fittingly greater
than the number of women because parents usually have more affection for sons than
for daughters. This is both because what is more perfect is more desirable (men are
compared to women as perfect to imperfect) and because those born males are usually
of more help in managing business than those born females»).
40
«Natique sunt ei septem filii et tres filiae. Saepe ad auaritiam cor parentis illicit
fecunditas prolis. Eo enim ad ambitum congregandae hereditatis accenditur, quo
multis heredibus fecundatur. Vt ergo beati Iob quam sancta mens fuerit, ostendatur et
iustus dicitur et multae prolis pater fuisse perhibetur. Qui in libri sui exordio deuotus
sacrificiis offerendis asseritur, promptus autem largitatibus etiam post a semetipso
memoratur. Pensemus ergo quanta fortitudine praeditus exstitit, quem ad hereditatis
tenaciam nec tot haeredum affectdus inclinauit.» Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob
libri I-X, Ed.by M. ADRIAEN, Brepols, Turnhout, 1979 (Corpus christianorum series
Latina, 143).
about this difference), nor in Albert the Great’s Commentary (probably

written later than Friar Thomas’s commentary)41, who proposes a moral
explanation, or allegorical, not literal, not hierarchical classification42.
The following quotation is worth considering:
Quomodo autem sit via hominis abscondita exponit subdens

et circumdedit eum Deus tenebris, quod quidem multipliciter
manifestum est: quantum ad ea quae sunt ante et post, […]; et
quantum ad ea quae sunt iuxta, scilicet ad homines, […]; et quantum
ad ea quae sunt supra […], scilicet Deus, «quem nullus hominum
vidit sed nec videre potest», et in Psalmo dicitur quod «posuit
tenebras latibulum suum» […]; et quantum ad ea quae sunt infra,
[…]. Dicitur autem Deus hominem tenebris circumdedisse, quia
Deus ei talem intellectum tribuit quod praedicta cognoscere non
possit43.
Here the logical will of Thomas Aquinas to name all the dimensions,
which surround mankind of darkness, gives at the same time, a sober
text and a density of meaning which could be qualified, allow me the
anachronism, of existentialist. In this second case, we see how the word
41
Concerning the chronology, see J.-P. TORREL Initiation à Saint Thomas d’Aquin.
Sa personne et son œuvre, Éditions universitaires de Fribourg and Cerf, Fribourg 2002,
pp. 175-178; D. CHARDONNENS, L’homme sous le regard de la providence. Providence
de Dieu et condition humaine selon l’Exposition littérale sur le Livre de Job de Thomas
d’Aquin, Librairie philosophique Vrin, Paris 1997, pp. 46-49.
42
«septem filii, septenarium ad sanctitatem pertinet propter septem dona Sancti
Spiritus, Is XI, (2,3), sexus autem ad perfectionem. et tres filiae, ternarius ad virtutem
pertinet.propter fidem, spem et caritatem; sexus ad fecunditatem, Prv XXXI, (28):
Surrexerunt filii eius et beatissimam praedicaverunt. Sap VII, (12): Omnium bonorum
mater est». Albert the Great, Comentarii in Iob, Ed. by Melchior WEISS, Herder,
Freiburg im Breisgau 1904, I, 2, pp. 20-21.
43
In Iob, cap. 3:23, p. 25. (B. MULLADAY translation: «He explains how the way
of man is hidden on the earth saying, And God has hedged him in with darkness. This
is evident in many ways. First, as to those things which happened in the past or will
happen in the future […] Second, as to what is near him, namely men. […] As to those
things above a man, the last chapter of 1 Timothy says, “He (God) lives in inaccessible
light, whom no man sees or is able to see” (1 Tim. 6:16) and in the Psalms, “He makes
the darkness his hiding place.” (17:12) Finally as to those things which are below him,
[…]. God is said to have hedged a man in with darkness because God bestows the kind
of intellect on him which not able to understand these things»).
«circumdedit» displays all its dimensions and gives a meaning much more
radical, complete, to these «tenebris» of the human condition.
An unfortunate case, second fortunate; but in both cases, it appears that
Thomas Aquinas intend to give a coherence to the text thanks to the logical
structures which organize, classify, rank into a hierarchy, the contents of
a text.
2. Axioms
To the strong coherence given to the commentary by the logical

structures. It is necessary to add the consistency which Thomas
Aquinas gives to his commentary thanks to axioms which he introduces
everywhere. These apodictic constructions are considered true by our
commentator (at least it is that of the meaning of this kind of statements),
and by this quality, the axioms raise the text at the level of truth. The
commentary is not (it is not only) the explanation of a story, it is
question of truth. These apodictic statements are sometimes introduced
by expressions like «sciendum est quod…» or «considerandum est
quod…»:
Sciendum est autem quod divina providentia tali ordine res gubernat
quod inferiora per superiora dispensat; […]44.
Sed sciendum est quod Deus malos punit et per bonos angelos et
per malos, sed bonis numquam adversitatem inducit nisi per malos:
[…]45.
Sciendum est autem quod sicut materia comparatur ad formam ut
potentia ad actum, ita voluntas ad bonum; […]46.
Considerandum est autem quod amicorum compassio consolativa
est, vel quia adversitas quasi onus quoddam levius fertur quando
a pluribus portatur, vel magis quia omnis tristitia ex admixtione
44
In Iob, cap. 1:6, p. 7. (B. MULLADAY translation: «But one should know that
divine providence governs things with such an order that lower things are ordered
through higher things»).
45
In Iob, cap. 1:12, p. 11. (B. MULLADAY translation: «Note that God punishes
wicked men through both the good and the wicked angels, but he never sends adversity
on good men except through wicked angels»).
46
In Iob, cap. 4:18, p. 32. (B. MULLADAY translation: «Note that as matter is
related to form, as potency is to act so the will is to the good»).
delectationis alleviatur: delectabilissimum autem est experimentum

sumere de amicitia alicuius, quod maxime sumitur ex compassione
in adversis, et ideo consolationem affert47.
[…] et Eliphaz hic vel vere vel ficte loquitur dicens Porro ad me
dictum est verbum absconditum. Considerandum est autem quod
aliqua veritas, quamvis propter sui altitudinem sit homini abscondita,
revelatur tamen quibusdam manifeste, quibusdam vero occulte; ad
effugiendam igitur notam iactantiae hanc veritatem abscondite dicit
sibi esse revelatam, […]48.
The sacred text considered as source of the truth justifies the

introduction of «véritative (of truth)» tools, and these tools aim, if we may
say so, at extracting the truth from the text, or simply, at leading the biblical
text to its truth. It is thus a mutual justification.
3. Biblical quotations
Naturally, among tools «of truth», we have to mention biblical

references (of course, I speak here about those that come from other books
rather than from Jobʼs) which appear constantly in his commentary, even
though, it is known, in a more sober way than in Moralia in Iob or Albert
the Great’s commentary. In this concern, we will not analyze in deep the
role of these quotations. However, I would like to highlight the following
ideas: first, that they make constantly part of the narrative weave of friar
Thomas’s commentary; second, that the quotations especially come from
passages of the Old Testament, which is coherent with his objective to write
a literal commentary; and third, that these references serve to illustrate, to
47
In Iob, cap. 2:13, p. 19. (B. MULLADAY translation: «Consider that the
compassion of friends is a consolation, either because adversity like a burden in more
lightly born when it is carried by many, or even more because all sorrow is alleviated
when mixed with pleasure. To have the experience of someone’s friendship is very
pleasurable, which especially derives from their compassion in adversity and so offers
consolation»).
48
In Iob, cap. 4:12, p. 29. (B. MULLADAY translation: «[…], Eliphaz speaks either
truly or falsely saying, Now a word was spoken to me in a hidden way. Consider that
some truth, although hidden from men because of its exalted character, is still revealed
to some clearly and revealed to others in a hidden way. To avoid the charge of boasting,
he says that this truth was revealed to him in a hidden way, […]»).
specify or to confirm the meaning of an assertion or, more rarely, to prove

it. (In the prologue, for example, the biblical quotations will be used to
prove the real existence of Job). The quotation concerning the different
dimensions of the human ignorance we’ve just quoted was incomplete;
where as, the full extract states:
Quomodo autem sit via hominis abscondita exponit subdens

et circumdedit eum Deus tenebris, quod quidem multipliciter
manifestum est: quantum ad ea quae sunt ante et post, secundum
illud Eccl. VIII6 «Multa hominis afflictio quia ignorat praeterita
et ventura nullo scire potest nuntio»; et quantum ad ea quae sunt
iuxta, scilicet ad homines, secundum illud Cor. II «Quis scit quae
sunt hominis nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est?»; et quantum
ad ea quae sunt supra, secundum illud Tim. ult. «Lucem habitat
inaccessibilem», scilicet Deus, «quem nullus hominum vidit sed nec
videre potest», et in Psalmo dicitur quod «posuit tenebras latibulum
suum»; et quantum ad ea quae sunt infra, dicitur enim Eccl. I8
«Cunctae res difficiles, non potest homo eas explicare sermone».
Dicitur autem Deus hominem tenebris circumdedisse, quia Deus ei
talem intellectum tribuit quod praedicta cognoscere non possit49.
The biblical quotations in this passage specify and illustrate at the

same time Thomas Aquinas explanation and operate as narrative weave of
the commentary. But, o ne should take into account that they depend on,
and serve, the logical structure space-temps introduced by Friar Thomas.
Concerning the «véritative (of truth)» elements, we have to mention
a type of reference to the biblical text very present in the commentary.
49
In Iob, cap. 3:23, p. 25. (B. MULLADAY translation: «He explains how the way
of man is hidden on the earth saying, And God has hedged him in with darkness. This
is evident in many ways. First, as to those things which happened in the past or will
happen in the future Qoheleth says, “Many are the afflictions of man because he is
ignorant of the past and the future or who can tell him how it will be?” (8:6) Second,
as to what is near him, namely men. As 1 Cor. says, “For who knows a man’s thoughts
but the spirit of the man which is in him.” (2:11) As to those things above a man, the
last chapter of 1 Timothy says, “He (God) lives in inaccessible light, whom no man
sees or is able to see,” (1 Tim. 6:16) and in the Psalms, “He makes the darkness his
hiding place.” (17:12) Finally as to those things which are below him, Qoheleth says,
“All things are difficult, a man cannot explain them with speech.” (1:8) God is said to
have hedged a man in with darkness because God bestows the kind of intellect on him
which not able to understand these things»).
Indeed, Thomas Aquinas often evokes «habits» of the biblical text to

explain the Book of Job. These biblical constants work as rules on which
Thomas Aquinas leans to clarify or direct his comprehension of the text.
Today these would be considered as examples of stylistic critic. Notably,
as these examples show:
Sic igitur intelligendum est Iob suo diei maledixisse quia eum
malum esse denuntiavit, non secundum suam naturam qua a Deo
creatus est, sed secundum illam Scripturae consuetudinem qua
tempus dicitur bonum vel malum secundum ea quae in tempore
aguntur, secundum illud Apostoli Eph. V16 «Redimentes tempus
quoniam dies mali sunt»; maledixit igitur Iob diei suo inquantum
mala sibi in ipso die accidisse commemorat50.
Quia enim aspectus luminis delectabilis est, secundum illud Eccl.
XI7 «Dulce lumen, et delectabile est oculis videre solem», consuetum
est in Scripturis ut per tenebras tristitia significetur, secundum illud
Eccl.V16 «Comedit in tenebris et in curis multis et in aerumna atque
tristitia»51.
Homo enim post corruptionem humanae naturae perseverare non
potest sine gratia Dei, unde et in sacra Scriptura consuetum est dici
quod Deus aliquem indurat vel excaecat ex hoc quod gratiam non
largitur per quam emolliatur et videat; secundum ergo hunc modum
et hic Iob loquitur dicens Quare posuisti me contrarium tibi? […]52.
50
In Iob, cap. 3:1, p. 20. (B. MULLADAY translation: «So, one should understand
that Job cursed his day, because he denounced it as evil, not only because of its nature,
which was created by God, but according to the common usage of Holy Scripture
where time is called good or evil because of what happens in that time. The Apostle
Paul speaks in this way when he says, “[…] making the most of the time, because the
days are evil.” (Eph. 5:16) So Job cursed his day in remembering the evils which had
happened to him on that day»).
51
In Iob, cap. 3:4, p. 21. (B. MULLADAY translation: «For the sight of the light is
delightful, as Qoheleth says, “Light is pleasing and it is delightful for the eyes to see
the sum.” (11:7) It is customary in Holy Scripture to represent sorrow by darkness, as
one sees in Qoheleth, “He spent all his days in darkness and grief, in much vexation
and sickness and resentment.” (5:16)»).
52
In Iob, cap. 7:20, p. 51. (B. MULLADAY translation: «For man cannot persevere
after the corruption of human nature without the grace of God, and so it is customary in
Sacred Scripture to say that God hardens someone or blinds someone in the sense that
he does not bestow the grace on him by which he may be softened and see. Job speaks
here in this way saying, Why do you pit me against you?»).
I mention these cases, because they have an intermediate situation

between the singular inferences coming from the commented text and
the axioms, coming from outside. Here, we have rules which go beyond
the singular case, but which are less binding than the presuppositions
of apodictic type, and, besides, which result, or claim to result, from a
familiarity of the biblical text.
In this intermediate position, and that also have a «véritative (of
truth)» impact are also numerous statements which evoke, for example, a
frequent behavior in and by the human being or a frequent phenomenon in
the nature. These statements are often introduced by the verb «solent…»
Considerandum autem est quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit in Prologo,

«a verbis Iob in quibus ait ‘Pereat dies in qua natus sum’ usque ad
eum locum ubi ante finem voluminis scriptum est ‘Idcirco ipse me
reprehendo’, hexametri versus sunt, dactylo spondeoque currentes»;
et sic patet quod liber iste exhinc per modum poematis conscriptus
est, unde per totum hunc librum figuris et coloribus utitur quibus
poetae uti consueverunt. Solent autem poetae, ut vehementius
moveant, ad eandem sententiam diversa inducere, unde et hic Iob ad
maledicendum diei suae secundum modum quem dicimus ea inducit
quibus aliquis dies solet esse odiosus53.
This habit that Thomas Aquinas attributes to the poets will have here
a considerable role, because it will set the tone in the understanding of the
Book of Job, which will be considered as having a poetic style. Still let us
quote some examples:
Accepta potestate Satan ad eius executionem procedit, unde dicitur

Egressus igitur Satan a facie Domini percussit Iob, percussione
quidem turpi et abominabili, unde dicitur ulcere, incurabili et
53
In Iob, cap. 3:4, p. 21. (B. MULLADAY translation: «Consider that, as Jerome says
in his Prologue, «from the words in which Job says, ‘Let the day perish on which I was
born,’(1:3) to the place where it is written near the end of the book, ‘For that reason, I
repent,’ (42:6), the verses are hexameters in dactyl and spondee.» Therefore it is clear
after this that this book was written in poetic style. So he uses the figures and images
which poets customarily use through this whole book. Since poets want to touch others
deeply, they customarily use several different images to express the same idea. So here
too Job uses things which often make a day hateful, to curse his own day in the manner
of which we are speaking»).
doloroso, unde dicitur pessimo, et universali, unde dicitur a planta

pedis usque ad verticem eius. Solent autem aegrotantium afflictiones
remediis exterius adhibitis et deliciis alleviari, sed Iob sic alleviatus
non fuit, […]54.
Deinde ostendit causam doloris ex his quae perpeti timebat, dicens et

terrores Dei militant contra me: solent enim afflicti ex spe melioris
status consolari, sed cum post afflictionem aliquis iterum similia vel
maiora timet, nulla videtur esse consolatio residua55.
Having expressed all these «véritative (of truth)» elements, I wonder

whether they neutralize the «probabiles», dimension of the commentary
(the level of the truth which we could call of «pertinence») and give to the
interpretation the strength of an argument with logical necessity.
C. Dialogical intention
On one hand, apodictic statements, on the other hand, multiple

attempts in the understanding of a biblical verse. How are these two aspects
articulated in the Thomas Aquinas’ commentary? Does the strength of
«véritative (of truth)» elements suppress the flexibility of «per probabiles
rationes»? We are going to try to sketch an answer by the study of what I
call the «dialogical intention»; that is, the intention of the words or actions
of the characters who take part in a dialogue. Let us take two dialogues: that
between God and the devil, and that between Job and his friends Eliphaz
Themanite, Baldath Suites and Sophar Naamathites. In both groups of
interlocutors there is a link between the intention of the speakers and the
54
In Iob, cap. 2:7, p. 17. (B. MULLADAY translation: «When Satan had received
the power, he proceeds to execute it. So the text continues, So Satan went forth from
the face of the Lord and afflicted Job, with what was truly an abominable and shameful
blow. So the text says, with sores, which were incurable and painful, i.e. loathsome,
entirely from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. The afflictions of the sick are
customarily alleviated by cures applied externally which are pleasant. But Job was not
alleviated in such a way […]»).
55
In Iob, cap. 6:4, p. 41. (B. MULLADAY translation: «Then he shows the cause of
the pain from what he was afraid he would suffer saying, God’s terror stands arrayed
against me. For the afflicted are usually consoled by the hope of a better state, but
when after one affliction comes, one fears similar or greater afflictions again, he seems
to have no consolation left»).
understanding of their words and their acts, but in each of these two groups
the intention is grasped in a different way and the link is also different.
Let us begin with the dialogue between God and the devil. So what
intention or what meaning is transmited by the words of the devil set, what is
the God’s intention? In reality everything is beforehand defined here. Thomas
Aquinas introduces in an axiomatic way the intention of the two interlocutors:
[…] quia ea ipsa facta quae per daemones procurantur interdum ex
divina voluntate proveniunt, dum per eos vel puniuntur mali vel
exercentur boni; sed daemonum intentio semper mala est et a Deo
aliena, et ideo a Satan quaeritur unde venis?, quia eius intentio, a
qua procedit tota ipsius actio, a Deo est aliena56.
And, concerning God:
Descripta igitur huius viri et persona et virtute, eius prosperitas

consequenter ostenditur, ut ex praecedenti prosperitate gravior
sequens iudicetur adversitas, simul etiam ad ostendendum
quod ex prima Dei intentione iustis semper bona tribuuntur non
solum spiritualia sed etiam temporalia; sed quod aliquando iusti
adversitatibus premantur accidit propter aliquam specialem causam:
unde et a principio homo sic institutus fuit ut nullis subiaceret
perturbationibus si in innocentia permansisset57.
The devil is a paradigmatic character of evil and as such his intention

is postulated in an a priori way, and it is only from this perverse intention
56
In Iob, cap. 1:6, p. 9. (B. MULLADAY translation: «This is because those deeds
themselves which are administered by the demons sometimes arise from divine will
when he punishes the wicked and tries the good through them. But the intention of the
demons is always evil and hostile to God and so Satan is asked, Where do you come from?
because his intention from which the totality of his act proceeds is hostile to God’s»). In
reality, Thomas Aquinas proposes at first a whole theoretical paradigm on the intention of
the good and bad angels; it is only after this theoretical explanation, which in an a priori
way postulates their intentions, that the words of the Book of Job are explained.
57
In Iob, cap. 1:1, p. 5. (B. MULLADAY translation: «When both the person and
the virtue of this man have been described then his prosperity is shown so that the
adversity which follows may be judged to be more grave because of the prosperity
which precedes it. At the same time, this also demonstrates that not only spiritual
goods but also temporal goods are given to the just from God’s first intention. But
the fact just are sometimes afflicted with adversities happens for some special reason.
Hence from the beginning, man was so established that he would not have been subject
to any disturbances if he had remained in innocence»).
of the devil that all his interventions will be understood in the commen-
tary of the Book of Job.
Per hoc igitur quod Dominus dicit ad Satan unde venis? Intentionem
et acta diaboli Deus examinat; per hoc autem quod Satan respondet
Circuivi terram et perambulavi eam, quasi suorum actuum Deo
rationem reddit, ut ex utroque ostendatur omnia quae per Satan fiunt
divinae providentiae subiecta esse58.
Et ideo Dominus ad Satan dicit Numquid considerasti servum meum

Iob etc., quasi dicat: terram quidem circuis et perambulas, sed
servum meum Iob solum considerare potes et eius virtutem mirari59.
When the devil answers «numquid frustra Iob timet Deum?» to the
words of God «numquid considerasti servum meum Iob etc.», Thomas
Aquinas proceeds in a particular way: at first he evokes an usual way to act
of perverse human beings; then, he reminds the paradigmatic perversion of
Satan, what allows him to apply this human behavior to the prince of evil;
and finally he gives a slanderous meaning to the devil’s words and interpret
them accordingly:
Solet autem perversorum hominum, quorum princeps est Satan et

eorum hic personam gerit, talis esse consuetudo ut, sanctorum vitam
quia reprehendere non possunt, non ex recta intentione eos agere
calumnientur, secundum illud Eccli. XI33 «Bona in mala convertens
insidiatur et in electis imponet maculam». Et hoc apparet ex hoc
quod subditur Cui respondens Satan ait: numquid frustra Iob timet
Deum, quasi dicat: negare non possum quin bona faciat, sed hoc
non agit ex recta intentione propter tuum amorem et honestatis, sed
propter temporalia quae a te consecutus est60.
58
In Iob, cap. 1:6, p. 9. (B. MULLADAY translation: «By the fact that the Lord says
to Satan, Where have you come from?, God examines the devil’s intention and actions.
By the fact that Satan answers, I have prowled about the earth and I have run through
it, as though giving an account of his actions to God, both statements serve the purpose
of showing that everything which Satan does is subject to divine providence»).
59
In Iob, cap. 1:8, p. 10. (B. MULLADAY translation: «Therefore the Lord says to
Satan, Have you considered my servant Job, etc., as if to say: You prowl about and
run through the earth, but you can consider by servant Job and wonder at his virtue»).
60
In Iob, cap. 1:9, p. 10. (B. MULLADAY translation: «Perverse men, whose prince
is Satan who here acts in their place, usually accuse holy men unjustly of not acting
for a right intention because they cannot find fault with the life of the saints. Scripture
As we can see in the quoted text, the moral intention of the devil,
archetypal perverse, will be the starting point and criterion to grasp the
hermeneutic intention, that is, to understand the meaning of its words. The
axiomatic statement thus determines the rest.
Now, let us see the dialogue between Job and his friends. We will
quote briefly some replies of Eliphaz, Bladath and Sophar to the words of
Job:
Postquam Eliphaz arguerat Iob impatientiae occasione accepta
ex eo quod dixerat «Antequam comedam suspiro», nunc intendit
eum praesumptionis arguere eo quod se dixerat innocentem. Ad
ostendendum autem eum non esse innocentem, ex eius adversitate
argumentum assumit dicens Recordare, obsecro te, quis umquam
innocens periit, aut quando recti deleti sunt ?61
Respondens autem Baldath Suites etc. In superioribus beatus Iob
dictis Eliphaz responderat eius sententiam efficaciter et profunde
evacuando; sed Baldath Suites in eadem sententia cum Eliphaz
concordans profunditatem beati Iob non comprehenderat, et
ideo contra responsionem beati Iob loquitur sicut solent homines
loqui contra sententias non intellectas. […] et ideo subiungit et
spiritus multiplex sermonis oris tui?, reputabat enim, quia Iob
multa protulerat quorum ordinem ipse non capiebat, quod essent
verba dissuta et quasi hominis sine ratione ex impetu spiritus varia
loquentis absque ordine rationis. Et quia, ut dictum est, Baldath
intentionem Iob non comprehenderat, eius verba in alia intentione
accipiens ad inconveniens deducere conatur62.
expresses this saying, “Turning good to evil, he lies in ambush and he will put the
blame on the elect.” (Sir. 11:33) This appears in what follows in the text, Then Satan
answered the Lord: Does Job fear God in vain? as if to say: I cannot deny that he does
good things, but he does not do them for a right intention because of love of you and
the good for its own sake. Rather he does them because of the temporal goods which
he has attained from you»).
61
In Iob, cap. 4:7, p. 28. (B. MULLADAY translation: «After Eliphaz accused Job
of impatience taking his opportunity from what Job had said, “Before I eat, I sigh”
(3:24), he intends now to accuse him of presumption from the fact that he said he was
innocent. To show him that he is not innocent, he takes his argument from the premise
of his adversity saying, Remember, I implore you, who that was innocent has ever
perished; or when have the upright been destroyed?»).
62
In Iob, cap. 8:1-2, p. 53. (B. MULLADAY translation: «In the discourse which
Job just finished, he had responded to the speech of Eliphaz. He showed Eliphaz was
mistaken in a deep and efficacious way. But Bildad of Shuah, who agreed with the same
Respondens autem Sophar Naamathites dixit: Idcirco cogitationes

meae etc. Sophar, audita sententia Iob de spe futurae vitae, acquievisse
videtur, unde et post hanc responsionem secundam eius tertio nihil
contradixit. Sed tamen adhuc erat aliquid in corde eius quod a priori
sententia eum non permittebat omnino recedere: putabat enim quod
etsi in futura vita fierent retributiones et punitiones pro meritis,
ut a Iob didicerat, nihilominus tamen adhuc ei videbatur quod
prosperitates et adversitates huius vitae hominibus dispensarentur
a Deo pro merito virtutum vel peccatorum, et ideo quasi in parte
convictus et in parte adhuc primam sententiam retinens dicit Idcirco,
scilicet propter verba quae dicis de spe futurae vitae, cogitationes
meae variae succedunt sibi63.
In contrast to the first group (dialogue between God and the devil),
in the group of three interlocutors of Job (we leave aside Eliud), we can
notice two major differences: first, the intention of characters is understood
or misunderstood, but it is grasped in the word, through the word. The
orientation of the interlocutors is not defined in an axiomatic way
beforehand. Second, the intention which the interlocutors try to grasp is the
one appropriate to the words, that is, the one we grasp when we try to know
what the interlocutor wanted to mean. So, the moral intention is not looked
opinion of Eliphaz, did not understand the profundity of blessed Job and so he speaks
against the answer of Blessed Job like men usually speak against the opinions they do
not understand. […].So he continues, and prolong the high spirit of the speech of your
mouth? For he concluded that because Job had explained many things whose order
he did not understand that his words were haphazard like a man who has no ability to
reason, saying various things without rational order, spurred on by the impulse of his
spirit. Also, since, as was said, Bildad did not understand the intention of Job, he takes
his words in an entirely different way than intended and tries to deduce that they were
not fitting»).
63
In Iob, cap. 20:1, p. 119. (B. MULLADAY translation: «After Sophar heard the
opinion of Job about the hope of the future life, he seems to have acquiesced, and so
after this second answer he contradicted nothing in the third one. But there was still
something in his heart which did not permit him to give ground completely from his
former opinion. For he thought that although retributions and punishments are made in
the future life 0for merits, as he had learned from Job, nevertheless, it still seemed to
him that the prosperity and adversity of this life were given to men by God as sanctions
for virtues and sins. So as though convinced in part and yet holding his first opinion in
part he says, Therefore, namely, because of the words which you say about the future
life, my various thought succeed each other»).
or postulated at first, even if the speech partly puts a moral question (link
between sin and punishment). In the last quoted example, we also notice
that Thomas Aquinas grants a certain complexity in the Sophar’s attitude
towards words of Job: he was convinced by Job, at least externally, but in
his heart he still partially keeps his former point of view.
On the other hand, except the case of Eliud (who «magis ad veritatem
accedit 64»), the three friends of Job misunderstand, in major or minor
measure, the words and the attitude of Job, they even judge him. While Job
is largely right and is morally irreproachable. Actually, Job constitutes the
link between the first group and the second one; between God and the devil
whose (moral) intention is defined in an axiomatic way, and the second
group whose (hermeneutical) intention is grasped by and throughout
the dialogues. Indeed, the moral intention of Job is the main subject of
discussion between God and Satan. The moral intention of Job is the one,
in a way, which has the leading role in the plot, if we may say that. At the
beginning of the text: is the moral intention of Job irreproachable? Will his
intention remain irreproachable?
From the beginning of the dialogue between God and Satan, what is
supposed to be at stake is the righteousness of moral intention of Job and
then the perseverance in this right intention65. From the beginning also
the moral orientation of Job’s intention is fixed66, because he had been
intended to demonstrate, since the eternity, the truth of its virtue.
Disposuerat igitur Dominus ab aeterno Iob temporaliter affligere

ad demonstrandam veritatem virtutis eius, ut omnis malignorum
excluderetur calumnia, unde ad hoc significandum hic dicitur
Tu autem commovisti me adversus eum. Quod autem dicitur ut
64
In Iob, cap. 32:1, p. 171.
65
See In Iob, cap. 2:1-2, p. 16.
66
At the end of the story, Thomas Aquinas finds, nevertheless, an evolution in the
attitude of Job, but regarding his moral intention, it always remained right. He only
had a weakness in his language at the level of the sensibility: «Et ne videretur Iob, licet
convictus, in sua sententia obstinatus permanere, in verba humilitatis prorumpit, unde
sequitur Respondens autem Iob Domino dixit: Qui leviter locutus sum respondere quid
possum? Ubi considerandum est quod Iob coram Deo et sua conscientia loquens non
de falsitate locutionis aut de superba intentione se accusat, quia ex puritate animi fuerat
locutus, sed a levitate sermonis: quia scilicet etiam si non ex superbia animi locutus
fuerat, verba tamen eius arrogantiam sapere videbantur, unde amici eius occasionem
scandali sumpserant; […]». In Iob, cap. 39:33, p. 212.
affligerem illum frustra, intelligendum est quantum ad intentionem

Satan non quantum ad intentionem Dei: expetierat enim Satan
adversitatem Iob intendens ex hoc eum in impatientiam et
blasphemiam deducere, quod consecutus non erat; Deus autem hoc
permiserat ad declarandam virtutem eius, quod et factum erat: sic
igitur frustra afflictus est Iob quantum ad intentionem Satan sed non
quantum ad intentionem Dei67.
This definition of the moral intention of Job will have consequences in

the dialogue between him and his friends: all the interlocutors who oppose
him, who judge him, will be wrong68, not only from a theoretical point of
view, but in some cases, in the commentary, their wrong will be also moral.
Still, during their speech the evaluation of their point of view will be more
nuanced.
Respondens autem Baldath Suites dixit: Potestas et terror etc. Iob

in sua responsione duas calumnias quas ei Eliphaz iniecerat in
praecedenti sua responsione iam repulit, ostendens se neque pro
peccatis punitum neque divinae providentiae negatorem69.
67
In Iob, cap. 2:3, pp. 16-17. (B. MULLADAY translation: «So the Lord had arranged
from all eternity to afflict Job in time to prove the truth of his virtue in order to preclude
every calumny of the wicked, and so to indicate this the text says, You moved me
against him. When the text adds, to afflict him in vain, this must be understood from
the point of view of the intention of Satan, not from the point of view of the intention of
God. For Satan in intending the adversity of Job had desired from this to lead him into
impatience and blasphemy, which did not follow as an effect. God however permitted
this to proclaim his virtue openly, which in fact happened. So then Job was afflicted in
vain from the point of view of the intention of Satan, but not from the point of view of
the intention of God»).
68
«Et sicut ex verbis eius et aliorum amicorum perpendi potest, circa tria tota eorum
versabatur intentio: primo enim studebant ad dicendum aliqua magnifica de Deo, extollentes
eius sapientiam et potentiam et iustitiam, ut ex hoc eorum causa favorabilior appareret;
secundo huiusmodi magnifica de Deo assumpta ad falsa quaedam dogmata applicabant,
utpote quod propter iustitiam homines prosperarentur in hoc mundo et propter peccata
tribularentur, et quod post hanc vitam non esset aliquid expectandum; tertio ex huiusmodi
assertionibus, propter adversitatem quam patiebatur Iob, arguebant eum quasi iniquum et
promittebant ei quaedam inania si iniquitatem desereret, utpote quod “defossus securus”
dormiret et quod ad vesperam oriretur ei fulgor meridianus, quae Iob quasi irrisiones
reputabat: et circa haec tota Iob responsio versatur». In Iob, cap. 12:1, p. 79.
69
In Iob, cap. 25:1, p. 142. (B. MULLADAY translation: «Job in his answer had now
refuted the two calumnies which Eliphaz had thrown at him in his previous response.
From a narrative point of view, these axiomatic definitions of characters

(of God, the Devil and Job) introduce a predictable tone to the dialogues
and to the progress of the text, but at the same time they are based on
a pertinent comprehension, because they contribute to the understanding
of the narration in its unity, they open spaces of flexibility concerning
many others aspect of the narration, and finally. They contribute to the
fundamental purpose that Thomas Aquinas attributes to the book: to make
a theoretical reflection on the divine providence.
Conclusion
The soundness of Expositio super Iob ad litteram comes from the

triple level of unity that Thomas Aquinas looks on and gives to the Book
of Job. First comes the narrative unity. Indeed, all the commentary is built
on the will to find a unity of an internal coherence in the story. A series of
linguistic tools and logical structures are thus meant and used to this aim.
Considerandum est autem quod in adversitate enarranda ordo

contrarius observatur ordini quo fuerat prosperitas enarrata. Nam
in prosperitate enarrata a potioribus ad minora processit incipiens
a persona ipsius Iob, et post hoc posuit prolem et deinde animalia,
primo oves et deinceps alia: et hoc rationabiliter quia perpetuitas
quae in persona salvari non potest quaeritur in prole, ad cuius
sustentationem possessionibus indigetur. In adversitate autem
proponitur e converso: nam primo narratur amissio substantiae,
secundo oppressio prolis, tertio afflictio propriae personae, et hoc ad
adversitatis augmentum, nam ille qui maiori adversitate oppressus
est minorem non sentit, sed post minorem sentitur maior70.
(22:5,12) He had shown that he was punished neither for sin nor for denying divine
providence»).
70
In Iob, cap. 1:12, p. 12. (B. MULLADAY translation: «Reflect that the order in
which the adversities are about to be explained is just the opposite of the order in which
the prosperity was explained. For the prosperity which was explained proceeded from
the more important to the less important beginning from the person of Job himself.
After him came his offspring and then his animals, first the sheep and then the rest.
This was done reasonably because the duration which cannot be preserved in the
person is sought in the offspring for whose sustenance one needs possessions. In the
adversity however, the opposite order is proposed. First, the loss of possessions is
But this narrative unity will receive (and will establish at the same
time) an impulse of a thematic unity, fundamentally theoretical. Thomas
Aquinas will not consider, as thematic unifying principle, the story of a
singular individual whose patience is put to the test (see Gregory the Great
or Albert the Great). This theme would not be sufficient for a theoretical
construction; it would remain so close to the particularity of the narration,
because too much bound to a personal history. The looked thematic unity
is the one appropriate to the universality of a theoretical level. This second
level of unity has a very vast impact on the understanding and explanation
of the commented book, and frees it from uncountable anecdotal elements
as well.
[…] Quia, sicut dictum est, intentio huius libri tota ordinatur ad
ostendendum qualiter res humanae providentia divina regantur,
praemittitur quasi totius disputationis fundamentum quaedam
historia in qua cuiusdam viri iusti multiplex afflictio recitatur:
hoc enim est quod maxime videtur divinam providentiam a rebus
humanis excludere71.
The multiple sorrows of the righteous person are subordinated to the

fundamental theoretical subject of the action of the divine providence in
relation to human actions. The theoretical dimension which Thomas grants
to the Book of Job frees him from questions as the genealogy of Job, but
also (this is the most striking example) from defining if Job was a real or a
fictional character.
Fuerunt autem aliqui quibus visum est quod iste Iob non fuerit
aliquid in rerum natura, sed quod fuerit quaedam parabola conficta
ut esset quoddam thema ad providentiae disputationem, sicut
frequenter homines confingunt aliqua facta ad disputandum de eis.
related, then the destruction of the children and third the affliction of his own person.
This is to increase the adversity. For one who has been oppressed by a greater adversity
does not feel a lesser one. But after a lesser adversity, one feels a greater one»). See
also In Iob, cap. 4:20, p. 33.
71
In Iob, cap. 1:1, p. 5. (B. MULLADAY translation: «As was said, because the
whole intention of this book is ordered to showing how human affairs are ruled by
divine providence, and a kind of history is put first in which the numerous sufferings of
a certain just man are related as the foundation of the whole debate. For it is affliction
like this which seems most of all to exclude divine providence from human affairs»).
Et quamvis ad intentionem libri non multum differat utrum sic vel

aliter fuerit, refert tamen quantum ad ipsam veritatem72.
Finally, this second level of unity is crowned by the «véritative (of

truth)» unity which gives to the book its biggest consistency and returns it
to the highest significance: in the exegesis, it is about «truth». To comment
the Book of Job means approaching the truth concerning the divine
providence. The sacred book is, faith conviction, the source of “the” truth.
It thus justifies the introduction of all the «véritative (of truth)» tools which
we quoted, but in their turn these tools bring the text back to its truth.
The application of this triple level of unity gives to the reader of
the Friar Thomas’ work the impression, even the conviction of reading a
commentary that is of a great rigour, and consistency; the fact that leads
us to the starting point and the following fundamentale question in spite of
this consistency, is there in the commentary of Thomas Aquinas a place to
the «probabiles rationes» that he attributed to the Book of Job and that we
believed we could apply to his commentary?
The answer is affirmative, because all these logical structures, these
linguistics tools, these axioms, these biblical references which create step
by step the triple unity of the text are subordinated to the reformulations
which we above quoted and which make depend on some discreet terms
like «quasi dicat» the whole commentary; but also, and more fundamentally,
because these «véritative (of truth)» structures require to be applied with
«tact» (Taktes)73 so that made the commentary really pertinent.
Why did Thomas Aquinas introduce a structure of hierarchical
classification here and not there? Why this axiom and this biblical reference,
72
In Iob, prol., p. 4. (B. MULLADAY translation: «But there were some who held that
Job was not someone who was in the nature of things, but that this was a parable made
up to serve as a kind of theme to dispute providence, as men frequently invent cases
to serve as a model for debate. Although it does not matter much for the intention of
the book whether or not such is the case, still it makes a differnce for the truth itself»).
73
H.-G. GADAMER, «Wer bin Ich und wer bist Du?», in Gesammelte Werke, J.C.B.
Mohr Siebeck editors, Tubingen 1993, IX, p. 442; «In the end it is a question of tact
whether or not explicating and elucidating the manifold syntax of connotations, to
which such allusions indeed also belong, dissolves or undermines the speech’s figure of
meaning and the unity of the transpositional movement that represents understanding».
H.-G. GADAMER, Gadamer on Celan, ‘Who Am I and Who are You?’ And other Essays,
translated and ed. by R. HEINEMANN and B. KRAJEWSKI, States University of New York
Press, New York 1997, p. 146.
instead of this other one there? The introduction of a logical structure, an

axiom, the evocation of a human habit, a stylistic characteristic, is a question
of «tact», of experience, tradition, genius; it is not a necessary process.
It is the prudential dimension which makes a commentary «pertinent» or
not. And in the case of Expositio super Iob ad litteram, Thomas Aquinas
wrote a medieval masterpiece of exegesis, as A. Dondaine qualified it74,
concerning a masterpiece of the biblical Wisdom literature75.
74
«Dans son analyse saint Thomas est resté fidèle au genre littéraire qu’il avait
reconnu dans le livre de Job ; il en a expliqué le sens littéral par des raisons probables.
Mais il l’a fait avec une maîtrise et une sûreté qui font de l’Expositio super Iob le
sommet de l’exégèse médiévale». A. DONDAINE, «Praefatio», in Thomas Aquinas,
Expositio super Iob ad litteram, ed. Leonina, t. XXVI, Rome 1965, p. 30*.
75
Larcher, in his introduction to the Book of Job, qualifies this book as a «chef-
d’œuvre littéraire du movement de Sagesse». C. LARCHER, «Introduction, Le livre de
Job», in Bible de Jérusalem, Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1998, p. 803.
MARGHERITA MARIA ROSSI*
MIND-SPACE.
TOWARDS AN ‘ENVIRON-MENTAL METHOD’ IN THE
EXEGESIS OF THE MIDDLE AGES
Arranging a space is always a sign of the search for a more fitting

environment for hosting an upcoming event or person, arranging a space
calls for creativeness, flexibility, thinking, innovation and often involves
excitement and thrill; arranging a space requires a critical glance, an
awareness of inadequacy of some sort, a sense of await, a taste for beauty,
and a love for the future.
The thinkers of the Middle Ages, who enjoyed all these qualities,
could be seen as the masters in space arranging, to the extent that an image
portraying the cultural and intellectual attitude of the Middle Ages could
be that of a building site. The Middle Ages’s thinkers were able to see –in
the apparent chaos of a building site, whether architectural or mental– not
the uneasiness of conditions, but the ferment of the birth of something new
and the shape of a still invisible blueprint.
Treasuring the challenge of such an arrangement of architectural and
theoretical space, the present essay attempts at moulding a method to
approach and understand the medieval theological production (especially
the exegetical works); at the same time, the essay suggests the existence
of a parallel between theological genres and mental faculties, where the
genre is regarded as the way to shorten distance –in the mind-space of the
addressee– between their capacitas divinorum and the Word of God.
1. By way of introduction: a bio-bibliographic viewpoint
The research on the divisio textus
When, upon suggestion of a Dominican Professor of Moral Theology

at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, Father
*
Professor of Thomistic Theology in the Faculty of Theology of the Pontifical
University St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, Largo Angelicum 1, 00184 Rome, email:
temagite.rossi@tin.it
172 MARGHERITA MARIA ROSSI
Dalmazio Mongillo, O.P., I began studying the exegetical production of St.

Thomas (in the years 1987-88), I approached specifically the commentary
Super Epistolas Sancti Pauli Lectura. Ad Romanos, fascinated by the
commentary itself and the few essays –though milestones– concerning the
biblical character of St. Thomas.
Such essays addressed mainly two aspects of the Middle Ages’
exegesis: the literal sense of the biblical text1, and the presence of dialectics
in exegesis2; these presuppositions, often intertwined (since the emphasis
on the littera could be explained with the search for a argumentative use
of the Bible), were generally ascribed to the widely spread theological
search for renewal –the Scholastic movement– which aimed at formalizing
theology as a system capable of integrating the previous patrimony of
gnoseology, ontology and anthropology within a Christian frame.
The wide literary production on the exegetical features of the Middle
Ages masters’ production in general, stemming from the survey on
literality and dialectics within the hermeneutical process, addressed both
the exegetical tools of those masters (in order to grasp their attitude to
literality), and the importance of legere in their dialectic activity. The
most remarkable contribution of such literary production was highlighting
the possible content and procedure-links between the biblical and the
systematic dimension of the theological enterprise of the Middle Ages, that
is the relationship between the commentaries and the other more celebrated
Scholastic genres.
A striking textual element which was not given enough attention
–despite its specific nature in medieval exegesis (in terms of frequency and
relevance)– was, in my opinion, the divisio textus, namely that division
of the text found at the very beginning of any commentary as well as of
1
The classical studies concerning the topic are and remain the following:
C. SPICQ, Esquisse d’une histoire de l’exégèse latine au Moyen Âge, Vrin, Paris 1944;
B. SMALLEY, Lo studio della Bibbia nel medioevo, Il Mulino, Bologna 1972, where the
analysis on the literal sense was extended to non-theological works.
2
The classical studies concerning the topic are and remain the following: H. DE
LUBAC, Esegesi medievale: i quattro sensi della Scrittura (2 vols.), Edizioni Paoline,
Roma 1972; M.-D. CHENU, La teologia come scienza nel XIII secolo, Jaca Book, Milano
1985 (Di fronte e attraverso, 148). More recently, and attentive to the overall cultural
milieu, the research of G. DAHAN, Les intellectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge,
Cerf, Paris 1990; ID., L’Exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en occident médiéval XIIe-XIVe
siècles, Cerf, Paris 1999.
MIND-SPACE. TOWARDS AN ‘ENVIRON-MENTAL METHOD’ 173
any single section of it, which the medieval masters proposed as a way
for anticipating the content of a given biblical text and for ordering the
different elements of the commentary itself3. Such divisio textus, though
not exclusive of the genre of a commentary (since it can be found in a
more concise way also in the prologues of the systematic works), does
play, when found in the commentaries, a fundamental hermeneutic role.
Thus, I studied explicitly the divisio textus as the principal element of
the medieval exegesis, and tried to explain why such proceeding was not
renounceable in the mind of the medieval masters when approaching the
Bible, as well as discover how they built a divisio textus, some of which
quite overwhelming. A puzzling historical circumstance concerning the
divisio was that it exploded abruptly in the exegetical practice, completely
devoid of antecedent similar procedures and common sources, while at the
same time appearing as a formal technique, equipped with well defined
phases and canons4; as if possessing a long history.
The analysis of the structure of the divisio I carried out5, confirmed
its hermeneutical relevance, consisting in providing an access to the
understanding of the biblical text by means of a complex proceeding, which
unfolds in threefold stages: first, singling out thematic units within the
whole biblical text to be commented; second, defining their content with
a very synthetic formula; third, connecting each part with the preceding
3
By way of an example of divisio textus: «[…] accordingly, his Gospel is divided
into two parts. In the first he states the divinity of Christ; in the second he shows it by
the things Christ did in the flesh […]. In regard to the first, he does two things. First
he shows the divinity of Christ; secondly he sets forth the manner in which Christ’s
divinity is made known to us […]. Concerning the first he does two things…»; «[…]
ideo dividitur istud Evangelium in partes duas. Primo enim insinuat Christi divinitatem;
secundo manifestat eam per ea quae Christus in carne fecit […]. Circa primum duo
facit. Primo proponit Christi divinitatem; secundo ponit modum, quo Christi divinitas
nobis innotuit […]. Circa primum duo facit […]»: Thomas Aquinas, Lectura super
Ioannem, cap. 1, I. 1.
4
Cf. M.M. ROSSI, «La divisio textus: indizio di un genere letterario?», in D.
LORENZ – S. SERAFINI (edd.), Studi 1995, Angelicum University Press, Roma 1995, pp.
183-203 (Studia Pontificiae Universitatis a S. Thoma Aq. in Urbe, 2).
5
As far as I know, mine was the first attempt of its kind; in any case, a later essay
addresses the same topic: Cf. J.F. BOYLE, «The Theological character of the Scholastic
‘Division of the Text’ with Particular Reference to the Commentaries of St Thomas
Aquinas», in J. DAMMEN MCAULIFFE – B.D. WALFISH – J.W. GOERING (edd.), With
Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003, pp. 276-291.
and following units –usually introduced by ordinal numbers and arranged

according to a logical development.
On the basis of the description of a commentary provided by Hugh of
St.Victor –a commentary consists in ‘dividing’6– as well as on the basis of
the three stages of legere (that is, of commenting Holy Scripture) provided
by Alexander of Hales –dividing the text into smaller and simpler units;
grasping the doctrinal content of each minute part; coordinating each unit
with the preceding and the following in a way that be consistent with
both the sacred text and the conceptualization of it brought about by the
divisio7– I assumed that those were likely to be the shared guidelines for
the proceeding of the divisio textus. The divisio textus owes its fortune
to the capability of both granting the simplification of a complex text
and an easier understanding of it, and prompting theological definitions,
formalization of biblical language and, finally, justification of the biblical
sequence of verses. My research for useful hints to ground the medieval
masters’ conviction that the divisio was a most prominent hermeneutical
proceeding, made evident a possible influence of the logical rules given
by Abelard and shaped on the rules given by Aristotle, which codified the
act of the process of understanding: the divisio per membra varia and the
definitio (both to be applied to biblical and to non-biblical texts)8; however,
I found also that such proceeding was rooted in the ancient rhetoric art
and underwent an ongoing refinement throughout the Carolingian and pre-
Scholastic periods.
Given such a rich framework, the divisio textus could be considered
the scientific method of that time, since medieval epistemology –quite
unlike experimental epistemology, which will become popular in the
time of the scientific revolution– was all based on the transmission and
understanding of ancient works, constantly enriched with explanatory
glossae, new sources, ongoing academic debates and reflections. Therefore,
6
«Legere in dividendo constat»: Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon, Lib. 6,
cap. 12. The sentence leaves no doubt as to the relevance of the divisio inasmuch as
hermeneutical method.
7
«Primus modus definitivus debet esse, divisivus, collectivus; et talis modus
debet esse in humanis scientiis, quia apprehensio veritatis secundum humanam
rationem explicatur per divisiones, definitiones, ratiocinationes»: Alexander of Hales,
Summa Universae Theologiae, I, tract. introd., q. 1, 4, 1 ad 2.
8
Cf. M.M. ROSSI, «La divisio textus nei Commenti scritturistici di San Tommaso
d’Aquino: un procedimento solo esegetico?», Angelicum, 71 (1994) 537-548.
the epistemic background of the proceeding of the divisio textus revealed

its undeniable scriptural finality, namely highlighting the harmony between
divine Revelation and human knowledge, which was the highest aspiration
of Scholastic theology.
Once traced the epistemological presuppositions of the divisive
proceeding, I turned my attention to a tentative understanding of the
procedural aspect, that is of the making itself of a divisio: a first stage marked
by the attempt of the master to grasp the whole text in its major parts, looking
attentively for the leading theme –or themes– present in the first verses of
the book to be commented. The major theme would then unfold its content
throughout the book. Such content was then divided into macro-sections, so
that the sense of that book would be offered in few sentences. I called this
movement of the divisio ‘major division’, since it focused on the macro-
areas of the sacred text; a second phase consisted into breaking the text into
small sentences (in the light of the theme announced in the major division);
I called this movement of the divisio ‘minor division’. The first phase was
centripetal, whereas the second was centrifugal. Moving from the macro-
message to the micro-meaning and again from the micro-analysis to the
macro-system: such must have been the labor of the masters in that time,
working at a commentary. However, large part of the difficulty of the whole
divisio textus consisted in the fact that the master could not modify or re-
order the sequence in the text, since it was a sacred text.
Within the minor divisions, as well as in the explanation of terms
and meanings, the master could resort also to the traditional patristic
interpretations and the opinions of his contemporary masters, which are
often scattered in the commentary in the form of quotations and distinctions.
Such way of proceeding required the usage of other hermeneutical tools,
which interacted with the divisio: it is the case of concordances and gloses,
typical tools of medieval exegesis, which granted the commentary the
added value of a collatio of biblical-patristic teaching, of course, in the
new shape provided by the divisio.
The divisio was meant to be a didactical and mnemotechnical device
as well, that is to provide a logical organization of the whole given book of
the Bible, in order to facilitate memorization by the students. In this way,
exegetical activity and preaching proved also deeply linked: in fact, in his
itinerant ministry, the preacher had to be ready to quote verses from the
Bible and to connect them quickly to the different topics addressed, quite
often improvised.
Surveyed in its depths, as well as overviewed in the array of the other

exegetical tools, the divisio textus shows that –despite the ignorance of the
medieval masters about the different editorial stratifications and the diversity
of biblical genres– they had an attentive and intelligent listening to the Word
of God and a keen grasp of the basic unity of the biblical text, most probably
due to their familiarity with liturgy and the practice of the lectio divina.
At the same time, the technique of the divisio allowed a certain amount of
hermeneutical freedom as the master proceeded from the major division to
the minor ones, according to his personal intuition and contemplative insight.
So, though necessarily an exercise of hermeneutics, the divisio never forced
any content into the Bible nor did it impose an extrinsic dialectics on it, but
rather tried to mirror it, and to let emerge in a clearer way all its riches9.
As I was surveying the divisio textus, it increasingly appeared to me
as an architectonic construction, a sort of monumental structure intended
to support the weight of theological concepts, as in the great cathedrals of
the time; a building apt to hold the hermeneutical tradition of the past, as
the axes of the medieval edifices. So, the exegetical work of the masters
of the Middle Ages appeared to me as parallel with the architectonic and
artistic production of the time, characterized both by huge basic structures
and by minute handcrafted works. The proceeding of the artisan, as well
as that of the artist, all caught up in discovering how to mold the matter
to express the spirit, could prove a valid proceeding for the master too, all
caught up in discovering how to mold the literal sense of the biblical text to
give access to the mystery of God. The recurring mention of the architect
in the writings of St. Thomas10 struck me and sounded as a confirmation of
an analogy between the architect and the theologian.
An ‘Environ-mental Method’
In order to contribute to the understanding of the nature of the

exegetical proceeding of St. Thomas Aquinas –and, consequently, of the
9
Such ‘specular’ character of the divisio textus has been highlighted in M.M.
ROSSI, «La Expositio super Isaiam ad litteram: immagine speculativa e speculare
dell’esegesi tomasiana», in T. ROSSI (ed.), Liber Viator. Grandi Commentari del
pensiero cristiano, Angelicum University Press, Roma 2005, pp. 197-216 (= Studi, 8).
10
Cf. the recurrences in R. BUSA (ed.), Index thomisticus Sancti Thomae Aquinatis
operum omnium, (vol. 2), Frommann-Horzboog, Stuttgart 1974.
Middle Ages more in general– along that line of thought, I handcrafted a

method, which I might call ‘environ-mental’, with its own specificity with
respect to the mainstream (and quite fruitful) methodological approaches
focused on the systematic works11. Strongly rooted in both approaches, the
environ-mental method I propose henceforth does take start from the text
itself, though it differs from a textual approach inasmuch as it searches for
the spatial relationship defined by the elements present in the text, rather
than displaying them in terms of implicit and explicit sources, principles
and binding force, conceptual links in the sequence of the text, conclusions
and giving account of them. At the same time, the environ-mental method
does look at the history, though it differs from a historical-critical approach
inasmuch as it searches for historical references in the text as selected
and filtered by the master, rather than looking at history as the context
highlighting the meaning of the text.
Therefore, since the environ-mental method looks at the text taking
into privileged consideration the overall circumstances provided by history,
inasmuch as perceived in their relevance by the master and selected to meet
his purposes in writing a work, such method looks for the subjectivation of
historical circumstances present in the text rather than taking into account the
objectivation of those same circumstances12; and since the environ-mental
method, at the same time, peers into the mental setting of the master as
detectable by the text and in dialogue with his contemporary times, I call it
‘environ-mental’ –willingly separated by a hyphen–, playing a little bit with
words to convey the idea of the twofold perspective looked for at once in
approaching the text. Such method, therefore, looks at all the cross-elements in
order to detect in the text its multi-dimensional relationship to the environment.
11
On the different trends of Thomism Cf. M.M. ROSSI, «Methodological Guide
to Interpreting the Texts of Saint Thomas Aquinas», Angelicum, 85 (2008) 519-537,
especially 523-533.
12
Let me explain what I mean by ‘objectivation’ and ‘subjectivation’ by offering
an example: the polemical debate over the religious life is the common historical frame
of many texts in many medieval authors and, as such, present and emerging in various
ways in their writings; however, such objective datum, once put in dialogue with the
understanding of the mental setting in which the master subjectively operates and
which the master intends to address, does not simply portrays history, but the effort
of the master to produce history, to forge the commitment of his addressees to behave
justly and virtuously in a given historical frame; to mould their sense of belonging to
a given time and, even more, to help them to give history a curve and situate it in the
wider history of salvation.
The expression ‘spatial relationship’ –mentioned above– refers

specifically to the mental space defined by all elements present in the text
(and thus implied in the analysis), considered in the structural position
granted to them by the master, which determines their epistemic value
within the progression of the text. As it may be noted, the emphasis is both
on the relationship among the elements, rather than on their nature and
(somehow) predictable function within the text13 and on the architectural
blueprint of the master. As it will be exposed in the next pages, architecture
plays a paradigm role in forging the mentality of the Middle Ages’
scholars, and just as such art will be considered governing other arts and
forms of knowledge –by means of its theoretical aspects– and productive
ability –by means of its practical aspect– in the same way the theologian
will conceive a blueprint of his theological building and will attentively
look for ways to obtain the final product. The ordo doctrinae of his final
production, displayed by the text in the form in which it appears, should
be considered as the visualization of the theologian’s blueprint14, whereas
the ordo inventionis of his final production –deduced by the exam of his
procedure– should be considered as the hidden path to such visualization,
witnessing the specific skill of the theologian (or of the preacher, in the
case of the sermon) to recognize and forge the mental assessment of his
addressees in order to transmit faith.
Examined from this corner, my position is undoubtedly close to the
theoretical scenery opened by O. Von Simson, C. Rudolph, E. Panofski,
and, finally, of C.M. Radding and W.W. Clark15, aiming at establishing
13
I mean to say that each element (for instance, a quotation, or a statement, or
an example, etc…) –despite its intrinsic value and nature– is chosen by the master
according to the specific finality of the sermon, which requires mobility and flexibility
of the material according to the circumstances.
14
I have noticed that St. Thomas’s texts have a quite remarkable potentiality (and
power) for visualization, in the sense that –as they progress in the argument– they
convey powerful and truthful mental suggestions. His exegesis is somehow ‘three-
dimensional’.
15
As Clark and others remark, scholars have different opinions on the question:
architecture as derived from theology; architecture as to be considered comparatively
with theological treatises; architecture as to be read according to the functions of the
different edifices, and so on. Radding and Clark propose a shift of attention from
monuments and treatises to the people who created them: Cf. C.M. RADDING – W.W.
CLARK, Architettura e sapere nel medioevo. Costruttori e maestri tra Romanico
e Gotico, Vita e Pensiero, Milano 1997, pp. 4-5 (Arti e Scritture, 10). Cf. also A.
comparisons and genetic kinships among the different realms of

knowledge in the Middle Ages (ranging from geometry to theology, from
architecture to mathematics, etc…); however, an investigation carried out
with an environ-mental attitude strictly follows the paths opened by the
text analyzed in its lexical hints, structural and conceptual indications, and
leads to the discovery of genetic kinships and exhibiting a certain amount of
potentiality for visualization, which I retain to be one of the most important
theoretical-gnoseological priorities of the Middle Ages’ masters or, at least,
of St. Thomas16.
The environ-mental method is, therefore, quite attentive to the
interaction of the many elements: when applied to a sermon, the method
is even more demanding, since a sermon has manifold relationships: to
the Bible, to the pedagogical finalities and, finally, to contemporary times.
Consequently, the construction of a sermon is a work of crucial importance.
I have already stated the relevance of the osmosis –typical of the Middle
Ages– between theoretical knowledge and practical realization (requiring
both a practical knowledge and some technical skills); such interest into
the two realms of knowledge can be turned into a question, underpinning
much of the Middle Ages’ cultural quest: «How can a determined purpose
be obtained?». Much stress is put on the quomodo (the way in which, the
method in the Greek etymological sense of ‘the path/criterion to’) to a
certain purpose17. The question can go both ways: «What kind of mental
knowledge is required to obtain a certain construction?», and «How can a
certain knowledge or concept be easily visualized?»18: as a consequence,
architecture enjoys a special development and growth during the Middle
Ages, to the extent that not only does such an art is taken as a metaphor
for the role of metaphysics (governing the other sciences, undoubtedly
alongside with the stress put on it by Aristotle), but –regardless the
place assigned to it by the hierarchy of sciences, which ranked it under
GUREVICH, Historical Anthropology of the Middle Ages, Polity Press, Cambridge 1992,
part 1.
16
I am at present carrying out a research along this line of method on St. Thomas’s
sermon Puer Iesus.
17
Cf. A. MACINTYRE, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry (Encyclopaedia,
Genealogy and Tradition), University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame IN 1990,
cap. 13.
18
On the intellectual curiosity raised by the search for architectural solutions, cf.
RADDING – CLARK, Architettura e sapere nel medioevo, pp. 7-8.
mechanical arts, thus below the higher arts– architecture determines a

social revolution in the way traditional Corporations are seen and raises a
burning debate19.
The environ-mental method of research accepts the challenge of
listening to what a medieval text can say; when approaching a medieval
text, in fact, an experimental attitude is needed not only for the temporal
distance –which renders difficult to peer into the mental universe of the
author– but also, and more importantly, because the level of complexity
of the research and the accuracy of the analysis must be proportionate to
the relevance granted to the genre by the medieval thinkers. There is no
doubt that such was the case of sermons, especially among Mendicants,
who conceived writing and preaching as a necessary ministry to God,
the Church and the truth, and who felt responsible for what they wrote or
preached. Given such premise, it seems to me that an experimental method,
inclusive of all others, yet looking to face the challenges of the text and
open to the contribution of all sciences, can prove fruitful.
As a consequence, the environ-mental method imposes to maintain the
analysis of the text within the network of two hermeneutical mainstreams:
the consideration of the mental as a space, and the consideration of
architecture as the major metaphor for building theoretical treatises. The
environ-mental method seems to me particularly fitting to give account of
–and almost to observe– the work of the theologian to transmit faith, at the
crossroad of culture, history, religious charisms, lifestyle and geographical
place, in that particular ‘source’ of his theological ministry which was his
cell.
The friar who –likely in the retreat of his cell– was on the verge
of preparing a sermon, then, had to take into consideration three major
leading characters in it: the Word of God, the human experience (coupled
to contemporary times) and an architectural unitary structure. The friar
found time to study, to teach, to dispute, to travel, to govern the community,
to pray, to write, to contemplate, to carry out almsgiving and spiritual
direction, but when he reached his cell to prepare a sermon, his attention
had to be all caught up in attending to the Bible, to contemporary life and
to pedagogical efficacy. The Bible provided the necessary reference to the
19
An emblematic case is that of the disputation of Nicholas de Biart, cf.
E. CASTELNUOVO, «L’artista», in J. LE GOFF (ed.), L’uomo medievale, Editori Laterza,
Roma – Bari 1993, p. 261.
eternal words of God’s revelation, and can be found in the constant and
qualified network of quotations, according to the motto «explaining the
Bible biblically» (exponere Bibliam biblice20), mostly introduced by the
expression: ‘therefore’, ‘hence’, ‘for this reason’ (et ideo, unde, propter
hoc). Contemporary life can be found in the selection of the themes to
be dealt with: in fact, the preacher could address many different topics
to comment a given biblical passage, so the concrete choice of topic he
made says, of course, much of his sensibility and vision of contemporary
times. The pedagogical efficacy can be found in many ways, though very
often mold by the analogy with the art of architecture and the quite hectic
world revolving around it. Such rich world could have shaped as well
the aspirations of the Middle Ages’ cultural attitude even more than they
might have been aware of, and indwelled the interiority of the masters of
the Middle Ages. Since the environ-mental method is meant to take into
consideration both the way the elements in the text appear in their linear
sequence, and the way those same elements appear in a value-laden reading
–that is granting them different conceptual weight according to frequency,
combination, function –in the present essay I shall necessarily limit my
reflection to proposing a parallel between the nature of the theological
genres and mental faculties mainly implied in understanding them. It is my
opinion that the cogitative is the faculty addressed by a preacher and that
the exempla is its privileged expression.
2. Mental functions and theological genres
Architecture: a marker of the Middle Ages’ epistemological revolution
By way of a premise and since the environ-mental method aims at

detecting the mental world of the theologian, it is worth noting that such
world was largely influenced by the evolution of architecture, which in
those decades was revealing itself not only as a technique, but as a science
interested also into the mental process behind concrete solutions. At the
20
On the meaning of the motto Cf. M. TEEUWEN, The Vocabulary of the Intellectual
Life in the Middle Ages, Brepols, Turnhout 2003, p. 243 (Civicima, 10). Cf. also M.C.
PACHECO (ed.), Le vocabulaire des écoles des Mendiants au moyen ȃge, Brepols,
Turnhout 1999 (Civicima, 9).
same time, the world of the theologian was even more largely influenced
by the epistemic revolution of theology as a science, at the centre of which
was an enquiry on knowledge. As a result, the theological works of the
Middle Ages’ masters may be regarded as a searching for a way to build the
inner architecture of the faithful through the invention of new theological
genres meant to address precise mental functions. In the present chapter
is first highlighted the evolution of architecture; then is recalled the re-
shaping of gnoseology considered as the leading character of the whole
theological enterprise and the search for its genres; finally, the tentative
correspondence of theological genres to mental faculties is offered.
The ascent of the figure and role of the architect in the social
environment of the Middle Ages21 shows an important shift in the vision
of the hierarchy of sciences provided by the masters, divided between
appreciating the old and welcoming the new. Unlike the conception of
architecture of the ancient times (and, interestingly enough, of the modern
as well), where ‘architect’ was called someone conceiving the project of
an edifice according to his creativeness and capable of commanding the
workforce, during the early Middle Ages the architect was associated to
a craftsman, whose ability was mainly (and simply) that of building an
edifice and shaping matter accordingly, as well as producing personally his
products, original in their decorations and style22, but still ranked among
the mechanical art and practical skills. The work of the architect, then,
was considered similar to that of the craftsmen’s products, thus on the
opposite side with respect to theoretical knowledge, as well as engulfed in
the anonymous realm of artisans and workers.
The project-oriented and artistic dimension had no place at all in the
classification of the liberal Arts carried out by Martianus Capella, nor in the
division of all arts as presented by Hugh of St.Victor23, and the architect,
just like any other mechanical artifex, did not sign his works, nor was he the
object of biographies; he was often chosen among clerics with sufficient
knowledge concerning building and decorating materials, and the very
21
On the evolution of the meaning of architecture Cf.: CASTELNUOVO, «L’artista»,
pp. 238-245; N. PEVSNER, «The term ‘architect’ in the middle ages», Speculum, 17
(1942) 549-562.
22
Cf. PEVSNER, «The term ‘architect’», p. 553.
23
Listed under the art of building weapons, as the technique of building defense
structures both in walling or in wood, it is said to be carried out by bricklayers and
carpenters: Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon, Lib. 2, cap. 22.
term was attributed to the sponsor to whom the glory and merit of the work
usually went24. What is known for certain is that the responsible for a new
edifice of monks were the abbots, who could allot sums of money to that
purpose, or were those friars who were intermediaries between abbots and
workers (more rarely the sponsor was a lay person): these figures were
given the name of ‘architect’25. Regardless the name of architect given to
the one who ordered the commission, these architects simply gave general
lines.
A quite different awareness of the art of architecture begins in the 11th
and 12th centuries through the work of some very talented architects, who
grant their work such overwhelming symbolic value as to transfigure the
materiality of the elements used, thus ranking architecture more under the
expressions of human genius than under the work of construction. Such is
the case of Suger of St.Denis and of Matthew Paris, but also, increasingly, the
work of many goldsmiths, glassworkers, painters and miniature decorators,
who managed to express sublime concepts and theological beauty through
the shaping of matter in their hands. As a consequence, artists began to
be considered very important and were contended by Church as well as
civic sponsors. They could then increasingly refine their specific as well as
general preparation, half way between craft and knowledge.
In such a way, their art slowly looses its initial status of merely
mechanical art, their salaries improve, their work begins to be appreciated
and praised in public inscriptions as a sign of collective gratitude. The
development of the role of the architect, as well as that of similar arts,
varies according to the ability of such architects and to the places: in some
cases, the term includes the skills of project making, work direction and
building; in other cases, a distinction is made between the work of the
sculptor and that of the stonecutter; in some cases, the master builder or a
carpenter is also skilled in the field of project making; in other cases the
stonecutter acts like the master builder; in some places, the architect enjoys
the same consideration as the sponsor or the university master26; in other
24
Cf. PEVSNER, «The term ‘architect’», p. 553.
25
Cf. ibid., p. 553.
26
It is the case, for instance, of the architect of St.Nicaise in Reims, represented
in paintings with the project in his hands, as customary for the sponsors in those times:
Cf. CASTELNUOVO, L’artista, p. 262. On the architects of Churches as event-makers Cf.
also M. BACCI, Lo spazio dell’anima. Vita di una chiesa medievale, Editori Laterza e
Figli, Roma – Bari 2005.
places, the architect is reproached for the high salary requested for doing
almost nothing, except simply planning and commanding27.
For these reasons, though architecture is a prominent art in the
urbanization of the Middle Ages, involving wisdom, technical notions
and summoning different artisans and builders in its concrete realization,
is given poor attention by the sources. The scarcity of explicit sources,
though, supplying information –which have to be rather collected from
scattered passages in treatises dealing with other arts and disciplines–
makes it difficult to establish the interactions and relationships of all
masters, artisans and workers involved in the building of an edifice28.
Speaking of architecture and figurative arts as intellectual realms is not
possible in the 12th century, though the distinction among the different skills
related to architecture, and the alliance between theology and architecture
becomes more evident in the course of the century, to the extent that is
possible –in fact, necessary– to think of architectural blueprints in terms
of logical structures29, at least in the most elaborated and sophisticated
instances and to wonder which kind of mental path might have led the
architect to conceive a determined blueprint. The functionalist approach
of the 20th century scholars, in fact, which analyzes an edifice starting by
its function, has given the way to a more theoretical understanding, which
looks at the edifice as the bearer of meaning and ideas, and the cathedrals
as the environmental correlative of theoretical summas30. According to such
27
It is the case of Nicholas of Biart, who uses the term ‘architect’ as theoricus and
principalis artifex: Cf. PEVSNER, «The term ‘architect’», p. 561; Cf. also CASTELNUOVO,
L’artista, p. 261.
28
Cf. J. LE GOFF, Tempo della Chiesa e tempo del mercante. E altri saggi sul
lavoro e sulla cultura nel Medioevo, Einaudi, Torino 19773 (Einaudi Paperbacks, 78).
Cf. also T.R. SLATER – G. ROSSER (edd.), The Church in the Medieval Town, Ashgate
Publishing Company, Aldershot 1998.
29
Cf. also RADDING – CLARK, Architettura e sapere nel medioevo, pp. 3-4. On the role
of architecture among the other artistical expressions Cf. also: S. BLICK – R. TEKIPPE (edd.),
Art and Architecture of Late Medieval Pilgrimage in Northern Europe and the British Isles.
Plates, Brill, Leiden 2005 (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, 104).
30
Cf.: O VON SIMPSON, The Gothic Cathedral. Origins of gothic architecture
and the medieval concept of order, Pantheon, New York 1956 (Bollingen Series,
48); C. RUDOLPH, Artistic Change at St-Denis: Abbot Suger’s Program and the Early
Twelfth-Century Controversy Over Art, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1990;
E. PANOFSKI, Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism, Archabbey Press, Latrobe (Pa.)
1951; Cf. also RADDING – CLARK, Architettura e sapere nel medioevo, p. 20.
approach, it is possible to establish that both edifices and new literary genres
were the outcome of the same determination to find new forms of expression,
challenging artists themselves to find unprecedented solutions and methods
to prompt more intense impressions in the passer-by. The emphasis is, then,
on the creative moment and on the method, rather than on the realization, that
is on the cognitive dimension of the author and on his capacities to innovate,
to invent effects, to conquer spaces and to transform his art itself31.
On a chronological note, the period in which architecture begins to be
seen as different from other skills and arts, is the same in which masters
move from the commentary of old texts to the genre of the summa32,
implying a creative activity and the unification of many elements under an
original and consistent system of concepts and project-oriented elements33.
It is possible to imagine that theologians working during that transition time
–beside enjoying the glorious impression of marvelous sacred edifices–
grasped also the epistemological potentiality of an art half way between
theory and practice and capable to mediate concepts through visual power
and to translate reasoning into impression.
The Didascalicon, one of the masterpieces of Hugh of St.Victor34,
places architecture among the mechanical arts, thus ranking it as in the
31
Cf. RADDING – CLARK, Architettura e sapere nel medioevo, pp. 14-16.
32
Cf. ibid., p. 63.
33
Cf. ibid., pp. 157-158.
34
The work belongs to the so called didactical literature, common to Patristic
period as well as early medieval time. Composed in Paris roughly in 1125, this work
by Hugh of St. Victor aimed at providing an orientation and practical advices in
theological studies: starting from the very basic human knowledge (the traditional arts)
as a necessary support to exegetical enterprise and the latter as a necessary support
for the understanding of the mystery of God and the spiritual growth, he presents
matter, order, purpose, and methodologies proper to each science: Cf. E. NICOLAI,
Hermeneutical Principles in the ‘Didascalicon’ of Hugh of St. Victor, Pontificium
Athenaeum Sanctae Crucis, Romae 1996, pp. 61-63. Rorem suggests to develop in
a systematic fashion the interest of Hugh of St. Victor for the heavenly hierarchy, on
which he wrote a wide commentary; such reading may have given him a Pseudo-Denis
nuance to his further writings, as well as contributed to the spreading of Pseudo-Denis
in the late Middle Ages. Pseudo-Denis had been introduced in the West since the 9th
century, when the Byzantine emperor had given to the French king a manuscript, a
personal property of his, written by Pseudo-Denis, knowing the deep devotion of the
French people for St. Denis. So it should raise no wonder that in the 12th century the
increasing interest for Denis will take start right in Paris and Laon: Cf. P. ROREM, Hugh
of Saint Victor, Oxford University Press, Oxford – New York 2009, pp. 167-176.
vision inherited by the high Middle Ages, while at the same time organizing
his Didascalicon according more the low Middle Ages mentality, thus
recovering a strong sense of architectural structures. After all, the high
Middle Ages thinkers thematize the analogy between the study of the Bible
as the fabrica mentis35.
In the Didascalicon, Hugh of St.Victor displays the division of
knowledge in an comprehensive blueprint which joins together the
theoretical content with the pedagogical finality, by means of a unified
architecture springing from the heights of Divine Wisdom to the depths of
human knowledge and paving the way to the different branches of human
science and wisdom – which are the objects of rational investigation by the
human being–, in a fashion capable of never losing sight of the attractive
tension of the climax, as well as capable of taking back the attention of
the listener at any moment, through the visibility of the theoretical line of
thought, to the beginning and source of the treatise.
Undoubtedly a crucial work, which in its heuristic power36, could
not but constitute a milestone in the building of knowledge in the Middle
Ages, as well as a background of the cultural attitude of thinkers to come.
Among the many and all equally striking features of the work, maybe the
most appealing for its strategic location is constituted by the appearance
of the human soul in a probative position with respect to the gnoseological
assessment of the search for truth among the ancient thinkers –from whom
Hugh of St.Victor begins his work– and in an anticipating position with
respect to the epistemological treatise following shortly afterwards, and
which will move from the intuition of the immateriality of the process of
knowing and the affirmation of Divine Wisdom (source of all knowledge)
to the organization of any knowledge.
The good represented by the philosophical enquiry –Hugh’s starting
point– is carried out solely by the human soul which, in its potentiality
to receive the divine gifts, reveals as the way leading to the highest
participation of the human being to Divine Wisdom by joining the two
exclusive prerogatives of the human being inasmuch as made in the image
of God, namely thinking and acting:
35
Cf. Gregory of Great, Epistula missoria, 3; Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon,
Lib. 6.
36
And, I would like to add, written in an extremely fashionable style.
This love of Wisdom, moreover, is an illumination of the

apprehending mind by that pure Wisdom and, in a certain way,
a drawing and a calling back to Itself of man’s mind, so that the
pursuit of Wisdom appears like friendship with that Divinity and
pure Mind. This Wisdom bestows upon every manner of souls the
benefits of its own divinity, and brings them back to their proper
force and purity of their nature. From it are born truth of speculation
and of thought and holy and pure chastity of action37.
A twofold –though unified– task for the human being will follow:
contemplating the truth and practicing virtue, which restore the divine
likeness in man38, as well as two distinct forms of knowledge governing
the two realms:
[…] there are two matters upon which the power of the reasoning
soul spends every effort: one is that it may know the natures of
things by the method of inquiry; but the other is that there may first
come to its knowledge those things which morals earnestness will
thereafter transform into action39.
The pedagogical concern, fully implied among the finalities of the

work of Hugh of St.Victor along with the theoretical finality, I would dare
saying, is detectable in the following words, found a few lines below the
beginning of the work, profiling teaching not only as a necessary human
activity, but also as a social task:
37
«Est autem hic amor sapientiae, intelligentis animi ab illa pura sapientia
illuminatio, et quodammodo ad seipsam retractio atque advocatio, ut videatur
sapientiae studium divinitatis et purae mentis illius amicitia. Haec igitur sapientia
cuncto animarum generi meritum suae divinitatis imponit, et ad propriam naturae vim
puritatemque reducit. Hinc nascitur speculationum cogitationumque veritas, et sancta
puraque actuum castimonia»: Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon, Lib. 1, cap. 2. I use
the translation by J. TAYLOR, The Didascalicon of Hugh of St.Victor. A Medieval Guide
to the Arts, Columbia University Press, New York 19912.
38
«Duo vero sunt quae divinam in homine similitudinem reparant, id est,
speculatio veritatis et virtutis exercitium»: Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon, Lib. 1,
cap. 8.
39
«[…] duo sunt in quibus omnem operam vis animae ratiocinantis impendit,
unum quidem ut rerum naturas inquisitionis ratione cognoscat, alterum vero, ut ad
scientiam prius veniat, quod post gravitas moralis exerceat»: ibid., Lib.1, cap. 3.
We see how a wall receives a likeness when the form of some image
or other is put upon it from outside. But when a coiner imprints a
figure upon metal, the metal, which itself is one thing, begins to
represent a different thing, not just on the outside, but from its own
power and its natural aptitude to do so. It is in this way that the
mind, imprinted with the likeness of all things, is said to be all things
and to receive its composition from all things and to contain them
not as actual components, or formally, but virtually and potentially.
This, then, is that dignity of our nature which all naturally possess
in equal measure, but which all do not equally understand. For the
mind, stupefied by bodily sensations and enticed out of itself by
sensuous forms, has forgotten what it was, and, because does not
remember that it was anything different, believes that it is nothing
except what is seen. But we are restored through instruction, so that
we may recognize our nature and learn not to seek outside ourselves
what we can find within. ‘The highest curative in life’, therefore,
is the pursuit of Wisdom: he who finds it is happy, and he who
possesses it, blessed40.
Knowledge: a crossroad of theological enquire
The lesson St. Thomas might have learned by the reading and certain
meditation of such relevant work must have been that of a teaching capable
of joining together –regardless the underpinning philosophical approach
chosen41– the pedagogical concern of helping the assimilation of concepts
40
«Videmus cum paries extrinsecus adveniente forma imaginis cuiuslibet
similitudinem accipit. Cum vero impressor metallo figuram imprimit, ipsum quidem
non extrinsecus, sed ex propria virtute et naturali habilitate aliud iam aliquid
repraesentare incipit. Sic nimirum mens, rerum omnium similitudine insignita,
omnia esse dicitur, atque ex omnibus compositionem suscipere, non integraliter,
sed virtualiter atque potentialiter continere, et haec est illa, naturae nostrae dignitas
quam omnes aeque naturaliter habent, sed non omnes aeque noverunt. Animus enim,
corporeis passionibus consopitus et per sensibiles formas extra semetipsum abductus,
oblitus est quid fuerit,et, quia nil aliud fuisse se meminit, nil praeter quod videtur
esse credit. Reparamur autem per doctrinam, ut nostrum agnoscamus naturam, et ut
discamus extra non quaerere quod in nobis possumus invenire. Summum igitur in vita
solamen est studium sapientiae, quam qui invenit felix est, et qui possidet beatus»:
ibid., Lib. 1, cap. 1.
41
Evidently Platonic-Augustinian for Hugh of St. Victor, differently for
St. Thomas.
and the theoretical content, in such a conceptual welding as to render the

content immediately available to the knowing ability of the addressee by
means of a pedagogical architecture.
At the same time, St. Thomas might have fully absorbed the intellectual
atmosphere of its times, largely influenced by many and genius visions
of previous thinkers among whom Hugh of St.Victor, so to capture the
intellectual sensitivity of these pioneers of the new knowing, who were
able to identify in the partitions of the soul42 (a substance capable of
containing each reality in a virtual and potential way) a potentiality to
structure all knowledge. The task of the intellectual, which in the case
of St. Thomas was also the exercise of the specific charism of his Order,
became, in such a cultural environment, that of showing to each human
being –bearer of the image of God– the path to the knowledge of truth
and to a life of holiness, by using (or even inventing, if necessary) all
the pedagogical tools available to the masters or the preachers, and by
resorting to their experience of ministries of God and of human beings,
but also by trying to localize what might be called a noetic stance43 of the
listeners (differently gathered according to their status, or to the liturgical
circumstance, or to the time and place), who had purposely come to listen
to the preaching44.
The different theological genres, the rich variety of the conceptual tools
and procedures, the teaching and pedagogical devices are all originated
and provided by the varied panorama and by the restless ferment of those
decades, decisive for the whole Western culture, with the only purpose
of awakening in the people the perception of their great destiny in the
salvation offered in Christ.
42
Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon, Lib. 1, cap. 3-4. It may be of some interest
to note how, since the ancient times, the social organization, as well as its public
debate, was seen as mirroring the partition of the soul: on the issue Cf. S. HAMPSHIRE,
Innocence and Experience, Allen Lane, London 1989, cap. 1.
43
Namely the condition of the addressee in terms of intellectual level, cultural
understatements, existential expectations and inner quest for motivation to action.
44
The elaboration of the Aristotelian doctrine on the relationship between
sense and intellectual knowledge is present, roughly a century later, in the teaching
of Girolamo Savonarola, who recommended his students to use vivid images, which
impress the mind of the poeple, in order to help them pervene to universal truths,
quoting St. Thomas and somehow enhancing a Dominican tradition in preaching;
cf. I. CLOULAS, Savonarola, Piemme, Casale Monferrato (Al) 1998, pp. 43-44.
In such a framework, the research and discovery of unifying

architectural categories, common to all masters as well as to artists in the
Middle Ages, never meant to be simplifications of reality: on the opposite,
they meant to mirror the complexity of reality, as evidently appears when
approaching medieval treatises. For this reason, unity of pedagogical
construction in their works never means naivety of approach, but rather
flexibility of discourse and suitability to be at once linked to the principal
line of thought and to the primeval division of the treatise.
The art of architecture –as previously stated– enjoyed a special
status among other arts and knowledge due to its twofold relationship
both to theoretical and practical knowledge, as well as to its kinship with
philosophical metaphysical reflection, which was the discipline capable
of organizing all knowledge45. Moreover, architecture –probably just like
medicine, since ancient times at the crossroad of philosophy and biology–
was considered also a wisdom, and a causative knowledge capable of
commanding the practical enterprise of the realization of the project. For
all these reasons, more than other knowledge, architecture could express
the obscure labor of intellectual pregnancy and the bright concept (in the
etymological sense of ‘generated’ from the Latin term concipio) that was
delivered.
The problem of knowledge was at the core of much of the Middle Ages’
intellectual quest, given the extraordinary strategic place of gnoseology,
at the crossroad of theology, cosmology and anthropology, as well as of
Aristotelian and Platonic traditions of thought. Consequently, treatises on
knowledge of medieval masters are to be considered rather like networks
linked to many questions of different kind than like monolithic pieces of
doctrine.
St. Thomas is, of course, no exception: on the opposite, he seems
to use the theory on knowledge as middle term in a semantic syllogism
joining together the Aristotelian and the Christian tradition of thought. In
fact, the doctrine concerning the immateriality of knowledge, which was an
acquisition of the Aristotelian teaching, could represent an inescapable step
of the ascent towards the metaphysical demonstration of the subsistence
of the soul, principle of knowledge; at the same time, it could likewise
45
Cf. M.M. ROSSI – T. ROSSI, L’anima tomista di Benedetto XVI. L’impronta di
San Tommaso nei temi chiave di Papa Ratzinger: un’eredità per la Chiesa del futuro,
Angelicum University Press, Roma 2013, pp. 21-27.
represent an inescapable step in the descent of the Christian thought

towards the affirmation of the specific role of the body in the process of
knowing.
The q. 75 of the Prima Pars of the Summa Theologiae is the most
eloquent example of such awareness of the multifaceted aspects of the
problem, besides being the specific treatise on the topic of knowledge,
rightly framed in the larger investigation on the soul, namely in a
metaphysical framework46. The very sequence of St. Thomas’s articles in q.
75 provides the bridge between philosophical and theological reflection in
a unified and consistent line of thought, as well as shows a sort of anabasis
towards grasping the sense and purpose of the human journey through the
explanation of the nature of the soul and knowledge47. The underpinning
–though unquoted–principle behind the treatise is the difference between
the consideration of the soul as motor of the body, and the consideration of
the soul as spirit: whereas the soul as motor proves totally fit for the body’s
46
Pasnau makes a very interesting point concerning the way in which the Middle
Ages shaped the reflection on the human soul and highlighted its implication on the
human nature and knowledge: «[…] the human soul will be responsible for what
makes us essentially human. Here we face a choice. On one picture of human nature,
we are simply minds, incidentally attached, for a certain period of time, to a certain sort
of body. On another sort of picture, we are essentially biological organisms, coming
into existence through certain biological processes and existing for as long as the
living organism exists. On this view, we are not essentially minds at all. These two
perspectives point towards two different directions along which one might develop a
theory of the human soul. Medieval authors, however, almost without exception, refuse
to choose one option to the exclusion of the other. Instead, they treat it as essential to
human nature both to be essentially minds and to be essentially biological organism.
This is the point of the familiar definition of human beings as rational animals. To have
it both ways requires viewing the human soul as fulfilling two quite different functions,
one biological and the other psychological. The soul must be, in short, both a mind
and the soul of the body. For later medieval Christian authors, such a double function
was, in fact, an ecclesiastical mandate»: R. PASNAU, «Mind and Hylomorphism», in J.
MARENBON (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Philosophy, Oxford University
Press, Oxford 2012, pp. 492-493.
47
As shown in the sequence of the questions raised by St. Thomas whether the
soul is corporeal; whether the human soul is something which subsists; whether the
soul of brutes subsists; whether the soul is the man, or whether, rather, man is not a
compound of soul and body; whether the soul is compounded of matter and form;
whether the human soul can pass away; whether the soul is the same sort of thing as an
angel: Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, aa. 1-7.
potentialities, the soul as spirit reveals its transcendence with respect to the
body48. As a consequence, while the soul needs the body’s corporeal organs
and faculties –though to different degrees– to start up the act of knowing
and willing (which are the distinctive marks of the human being) since
those acts require a device adequate to the condition of the physical reality,
in the condition of the soul after death, the soul will be able –by its own
nature– to perform the act of knowing and willing without the body, as it
does not need the body even in the condition of the earthly pilgrimage to
perform the higher phases of knowledge. The relevance of such reflection
for the Christian doctrine is decisive, though not explicitly expressed in the
q. 75: the purpose of the human existence on earth is to learn to know and
to want God, Source and End of every being49. So, not simply a theoretical
question –that concerning the dynamics of knowledge– but an indication
of the direction of the human existence and a grasp of the very sense of
living.
Once assessed the relevance of the question of knowledge within a
metaphysical enquiry, a debate at stake concerned the concrete unfolding
of knowledge, namely steps, modalities and overall process. Questions
were raised practically at all stages of the knowing process: in fact, about
the role of external senses, the mode of function of internal senses, the
48
Cf. ibid., I, q. 78, a. 1.
49
A very interesting and thomistically oriented perspective on the purpose of
living comes from Zoffoli: «Vivo ora per vivere sempre. La vita è fine a se stessa, perché
valore assoluto, ultimo, insopprimibile. E intendo la vita ch’è tutta mia, cioè pullulante dal
fondo più segreto del mio essere di persona, condizionata solo al mio volere che, appunto,
è già vita in atto quale tensione realizzatrice del mio definitivo sviluppo o pienezza di
adesione all’Assoluto […]. Sempre in me, anche se aperto a tutto ‘l’altro’; sempre di me
e per me, pur domandandomi e anzi nella misura che mi dono, perseguo lo scopo della
mia esistenza crescendo, ossia raggiungendo le dimensioni che mi spettano, assumendo il
volto ch’è già mio, attuando tutta la verità che mi costituisce […]. Verissimo che i bisogni
della vita pungono, incalzano: io devo soddisfarli. Ma ciò solo nella misura in cui mi è
realmente possibile, oltre la quale ostinarmi ad esigere e combattere, protestare e inveire
costituisce l’unica mia sventura, derivata dal più grave dei miei errori di valutazione dei
beni e del loro rapporto con la mia vita e il mio destino. In fondo, saper vivere vuol dire
evolvermi come persona, cioè ridurre ogni complicazione e conflitto alla suprema unità
della mia meta ultraterrena; emanciparmi gradualmente dal fascino delle cose mediante
un’interiorizzazione destinata a farmi godere la pace nell’equilibrio e nella libertà: quella
tipica della più trepida e stupenda vigilia riservata a dei mortali»: E. ZOFFOLI, Ed io che
sono?, Editrice Il Crivello, Cittadella (Pd) 1972, pp. 133-134.
dynamics of the passive or active intellect were all under scrutiny and
largely debated among masters. Even the doctrine of St. Thomas is not
quite clear, as many scholars attempt at explaining the overall picture
without –at least apparent– inconsistencies50.
If ancient and medieval reflection accept and exalt the link between
biological structure and the forms of argumentation, it does not appear
out of place to suppose that St. Thomas had a sensibility to forge topics
within the theological genres –as they have been identified and studied
by scholars51– somehow according to the different functions of the mind
implied in the process of knowing, in order to facilitate conceptual
assimilation in the listener. The hints of the work by Hugh of St.Victor,
conveniently coupled with the genius of St. Thomas in an environment
ready to face any innovation, might have pushed St. Thomas to find the
architectural-pedagogical unity right in the homology between structures
of the text and functions of the mind, as the environ-mental method allows
to insinuate.
The theory on abstraction and the doctrine of the mental operations
as manifestation of the soul could work as extraordinary means to reach
the desired argumentative efficacy, adequate to the audience, to the
circumstances and to the genre chosen. If such an hypothesis is viable –
though in each phase of any knowing process all human intelligence is
50
Since even the texts leave room to some doubts, thus allowing different
interpretation in the scholars. On the specific issue of the judgment of animals see the
divergent positions of A. KENNY, Aquinas on Mind, Routledge, London – New York
1993, p. 82 (= Topics in Medieval Philosophy), and A. MACINTYRE, Dependent Rational
Animals. Why Human Beings Need the Virtues, Carus Publishing Company, Chicago
(Ill.) 1999, cap. 6. Cf. also: A. CAPARELLO (ed.), La conoscenza sensibile. Commenti
ai libri di Aristotele De sensu et sensato, De memoria et reminiscentia, ESD, Bologna
1997; D. FREDE, «Aquinas on Phantasia», in D. PERLER (ed.), Ancient And Medieval
Theories of Intentionality, Brill, Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001, pp. 155-183; É. GILSON,
Il Tomismo. Introduzione alla filosofia di san Tommaso d’Aquino, Jaka Book, Milano
2011, pp. 351-375 (Biblioteca di Cultura Medievale, 942); J. A. IZQUIERDO LABEAGA,
La vita intellettiva, Lectio Sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città
del Vaticano 1994 (Studi Tomistici, 55).
51
The interest of the scholars toward these minor genres has remarkably
increased, though not all of such genres have been fully identified and classified; a very
interesting genre is, for instance, the so called processus: Cf. L.-J. BATAILLON, «De la
‘lectio’ à la ‘praedicatio’. Commentaires bibliques et sermons au XIIIe siècle», Revue
des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 70 (1986) 559-575.
implied to its width and each argument appeals to the human rationality as
a whole–, a determined genre would preferably refer to a function of the
mind and another genre to another function.
I have already recalled the special concern of the Middle Ages’ thinkers
for the pedagogical claim, which did imply –at least when talking about
sermonial activity– rendering the rational investigation in each field a
meaningful experience resonating in the hearts of the listeners. Given such a
premise, I imagined to establish a correspondence between genre or tool and
mental operation, featured as to serve also the pedagogical finality, so relevant
to the mind of the medieval thinker. It should, therefore, cause no wonder to
detect –within the overall innermost structures of any text– special appeals to
the specific faculty implied in the process of knowledge; moreover, it should
be even possible to establish a correspondence between the choice of the
words and terms with the operations of the knowledge faculty specifically
involved in a determined process. By way of exemplification and still to be
accurately surveyed, a preliminary and provisional correspondence between
genres and faculties or operations featuring thinking as a process and thought
as a product, could be identified as follows:
- sensus or external senses, mainly addressed by the creative video-
audio devices brought about by preachers in their activity, as
witnessed in many miniatures52;
- species impressa or sensorial reception linked to a primal, rough
judgment53 concerning the object inasmuch as existing54, thus
implying also the cogitative (vis cogitativa)55 or the faculty which
we would associate with the function of the amygdala. I retain that
the sermons were the genre intended to mainly address the mental
cogitative faculty;
52
Cf. M.G. MUZZARELLI, Pescatori di uomini. Predicatori e piazze alla fine del
Medioevo, Il Mulino, Bologna 2005, pp. 71-75.
53
For an overview cf. M. DOMET DE VORGES, La perception et la psychologie
thomiste, A. Roger et F. Chernoviz Editeurs, Paris 1892, pp. 55-102. Cf. also J.P.
O’CALLAGHAN, Thomist Realism and the Linguistic Turn. Toward a More Perfect Form
of Existence, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame IN 2003, pp. 159-175.
54
Cf. DOMET DE VORGES, La perception et la psychologie thomiste, pp. 91-92.
55
Also called ratio particularis, it is linked to the experience to which the passive
intellect draws information: Cf. ibid., p. 94; Cf. also: A. CASTRONOVO, La cogitativa in
S. Tommaso, Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Romae 1966; O’CALLAGHAN, Thomist
Realism and the Linguistic Turn, pp. 213-224.
- species expressa or concept (conceptus), that is the product of the

knowing activity, divided according to the different degrees of
abstraction and obtained through diverse processes, substantially to
be resolved into two: intuition and reasoning. The argumentations
found in the summae, though all built according to the rigid rules
of logics and reasoning, could rather be associated to the intuitive
operation of knowledge, since quite a number of passages do remain
in a compressed form to be unpacked, perfectly fitting the character
of a summary (in fact, a summa). While it is true that the arguments
within each article are in the form of a syllogism, nonetheless a
certain capability of bridging the different passages is requested by
the reader of a summa; on the opposite, the very structure of the
quaestiones disputatae would mainly address the reasoning activity,
given the extended usage argumentations linked by the syllogistic
chain56. The basic operations of intuition and reasoning would, then,
be the primary addressees of summae and quaestiones disputatae.
- systematizing or the ability to connect personal knowledge to the
culture: though not explicitly thematized in the Middle Ages, this
specific ability of human knowledge allows the confrontation
with systems of thought of all times, cultures and civilizations.
Human thought is a product that is crystallized in cultures and
always accessible and comparable57. The genre better addressing
56
In such a frame work, an interesting case is represented by the Summa contra
Gentiles, where the genre of a summa indicated in the title is mixed with the genre of a
quaestio, widely argumented. Such a circumstance leads to thinking that the Summa contra
Gentiles could not give for granted in its interlocutors the particular intuitive ability found
in the believers by assent to Revelation and the connaturality to the deep and inexpressible
mysteries of reality –granted through grace and infused gifts– which is associated with
it. In other words, the knowing process in the believer could profit, to a certain extent, of
what could be called, borrowing the expression from the juridical realm, an ‘abbreviated
rite’. In any case, the Summa contra Gentiles is an interesting work and largely under
scrutiny for the exact circumstances of composition and destination are still unclear: Cf.
J.P. TORRELL, Initiation à saint Thomas d’Aquin. Sa personne et son œuvre, Cerf, Paris
1993, pp. 153-156 (Vestigia, 13). Cf. also T. CENTI, «La Somma contro i Gentili: indole
dell’opera», in G. GRASSO – S. SERAFINI (edd.), “Vita quaerens intellectum”. Tommaso
d’Aquino e ricerca filosofica, Millennium Romae, Roma 1999, pp. 37-44 (Studi, 4).
57
Such systems fall in the semantic area of what Popper called the ‘World 3’:
Cf. C.R. POPPER – J.C. ECCLES, The self and its brain. An argument for interactionism,
Springer Internationale, Berlin – Heidelberg – London – New York 1977, pp. 36-50.
such mental ability would be the biblical commentaries, mainly

intended to represent a system of thought and culture. The biblical
commentaries would be meant to build an integrated and consistent
system of concepts, maintaining a certain omni-comprehensiveness
–that is attending to a vision of the world–,by accepting the
challenge of Revelation to reason and by resolving it within the
space of faith. In the biblical commentaries rationality has definitely
entered into the universe of Revelation and it learned to read reality
completely in the light of the Revelation contained in the Holy Writs
as well as in the wisdom of ancient thinkers, in the experience of
saints and in creation. Given such framework, the heaviest labor
in writing a biblical commentary was that of representing –within
each micro-unit– the complexity of a reality mirroring the claims
of reason facing faith and, especially, that of expressing faith in that
particular modality capable to show (or, sometimes, just to hint to a
direction) in each verse the implications of a faith reaching history,
the world, the human being and, of course, God Himself. In fact,
beginning right by the knowledge of God such as He participates it
in Revelation and such as is clarified in theological reflection. The
sense of an extreme fragmentation of sequences in the texts of any
biblical commentary, seemingly resolving into lines heavy to read
and manage, can be explained with the intention of presenting the
complexity of rational investigation on the mystery of God, and a
complexity which has to be visible both at the macro-level and at the
micro-level. Seen in such context, the biblical commentaries would
be the most original and complex production and genre, even with
respect to dialectical argumentation for which the Angelic Doctor
is rightly famous: biblical commentaries, in fact, belong neither to
the genre of the quaestio nor to the genre of the summa, but to the
genre of the expositio or lectura. An expositio, from the viewpoint
of a mental operation, does not neatly nor necessarily grasp the
consistent links of the text, but it limits itself to identify the pre-
given order of sequence, which is not totally intelligible, nonetheless
suggesting provisional or likely causal chains and links with other
forms of knowing and human experience, better accessible though
not obeying the rigid logical rules of syllogism, in order to leave
room to a different interpretation of the intrinsic order of the revealed
text. An intrinsic and necessary order, but not completely accessible
to the human mind, thus permeable to different interpretation by the

different masters in theology. Consequently, one master will provide
one explanation in its divisio textus, and another master will provide
another, as the authorities of the university, nor the universitas
doctorum granted more credit to one interpretation over another, all
of them being possible inasmuch as faithful to the biblical datum,
will take origin from the biblical text and will tend to offer an
exposition (expositio) of Revelation. A final consideration could be
drawn: is not only the supernatural character of the content of the
Bible to motivate an expositio rather than another genre (though
logically more cogent for human rationality), but it is the awareness
that in any line of the text some room shall be left for the presence of
grace shaping human events and the understanding of them; in fact,
though a supernatural gift, grace does play a role within the knowing
dynamics of human rationality to support it in its investigation of
reality, of the human being and of God. Biblical commentaries, then,
would be intended to serve the overwhelming task of using those
terms and minute passages where the links of the exposition look
more conjectural than apodictic, in the awareness that argumentative
rationality is not adequately equipped to intuitively grasp the presence
and manifestation of the Spirit leading history to the eschaton.
3. General conclusions
In the present essay, I have attempted at offering some new perspectives

on the exegetical way of proceeding of St. Thomas Aquinas within the
wider frame of an enquiry on the exegesis of the Middle Ages, as well as at
proposing a method called ‘environ-mental’, which stresses the reciprocal
implications between conditions of work of medieval masters, personal
choices of the theologian as they emerge from texts, and peculiar attention
and interest of the medieval world toward mental processes.
More than mere isolated hints of rare and talented masters, in fact,
the suitability of sciences to build the unique mosaic of knowing and their
actual beneficial contamination was, I think, the widespread atmosphere
any category of people living in the late Middle Ages could breath. Of
course, such vision of the one enterprise of knowing shines more evidently
in the huge syntheses or the innovative works of few outstanding thinkers,
but it was a sort of daily bread. Theologians who were, at the same time,
Mendicants, must have seen in the art of architecture (and, possibly, also
music and drama58) a valid partner for carrying out their specific charism
of preaching, where the power of sense impressions could work as starting
point of a journey to the heights of complex doctrines, yet to be necessarily
spread to the people.
The environ-mental method could prove helpful in collecting the
sources, tools and intentions of a theologian in the very moment in which
he got down to work at any theological production. In other words, it could
reveal the ordo intentionis behind the ordo doctrinae or disciplinae in a
given work by medieval masters.
The hypothesis of a correspondence between the choice of a
theological genre and the faculty mainly implied in it, in order to render
the ‘intellectual food’ –so to say– more approximate to be assimilated by
the mind of an addressee, seemingly opens the way to future enquiries on
such specific homologies.
58
An interesting area of research I am actually surveying. The idea is to identify
the leading elements of an argumentation with musical metaphors, as hinted to by the
textual elements themselves. By means of a counterpoint, the different and independent
melodies overlap and produce a harmonic sound, capable of displaying a theoretical
text as a music piece.
OLIVIER-THOMAS VENARD*
METAPHOR IN AQUINAS: BETWEEN NECESSITAS

AND DELECTATIO
In our sceptical time, how are we able to affirm that it is possible to

speak of God other than through metaphor, given the transcendence of the
God of revelation and the fact that words are linked to created immanence?
If we can only speak through metaphor, are we sure that we are in fact
saying anything?1
In reaction to doubts such as these, many scholars have placed the
theological style of Saint Thomas in polar opposition to metaphor. Here in
almost caricatural form, is the position of classical Thomism: «For Saint
Thomas as for Aristotle, when it comes to the ideal of knowledge which
is ‘science’ (opus perfectum rationis), the use of poetics is somewhat
shameful. And when he establishes the rules for naming God (cf. Summa
Theologiæ Ia pars, q. 13), his entire concern is to establish a difference
between metaphor and analogy, and so to avoid all compromise with poetic
discourse within theology understood as science»2. It is a question of the
coherence of theological discourse. Through the theory of analogy, the
concern was to establish that the names ascribed to God and to creation,
while not signifying the same thing, do not change meaning entirely. The
analogical unity of words, which relates to that of concepts, is considered
as the linguistic translation of a metaphysical unity. Therefore, for a long
time it was thought necessary to side with metaphysical science against the
art of language. Because poetic utens was the lowest level of knowledge
and theology the highest, it was essential that theology owed nothing to
poetry.
This epistemological shift profoundly transformed the idea of
theology, which risked becoming an extraction (in the chemical sense of
*
École biblique et archéologique française, Nablus Road, 6, 9119001 Jerusalem,
Israël; email: othvenard@gmail.com
1
Warmest thanks to my friend Robert Pelik, for his achievement : not only did he
translate this piece in an English which retains a flavor of the French syntax : he.simply
improved.it.
2
C. GEFFRÉ, «Note» to Thomas Aquinas, ST I, q 1, a. 9 c., in Saint Thomas
d’Aquin, Somme Théologique, Cerf, Paris 1984, vol. 1, p. 162, note 22.
200 OLIVIER-THOMAS VENARD
the term) of a rational intelligibility out of the poetry of revelation, as if

the theologian had to substitute for poetic language the clearly formulated
explanations of rational discourse3. Such an idea seems initially consistent
with the principle of clarificatio: and the traditional image of Saint Thomas
sees in him represented the pure and simple rejection of metaphor from
the theological domain4. But the consequence –or presupposition– of such
an attitude is the sundering of sacra doctrina from sacra scriptura, which
St. Thomas so deliberately united. In reality, it may well be that metaphor
constitutes the indispensable pivot between Holy Scripture and theology.
There is no question here of examining all Thomas Aquinas’s uses
of metaphor (even in the limited corpus of his biblical exegesis, which
includes in the interpretation of metaphor the literal meaning)5. We
wish only to emphasise the constancy of the metaphorical process in the
Thomistic practice of doctrina sacra, which is profoundly respectful of the
letter of Scripture. Then in reading Paul Ricœur, we shall analyse one of
the finest attempts ever made to protect «speculative» theological discourse
from the contamination of metaphor. Finally, in order to resituate Saint
Thomas Aquinas within the horizon of the modern reader’s understanding,
we shall subject our argument to «deconstruction», which will allow us to
show the necessary religious (hence scriptural) assumptions of theological
discourse.
3
In fact we often find in Thomas’s work a way of dealing with a metaphor in
two stages; firstly it is described and secondly ‘expounded’: «primum duo facit: primo
ponit metaphoram, secundo expositionem» (In Is. 9, 2/111). Cf. In. Thess. 2,9; 4,1 et
In psalmos 7, 9; 10, 4/31. Does this exposition consist of drawing out the metaphor or
rather of decrypting it is meaning? Thomas is clearly keen to find in Scripture itself the
explanation of scriptural metaphors: «Primo ponitur conditio hostium vastantium sub
quibusdam metaphoribus, secundo describuntur aperte et expresse» (In Ier. 6, 1, 18).
About the use of Scripture, this is what Thomas says: «Ea quoe in uno loco scripturae
traduntur sub metaphoris, in aliis locis expressius exponuntur» (ST I, q. 1, a. 9, ad 2).
Thomas does not therefore contrast to metaphor a rational explanation of its meaning,
he remarks simply that Scripture presents gradations in the form of expression.
4
ST I, q 1, a.9, 1: “Procedere autem per similitudines varias et reproesentationes,
est proprium poeticoe, quoe est infima inter omnes doctrinas. Ergo hujusmodi
similitudinibus uti non est conveniens huic scientioe”
5
On this topic see G. DAHAN, L’exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident
médiéval, XIIe-XIVe siècle, Cerf, Paris 1999, pp. 426-448. By the same author, see also
«Saint Thomas d’Aquin et la métaphore. Rhétorique et herménetique», Medioevo, 18
(1992) 85-117.
METAPHOR IN AQUINAS: BETWEEN NECESSITAS AND DELECTATIO 201
1. Present
«Ad sacram doctrinam.pertinet uti metaphoris»6: in the ninth article

of the first question of the Summa Theologiæ, Thomas clearly affirms the
presence of metaphors in doctrina sacra. Commenting on this article, A.
Patfoort concludes that everything written there «applies only to Scripture,
and at most, to comparable forms of expression such as liturgy, religious
art and preaching»7. He adds that «in this respect at least, sacra doctrina is
not theology». Following the Thomistic tradition, he interprets Thomas’s
statement in a very restrictive way: he compares it to other passages, such
as the unfinished commentary on Boethius, which separate symbolic
expression from theology8. He states that: «When, for example, we need
to interpret the processions of the Trinity, we will depend only on the
world of the mind in order to verify the specifically divine nature of these
processions»9. However, does not precisely depending on «the world of
the mind» mean using psychological images to allow us to speak of the
life of the Trinitarian God? Have we therefore really left the domain of
metaphor?10
In fact, the reasons Thomas provides for using metaphor in doctrina
sacra relate to the very nature of man and God; they concern, therefore,
every kind of human utterance about God, and not only Scripture. The
article where Thomas establishes the appropriateness of metaphor to sacra
doctrina gives two reasons. The first is anthropological: the incarnate
condition of humanity and the necessarily sensory source of all knowledge
(per sensibilia ad intelligibilia) –of huge importance in an Aristotelian
context, where the ubiquitousness of the metaphorical in language reflects
the necessity of image in knowledge. The second is pedagogical: the need
to make Holy Scripture available to everyone, even to those who are not
able to understand spiritual things in themselves. The anthropological
reason is reinforced by religious motivations, aiming to protect the sacred
6
ST I, q.1, a. 9, s.c. The use of metaphors is appropriate for the sacra doctrina.
7
A. PATFOORT, Saint Thomas d’Aquin, les clés d’une théologie, FAC-éditions,
Paris 1983, p. 30.
8
Cf. Thomas Aquinas, BDT q. 2, a. 3, ad 5.
9
PATFOORT, Saint Thomas d’Aquin, p. 30. Cf. ST I, q.27, a.1, c.
10
This is what is shown by J. WÉBERT, «L’image dans l’œuvre de saint Thomas
et spécialement dans l’exposé doctrinal sur l’intelligence humaine», Revue Thomiste,
9 (1926) 427-445.
character of Revelation. Because of the use of metaphor, there is a difficulty

in understanding Revelation which requires a zealous effort on the part of
believers to overcome, while at the same time veiling it from unbelievers.
who would wish to violate it11.
Thomas has a pragmatic vision of signification. In the manner of
a modern understanding of this trope12, he sees the metaphorical as a
principle rather than the precise definition of a figure of speech: «Tradere
[…] aliquid sub similitudine, est metaphoricum»13. Metaphor seems to
indicate the figurative use of language in general14, or rather it constitutes
the principle of transfer common to all figures. It is important here to
go beyond the common conception of metaphor as ornament to see its
essence as a transfer between contexts. A metaphorical statement is based
on confiding a content (an idea) to a vehicle (an expression) which usually
designates another idea. Thus a metaphor is not only a lexical transfer but
11
Cf. ST I, q.1, a. 9, especially ad 2: «Et ipsa etiam occultatio figurarum utilis est,
ad exercitium studiosorum, et contra irrisiones infedelium. De quibus dicitur, Mt. 7, 6 :
‘nolite sanctum dare canibus’». Cf. also 1 Sent., Prol., d. 1, q 5, ad 3 : «Poetica scientia
est de his quoe propter defectum veritatis non possunt a ratione capi; unde oportet quod
quasi quibusdam similitudinibus ratio seducatur: theologia autem est de his quoe sunt
supra rationem; et ideo modus symbolicus utrique communis est cum neutra rationi
proportionetur». Cf. ST I-II, q 101, a.2, ad 2.
12
Our contemporaries have well described the working of metaphor: it consists
of an utterance which in the context of a discourse using an ‘impertinent’ predication,
suggests a new pertinence founded on analogy, and produces a new heuristic
description of the reality concerned. That is why Ricœur emphasises the relationship
between the notion of metaphor and that of model: in being founded on the postulate
of reference and on a generalised conception of denotation, it conceives metaphysical
truth by linking it to the metaphorical function of heuristic re-description of reality. Cf.
P. RICŒUR, La métaphore vive, Seuil, Paris 1975 and ID., «Narrativité, phenomenologie
et herméneutique», in Encyclopédie philosophique universelle, vol. 4,.L’univers
philosophique, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris 1989, pp. 63-71.
13
ST I, q. 1, a. 9,.s.c. Presenting something in the form of a similitude is
metaphorical.
14
For example, he applies a criteria of interpretation to it which he often uses about
the types of the old Testament: «Quae dicuntur metaphorice non oportet secundum
omnia esse similia». (ST III, q 2, a. 6, ad 1; q. 8, a.1, ad 2 ; q. 46, a.1, ad 1; q. 48, a. 3,
ad 1; q. 76, a. 6, ad 2). «Sed huiusmodi meaphoroe, vel symbolicoe locutiones, sunt
quasi quoedam velamina veritatis, ut Dionysius dicit…» (In I Sent. d. 34, q. 3 , qla 1,
arg. 3/ ad 3.)
«an event of signification which concerns the whole utterance»15. Whether

to seduce reason, hide higher truths from the vulgar regard or encourage
the zeal of believers in the quest for revealed truth, the metaphor is linked
to the central act discourse which is predication, and its fruitfulness is a
product the mental effort of interpretation that it requires.
The reason for this misunderstanding of Thomistic theological poetics
becomes clearer if we take into account the education of the leading
thinkers in the renewal of Thomistic philosophy. From the perspective of
the neoclassical rhetoric in which they were formed, for which “that which
is well understood is expressed clearly, and the words to do so arrive with
ease”16, they were able to see Thomas’s rejection of metaphor as figure
of speech, but were blind to the vital question which such an attitude
poses to the theologian: that of his faithfulness to the Revelation which
it is his mission to study, to clarify and to transmit. Indeed, if disputation
is the method par excellence of theological discourse, Revelation uses
symbolic expression abundantly and of necessity: it has to make manifest
the supernatural realities which human language, elaborated to express
created realities, would not be able adequately to name. How many pages
of ‘disputation’ would the theologian need to explain only one figure of
speech, resonant with many meanings, of the sacred poet? From the point
of view of faith, is there not a certain hubris in wanting to resolve the
enigmas of man, the world and especially of God otherwise than on the
lyre of the inspired poet?17 If these revealed images tell us something of
the infinite God, is not their theological ‘clarification’ fated to the nemesis
of an interminable discourse, which the unfinished nature of the enormous
Summa Theologiæ seems perhaps to illustrate?
15
Ph. ROUSSIN, «Figure», in Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences du langage,
Seuil, Paris: 1971, p. 490. Contemporary theories of metaphor aspire to develop a sort
of “pan-metaphorism”. Given the extension of the notion of metaphor well beyond the
simple figure of speech, it seems that all ‘literal’ expressions are only so as a result of
the forgetting their original metaphor. For Thomas himself, the similitudo, determinant
characteristic of metaphor, governs sensation as well as conceptualisation: the species
is a similitude of the thing, the conceptus is the similitude of the species. The most
elementary knowledge thus bears the print of metaphor.
16
«Ce que l’on conçoit bien s’énonce clairement, Et les mots pour le dire
arrivent aisément». (N. BOILEAU, Satires, Epîtres, Art poétique, Gallimard, Paris
1985).
17
Cf. Ps. 49,5b.
In fact, for whoever follows Aristotle, knowledge is a patiently

elaborated victory over a sensory given which is initially necessarily varied
and unclear. It may well be that metaphor –and even the ever metaphorical
clarification of metaphor– is essentially a part of this art of knowledge.
Thomas only distinguishes the intentions of poetry and of sacra doctrina
in order to affirm more clearly the pedagogical and religious –therefore
theological– value of the metaphorical process:
Ad primum dicendum quod poeta utitur metaphoris propter

repraesentationem: repraesentatio enim naturaliter homini
delectabilis est. Sed sacra doctrina utitur metaphoris propter
necessitatem, ut dictum est (in c.)18.
Poetry makes use of metaphors to produce a representation, for it
is natural to man to be pleased with representations. But sacred
doctrine makes use of metaphors as both necessary and useful.
There are different reasons for using either poetic or ‘doctrinal’

metaphors: on the one hand, simply the pleasure of representation; on the
other, the need for signification. It is the intention of the speaker, which
initially distinguishes between them.
But would it not be possible for a certain delectatio to accompany the
necessitas which Thomas describes? His description of the contemplative
life would lead us to believe so: it is the beauty of God that the
contemplative tries to transmit. For he who wishes to convey a spiritual
reality contemplated in itself, the use of metaphor therefore is not only an
aesthetic pleasure or a pedagogical imperative. But it is first necessary to
ask if such contemplation is indeed possible: the anthropological reason
for the use of similitudines (linked to the incarnate condition of humanity)
could not be overcome even by the most spiritual of theologians.
With his fine art of the manifestatio, Thomas actually mixes a subtle
metaphor with the answer.he gives to a second argument against metaphor.
That argument makes clear that sacra doctrina should be explained, be
manifested, rather than represented through figures of speech:
Haec doctrina videtur esse ordynata ad veritatis manifestationem:

unde et manifestatoribus eius praemium promittitur, Eccli. 24, 31:
18
ST I, q. 1, a. 9, ad 1.
qui elucidant me vitam aeternam habebunt. Sed per hujusmodi

similitudines veritas occultatur19.
Further, this doctrine seems to be intended to make truth clear.
Hence a reward is held out to those who manifest it: ‘They that
explain me shall have life everlasting’ (Eccl. 24:31). But by such
similitudes truth is obscured.
These are the nuances which Thomas brings in his answer:
Radius divinae revelationis non destruitur propter figuras sensibiles

quibus circumvelatur, ut dicit Dyonisius, sed manet in sua veritate
ut mentes quibus fit revelatio, non permittat in similitudinibus
permanere, sed elevet eas ad cognitionem intelligibilium ; et per
eos quibus revelatio facta est, alii etiam circa haec instruantur. Unde
et ea quae in uno loco Scripturae traduntur sub metaphoris, in aliis
locis expressius exponuntur20.
The ray of divine revelation is not extinguished by the sensible
imagery wherewith it is veiled, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i);
and its truth so far remains that it does not allow the minds of those
to whom the revelation has been made, to rest in the metaphors, but
raises them to the knowledge of truths; and through those to whom
the revelation has been made others also may receive instruction in
these matters. Hence those things that are taught metaphorically in
one part of Scripture, in other parts are taught more openly.
In order to express the intelligible in all its purity, Thomas uses a

metaphor, that of the ray of light!
Thus, while establishing the continuity between Holy Scripture and
theology in a unique sacra doctrina, he states at the same time that theology
should not proceed by metaphor, but that metaphor is a necessary mode of
expression for doctrina. As a faithful disciple of Aristotle and Dionysius
the Areopagite, Thomas tries not so much to eliminate metaphor, through
substituting a rational explanation for it, as to interpret it.
Certainly, Thomas «separates figures of speech from thought», even
if «it is true that the does use, with judicious restraint, a few beautiful
19
ST I, q. 1, a. 9, 2.
20
ST I, q. 1, a. 9, ad 2.
metaphors», of which Chenu gives an interesting list21. However, we

would be mistaken in ignoring the poetic choice in Thomas’s «sobriety»,
which «reduces to their rational coefficient the experimental expressions
and emotional elaborations of the mystics», which «in keeping with
the imperatoria brevitas of Latin, are crafted into the formulae of pure
philosophy». Finally, and above all, if Thomas «rejects all literary
fabrication»22, he cannot avoid the fiction which is intrinsic to the use
of language itself, that verbal ‘double’ which it attaches to everything it
designates. He may well have reproached Plato for «the wrong method
of teaching» by «speaking always through figures and symbols»23; it is
nonetheless the case that theological language uses numerous irreducible
images. «There would be a vast and original study to undertake in the work
of St Thomas Aquinas. It would be to search out all the familiar images, not
only the visual ones –of forms and colours– but every type of image that
a fine psychology would be able to discover. It would then be necessary
to classify them, appreciating their respective importance, and by an effort
of intuition, which would be almost a divination, restore a whole part of
the great Doctor’s soul. That would give us a biographical element which
would teach us more surely about his real life than any number of dates
and places in which historians try to enclose the minds of great men of the
past»24.
In the article.quoted here, Fr. Wébert used an enquiry into «pure spiritual
realities» –which one would expect to find «freed from the obsession of the
world of forms and colours»– as an argument a fortiori to establish the
irreducibility of metaphor: «Here is the list of the principal verbs used
to describe the operations of human intelligence: clarify, illuminate, see;
suffer, receive; seize, penetrate enter, reach; put together, separate, divide,
remove; be put in movement, offer, retreat, reflect; move, show, order;
measure, keep, be prevented, adhere; conceive, produce, conform, to be
in accord, to be in disaccord (manifestare per lumen, illustarre, videre,
illuminare; pati, recipere, apprehendere, penetrare, intrare, attingere;
21
médiévales – Vrin, Montréal – Paris [1950]4 1984, pp. 99-100.
22
Ibid.
23
«Plato habuit malum modum docendi. Omnia enim figurate docet et per
symbola; intendens aliud per verba quam sonet ipsa verba, sicut quod dixit animam
esse circulum» (Thomas Aquinas, De An. I, 1ectio 8).
24
WÉBERT, «L’image», p. 427.
componere, separare, dividere, abstrahere; moveri, tendere, convertere,

reflecti; movere, ostendere, ordinare; mensurare, conservare, impediri,
adhaerere; concipere, producere, conformari, consonare, dissonare,
etc.). Will all these images define that divine and elusive thing which is
intelligence?»25.
From a purely literary angle, the work of theology seems thus to open
into the space of fiction26 which metaphor installs. Wébert deconstructs Saint
Thomas’s expositions on intelligence by showing the irreducible metaphors
behind the characteristic themes of the Thomistic intellect: passivity, light,
art, reflection of the ray of light. However, he does not conclude that
these analyses are vain, on the contrary: «We should not reject absolutely
[these] analogies; they have at least drawn our attention to certain ways
of being»27. Continuing the study of Thomas’s doctrine of intelligence, he
shows that the work of theological discourse is «progressively to purify»
these images «of all sensory qualities», but that «however hard we may
try, if there exists a schema, even very attenuated, we are dealing with
imagination; […] if there is no schema, then what is there? Would that not
be the simple negation of all form of being? In fact the quotation which is
given as in De anima is the negative expression: Oportet quod intellectus
careat omni natura sensibili28. Must we be satisfied with, on the one hand,
an impoverished schema, and on the other, a negation? Is that all that our
effort of intelligence can reach?»29
25
Ibid., p. 433.
26
A fiction is commonly thought to be a construction which does not correspond
to anything in reality. However, on the epistemological plane, it is a theoretical entity
which is used without affirming its objective reality but which has explanatory value.
In psychology, the fictional structure appears where the real is treated as inconceivable.
The positive or negative connotations linked to ‘fiction’ work on its polysemy: to invent
a story can be considered a productive act of the creative imagination (and in that, the
poet as creator of possible worlds is, according to Aristotle, more of a philosopher
than a historian –fiction here is intimately linked to the very act of language, which
can announce the real which precedes it as well as anticipate that which follows; it can
invent a possible world participating in reality more essential than that of the empirical
world) but it can also be seen as the representation of a falsehood (from which comes
the Platonic condemnation of the poet as liar). Cf. J.-M. SCHAEFFER, Pourquoi la
fiction?, Seuil, Paris 1999.
27
28
Cf. Aristotle, De anima, III, 4, 429a20.
29
Let us look at the word «light» used in relation to God. In the

Commentary on the Sentences Saint Thomas asks if this use is metaphorical
or not: he replies yes, as far as the thing signified is concerned, but no,
as far as the reason for which it is employed is concerned. A term which
has a metaphorical meaning on the semantic level may also be granted
an «a-metaphorical» meaning on the semiotic level by relating it to the
intention in the act of predication of the speaker:
Secundum Augustinum (De Gen. ad litt., 4, 28) lux magis proprie

dicitur in spritualibus quam in corporalibus; et ita splendor non
continetur inter metaphorica; Sed dicendum quod lux quantum ad
rem significatam proprie est in corporalibus nec in spiritualibus nisi
metaphorice dicitur; sed quantum ad rationem a qua nomen imponitur,
quae consistit in manifestatione, magis proprie est in spiritualibus30.
According to St. Augustine (De Gen. ad litt., 4, 28) light more properly
refers to spiritual than corporal things, therefore splendour does not
have to be considered in terms of metaphorical expressions. However,
it has to be noted that the word light presenting a real thing, in fact refers
to corporal things and refers only to spiritual things through metaphor.
Whereas if it concerns the reason of its use based on manifestation, the
word is properly used referring to spiritual things.
Later, he takes up the question of light in more detail. After having

exposed the opposing views of Augustine and Ambrose, he analyses the
problem in the following way:
Dicitur enim lux in spiritualibus illud quod ita se habet ad

manifestationem intellectivam, sicut se habet lux corporalis ad
manifestationem sensitivam. Manifestatio autem verius est in
spiritualibus; et quantum ad hoc, verum est dictum Augustini quod
lux verius est in spiritualibus quam in corporalibus, non secundum
propriam rationem lucis, sed secundum rationem manifestationis,
prout dicitur in canonica Ioannis: «omne quod manifestatur lumen
est»; per quem modum omne quod manifestum est clarum dicitur,
et omne occultum obscurum. […] Dicendum est quod Deus dicitur
lux vera quantum ad veram naturam lucis. Per quem etiam modum
dicitur vitis vera, Jn 1531.
30
Thomas Aquinas, In I Sent., d. 22, q. 1, a. 4, expos.
31
In II Sent., d. 13, q. 1, a. 2.
In spiritual things light is called what in relation to intellectual

manifestation behaves as corporal light towards sensuous
manifestation. However, manifestation is more true in spiritual
things and referring to this Augustine says that light is more true
in spiritual than corporal things. It is true not because of the pure
reason of light but because of the reason of manifestation, which St.
John describes: “Everything that is revealed is light”, in this way by
light we understand what is revealed and by dark what is obscured.
[…] It has to be stated that God is called the true light in reference
to the truth from which He derives resemblance and not in reference
to the real nature of light. In the same way He is called the True Vine
(John 15).
A rapid reading will conclude: «light» in relation to God, is a metaphor

which designates the notion of manifestation, of auto-manifestation.
However, from a more modern, sceptical point of view, these explanations
of Thomas on the subject of metaphor remain insufficient: how can we
accept the proposition «manifestation is more true in spiritual things»
if on opening the Dictionnaire Latin-Français by Benoist and Goelzer
at manifestatio, we discover that this word comes from [manu *Festus
(<fendo, inus.)], which means «hit with the hand»; is that less metaphorical
than light? Finally, what does the relative pronoun in the expression «from
which [a quo] He derives resemblance» really mean if not «light»? Do
we have to repeat the refrain of the irreducibility of metaphor, that topos
of «deconstruction», and critique the subjugation of theology to language
games?
2. Irreducible
In a landmark study, Paul Ricœur tried to show how Thomas avoids

theological discourse from «foundering» in metaphor: to illustrate «the
distinctive feature of the semantic aim of speculative discourse»32 he aimed
to distinguish clearly between metaphor and analogy. It is worth spending
32
RICŒUR, La métaphore, p. 353. For more details, cf. O.-T. VENARD, «Note de
poétique théologique, saint Thomas d’Aquin et la métaphore» in D. MILLET-GÉRARD
(ed.), Le lis et la langue: Actes de la Journée d’étude du Centre de recherche “Poésie,
Poétique et Spiritualité”, en Sorbonne le samedi 17 mai 1997, Presses de l’Université
de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris 1998, 113-147.
some time on this study because it introduces the contemporary reader to

the metaphysical and mystical richness of the work of Saint Thomas.
In the questions on the names of God33, Thomism generally admits
two types of substantial predication of God: metaphorical substantial
predication and pure substantial predication. The former refers to names
which describe «mixed perfections», namely qualities encountered only in
creatures which cannot be applied to the infinite because they are essentially
limited and therefore do not exist in the same way, but virtually, in God; for
example, «to be a rock» represents a certain perfection, but «God is a rock»
is a metaphorical expression. The second refers to names which describe
pure perfections, first encountered in creatures (modus impositionis), but
able to be applied to the infinite because not limited to the creaturely: they
exist therefore firstly and formally in God. The perfection signified (res
significata) exists first in God, from where it is derived analogically in
creatures; such is, for example, goodness. In God, however, «the term
[designating the envisaged perfection] does not define, but leaves the thing
signified ‘as if not understood (ut incomprehensam) because in excess of
what is signified by the name (excedentem nominis significationem)»; in
God the res significata is in excess of nominis significatio.
Thus, because the names of perfections themselves are first applied to
the creatures which manifest them, their use when applied to God produces
a sort of «splintering of.the name.and its signification [which] corresponds
to the extension of meaning by which words, in metaphorical statements
can satisfy unusual attributions. In this sense, one can speak of an effect of
metaphorical meaning within analogy»34. In other words, the establishment
of a semantic community between God and man by analogy, so the very
possibility of a theological discourse, seems to be necessarily linked to the
metaphorical process.
Ricœur believes, however, that it is possible to transcend this
poetic fact.35 «The main source of all the difficulties is associated with
33
Cf. ST I, q. 13, a. 6.
34
RICŒUR, La métaphore, p. 356.
35
Against Derrida’s deconstructive claims, he remarks that «only half the work
has been done when a dead metaphor beneath a concept is revived; it must still be
proved that no abstract meaning was produced as the metaphor wore away». «Speaking
metaphorically of metaphor is not at all circular, since the act of positing the concept
proceeds dialectically from metaphor itself. […] So we see that the abyss-like effect.
produced by ‘this implication of what is to be defined in the definition’ is dispelled
the necessity of maintaining analogical predicate through participative

ontology. Indeed, analogy functions at the level of names and predicates
and exists in a conceptual order, but the condition of its possibilities
remains in relation to being. Participation is a general notion ascribed to the
group of solutions concerning the problem. Participating, in a certain way,
means to have partly or entirely what the other possesses. [However] is not
participation evidence that metaphysics has turned to poetry through its
lamentable recourse to metaphor, as Aristotle argues against Platonism?»36.
In theological analogy, thought is forced «to support the diversity of names
and concepts upon an ordering principle inherent in being itself and is
to assign the synthesis of unity and diversity required by discourse to
efficient causality»37. «It is this structure of the real, that prevents language
in the final analysis, from being completely dislocated. The similitude of
causality resists the dispersal of logical classes that ultimately would force
us to silence»38.
These observations allow us to understand more deeply the distinction
between pure perfections and mixed perfections: «If, however, this effect of
meaning really originates in the predicate operation itself, it is at the level
of predication that analogy and metaphor separate and intersect. One rests
on the predication of transcendental terms, the other on the predication of
meanings that carry their material content with them»39. «The intersection
of two kinds of.transference, following the descending order of being and
the ascending order of significations, the creation of composite modalities
of discourse in which the meaning.effects of proportional metaphor and.
transcendental analogy are added together. By means of this chiasmus,
the speculative verticalises metaphor, while the poetic dresses speculative
when.we discern the proper hierarchy with respect to the concept […] and its schema».
(RICŒUR, La métaphore, pp. 372-373).
36
Ibid., p. 347. A little later, the author invokes the heart of Thomistic metaphysics:
Being is created «less as form than as act, in the sense of actus essendi. Causality is
then no longer the resemblance of copy to model but the communication of an act, the
act of being at once what the effect has in common with the cause and that by reason
of which the effect is not identical to the cause. It is creative causality, therefore, that
establishes between beings and God the bond of participation that makes the relation
by analogy ontologically possible». Ibid., p. 350 (276).
37
Ibid., p. 352.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid., p. 356.
analogy in iconic garb. This criss-crossing is especially noticeable whenever

St. Thomas states the relation of eminence that is both thought as analogy
and at the same time as metaphor. […] So is the magnificent exercise of
thoughts which preserved the difference between the speculative discourse
and poetic discourse at the very point their greatest proximity»40.
According to Ricœur, it would seems that an effort of speculative
intelligence is sufficient to distinguish analogy from metaphor, in actually
thinking the process of eminence on the level of causality, in spite of the
metaphorical process necessary to its expression. However, can we truly
separate the effort of thought from the words which express it?
We also admire the refinement of Thomistic thought, but we do not
think that alone the theory of analogy answers the radical question posed
by deconstruction. On the level of the predicative operation itself, it is
claimed to be possible to distinguish thought from its expression; but is
the transfer of being «following the descending order» really presentable
to the intelligence without the words to express it? And from where can
these words come except the biblical text which speaks creation: on the
philosophical level, is the ‘participative’ conception of reality possible
without faith in a Creator God? On the linguistic level, in order to attribute
it to God, am I able to think purely any perfection if I cannot already
signify it in its mixed condition? To the extent to which it is spoken,
analogy involves a «hermeneutical leap»41 similar to the one that exists
between the different entities discovered at the end of the «ways leading
to the existence of God»42 –a «prime mover», a «first efficient cause»– and
similar to the one which allows the believer to pass from the letter to the
spirit in the interpretation of Scripture.
The attempt to go beyond metaphor by analogy forms a circle of Being
and Saying: «In the interplay of Saying and Being, when Saying is at the
40
Ibid., pp. 355-356.
41
This term is borrowed from G. DAHAN, L’exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en
Occident Médiéval, XIle-XIVe siècle, Cerf, Paris 1999, p. 435.
42
Cf. the conclusions of the five ‘proofs’ in ST I, q. 2, a. 3, c.: «aliquod primum
movens: et hoc omnes intelligunt Deum»; «aliquam causam efficientem primam:
quam omnes Deum nominant»; «aliquid quod est per se necessarium»; «aliquid quod
est causa esse et bonitatis et cuiuslibet perfectionis in rebus omnibus: et hoc dicimus
Deum»; «Ergo est aliquid intelligens, a quo omnes res naturales ordinantur ad finem,
et hoc dicimus Deum». The leap is emphasised by a clear impositio of the word ‘God’
on the entities resulting from the demonstrations.
point of being forced to silence by the force of the heterogeneity of being

and beings, Being itself revives Saying by means of underlying continuity
that provides an analogical field of meaning. But at the same time, analogy
and participation are placed in a mirror relationship, conceptual unity
and the unity of the real corresponding exactly to one another»43. Yet this
foundation of analogy and participation seems to have been undermined
by modern science and philosophy: «It is at the physical level, at the
precise point.where equivocal cause lends aid to analogical discourse, that
a circular relation was broken by the combined blows of Galilean physics
and Humean critique»44. Certainly, a good part of Saint Thomas’s ontology,
of his conception of causality or necessity, was related, for example, to the
existence and to the influence of celestial bodies which disappeared with
the advent of Galilean cosmology; and certainly Hume’s critique forbids
all naivety in the use of the principle of causality.
Nevertheless, the circle of Being and Saying supporting the truth of
analogy, in spite of its inalienable metaphorical aspect, was not developed
in, and therefore cannot be negated by, the objectified, quantified,
mathematical world of modern physics. Whoever reads Thomas’s texts on
the creation45 will discover that he does not conceive of it only in terms
of efficiency –which is not even reducible to the concept as used in post-
Galilean physics and philosophy– but also of materiality, of exemplarity
and of purpose. The «tendency» (Wébert) or the «work of thought»
(Ricœur) which orients the theological clarification of metaphor into
analogy takes place in a world founded as much on the revealed text as on
the observation of the physical universe, a world suffused with text, where
the experience of the senses, fully accepted following Aristotle, is fertilised
by an intelligence saturated by Scripture.
In our last example, in explaining the metaphor of light, Thomas
designated syntactically the principle of manifestatio present in light by a
relative pronoun («from which He derives resemblance») to distinguish it
from «the real nature of the thing». This relative pronoun is the grammatical
image of the ratio or verbum, those sparks of participatio which constitute,
at the intersection of theology, metaphysics and noetics, in the very act
of speaking, the semantic community between God and man. Is not the
43
44
Ibid.
45
Cf. ST I, q. 44.
verbum, the «Word» in God, the metaphor-source which authorises human

speech about God? That is what we learn from Scripture: God himself,
who creates by his Word all things and all intelligences, guarantees their
intelligibility and «sayability» as well as their consistency46. Aristotle
supports this way of understanding.
In order to grasp the linguistic permanence of metaphor in analogy
the difficulty, as Fergus Kerr said, is to show that our understanding of
meanings is usually a perception of meanings and not the result of inferences
from states of consciousness completely devoid of words47. Only metaphor
«allows us to see the world in a new way, and reinterpreting one domain
in terms of another, opens to us new worlds»48. Only metaphor gives us
access to realities which escape the grasp of physics: «the reference of
the metaphorical statement could itself be considered a split reference»49.
To take metaphor seriously –and is that not necessarily the attitude of
the theologian before the revealed Text?– leads us to abandon a purely
verificationist view of truth, related to positivism. Indeed, in a metaphysical
sense, at the intersection between poetics and ontology, «the reference of
the metaphorical statement exposes being as act and power»50. And it is
on the consent to the real existence of potential being which depends the
possibility of any solid apprehension of the supernatural.
Does that transform the «science of theology» into pure fideism?
In fact if we look at it closely, it is this being as act and power which
banal reality presents to man, and which he tries to express clearly with
simple words. Indeed, the semantic functioning of metaphor «extends
the dynamics of meaning», a «criss-crossing of acts, acts of predication
and acts of reference» which can be found even in the simplest utterance.
46
«In denomination, there is a reverse movement of exitus and of reditus, that
fundamental schema of Thomistic metaphysics. The names take their origin from
creatures in order afterwards to climb back to God; but the very meaning of a name
descends in some way from God towards creation». (L. MARTINELLI, Thomas d’Aquin
et l’analyse linguistique, Vrin – Institut d’études médiévales, Paris – Montréal 1963,
pp. 62-63.
47
F. KERR, Theology after Wittgenstein, Blackwell, Oxford 1986, read in the French
translation by A. LÉTOURNEAU, La Théologie après Wittgenstein: une introduction à la
lecture de Wittgenstein, Cerf, Paris 1991, p. 191.
48
ROUSSIN, «Figure», p. 490.
49
50
Ibid., p. 389.
This certainly relativises the common opposition between literal and

metaphorical meaning. Indeed, in ordinary language, «we master the
predicative use of abstract meanings only by relating them to objects which
we designate in a referential mode. This is possible because the predicate
is such that it performs its characteristic function only in the context of
the sentence, when it targets this or that relatively isolable aspect within a
determined referent». But, «conversely, we investigate new referents only
by describing them as precisely as possible. Thus the referential field can
extend beyond the things we are able to show and even beyond visible and
perceptible things». In this way, «predication and reference lend support
to one another whether we relate new predicates to familiar referents or
whether in order to explore a referential field that is not directly accessible,
we use predicative expressions whose sense has already been mastered»51.
Thus, signification appears less as a predetermined content to take or leave,
than as an inducing principle, a work which cannot be completed.52 «If it
is true that the meaning, even in its simplest form, is in search of itself
in the twofold direction of sense and reference, a metaphorical utterance
only carries this semantic dynamics to its extreme»53. Metaphor expresses
a vivid experience of reality in its dawning. «Would not signifying things
in act also be signifying potency, in the inclusive sense that stands for
every production of motion or of rest?»54. «In this way, the dynamism
of meaning allowed access to the dynamic vision of reality, which is the
implicit ontology of metaphorical utterance»55.
51
Ibid., p. 377. The author summarises thus the research of J. LADRIÈRE, «Discours
théologique et symbole», Revue des sciences religieuses, 49 (1975) 116-141.
52
«The act of signifying is an initiative that, as if for the first time, makes the
syntactic elements coming from a syntactical history reappropriated in this effort
produce truly new effect of meaning» (RICŒUR, ibid.).
53
Ibid., p. 378.
54
Ibid., p. 391. That is why metaphor is the means adapted to the revelation
of God, pure Act who manifests himself to Moses in the heart of the burning Bush.
(Exodus 3: 14). «Would the poet then be the one who perceives power as act and
act as power? He who can sees as whole and complete, what is beginning and in
process, who perceives every form attained as a promise of newness? In short, he who
reaches this immanent principle which exists in natural beings, either in potential or in
entelechy, which the Greeks call phusis?» (391-392).
55
Ibid., p. 376.
3. Revealing
Thus, the theological clarification of metaphor reveals what is

«miraculous» in the most everyday speech. In the ordinary process of
signification, two mental operations intersect, predication and reference,
so common that it is possible to forget about them. To the extent that it
must be spoken, the most banal knowledge is thus made up of old and new,
of the already seen and the invisible; an irreducible, transcendent fringe
illumines its positive content; the «literal» meaning is delimited by the
fiction of words and images.
Certainly, Saint Thomas often speaks of «literal meaning»; but in the
context of medieval «pansemiosis»56, the whole «literal meaning –reality
/ metaphorical meaning– apprehension of reality in expressive fictions» is
related to expressio (whose first realisation is intra-divine in the begetting
the Word, and the second divine, in creation through the Word). Modernity
has limited the domain of expressio only to expressive fiction which is
human, all too human –which goes from a literally metaphorical meaning
to one which might be called metaphorically literal, all the while imagining
that one can think (!) of reality as that which escapes expressio, hence
language.
One may well ask whether this evolution marks a real progress in
knowledge: we examine that question in detail in our book La langue de
l’ineffable: essai sur le fondement théologique de la métaphysique.57 Here,
let us note simply that modern man has become conscious in a disillusioned
way of the fact that the inner word, by which the mind apprehends reality, by
which reality also takes hold of the mind, is itself held by the exterior word
which renders it perceptible: sub similitudine – through metaphor? The
consent to language supposes and demands an act of faith on the part of the
reader or listener: «Less often observed is the act, the tenor of trust which
underlies, which literally underwrites the linguistic-discursive substance
of our Western, Hebraic-Attic experience. Often unregarded, because so
evidently resistant to formalization, is the core of trust whithin logic itself,
56
Cf. U. ECO, Art et beauté dans l’esthétique médiévale, Grasset, Paris 1997, pp.
101-107.
57
O.-T. VENARD, Thomas d’Aquin poète-théologien. Vol. 2: La langue de
l’ineffable : essai sur le fondement théologique de la métaphysique, Ad Solem, Genève
2004.
where «logic» is a Logos-derivative and construct. There would be no

history as we know it, no religion, metaphysics, politics or aesthetics as
we have lived them, without an initial act of trust […] This instauration of
trust, this entrance of man into the city of man, is that between word and
world»58.
Nowadays, many philosophers and historians believe that all thought
is provisional and that, in its instable fragility, it is hidden from itself and
offers no guarantee of universality or stability. «Such is not our view. We
believe on the contrary […] that every thought, every intuition, every
image, every rational discourse and every act of the intellect, holds together
the infinite and the form, which only coincide in the divine being. [...] To
study a system of thought like theology or rhetoric is not only to describe
an unstable collection of changing forms where the words themselves alter
their meaning, it is also among these flickering shadows to find God who
is all being or emptiness, but not a convention. It is there that the act of
reading or writing takes on all its importance»59.
This is not a case of verbal magic or autosuggestion. The metaphorical
utterance is not a pure experience of thought, because «this already
constituted meaning is raised from its anchorage in an initial field of
reference and cast into the new referential field which it will then work to
delineate. [...] Two energies converge here: the gravitational pull exerted by
the second referential field on meaning giving it the force to leave its place
of origin and the dynamism of meaning itself as the inductive principle of
sense. The semantic aim that animates the metaphorical utterance places
these two energies in relation, in order to inscribe a semantic potential
(itself in the process of being superseded) within the sphere of influence
and the second referential field to which it relates»60.
58
G. STEINER, Real Presences, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1989, p.
102. The author adds: «Only in the light of that confiding can there be a history of
meaning which is, by exact counterpart, a meaning of history. From Gilgamesh’s song
of mutinous sorrow over the fallen companion, from Anaximander’s riddling dictum
about the secret of equity in the cosmos and in the lawful lives of men almost (it is
this ‘almost’ which I am trying to situate and define) to the present, the relationship
between word and world, inner and outer has been held ‘in trust’. This is to say that it
has been conceived of and existentially enacted as a relation of responsibility».
59
A. MICHEL, Théologiens et mystiques au moyen âge: la poétique de Dieu,
V -XVe siècles, Gallimard, Paris 1997, p. 702.
e
60
All of this is undoubtedly verifiable and visible in poetic metaphors

where a human «ineffable» is expressed, so that everyone can feel the
validity, but how is it when the metaphor concerns God, as in doctrina
sacra? In this case, invoking «the mind reflecting upon itself»61 is not
sufficient. Its validity can only be verified by the auto-manifestation of the
Reality concerned. And precisely, to the question on what it is on which is
based the «capacity to refine the image» or the «work of thought» in the
speculative treatment of metaphor, our age believes it is possible to answer
by the auto-transcendence of only the «mind», but this discourse works
only at the price of personifying allegories such as «being», «speech»
or «language»62. However, does «language» exist without someone who
speaks? For the mediaeval mind, the first speaker is the divine Word, met
not only in studious or sacramental experience of the word of the gospels63,
but already in the simple exercise of natural intelligence: creation is the
first Word in which this God reveals himself, and intelligence, the first
created reflection of that Word64.
In his theological treatment of metaphor, Thomas Aquinas invites his
reader to an encounter: in theological poetics, the ‘gravitational pull’ of
61
«It can be shown that, on the one hand, speculative discourse has its condition
of possibility in the semantic dynamics of metaphorical utterance, and that, on the
other hand, speculative discourse has its necessity in itself, in putting the resources
of conceptual articulation to work. These are resources that doubtless belong to the
mind itself, but is the mind itself reflecting upon itself. In other words, the speculative
fulfils the semantic exigencies put to it by the metaphorical only when it establishes a
break marking the irreducible difference between two modes of discourse. Whatever
the subsequent relation of the speculative to the poetic may be, the first extends the
semantic aim of the second at the cost of a transmutation resulting from its transfer into
another zone of meaning». Ibid., p. 375.
62
«Language has the capacity for critical distance»; «language designates itself
and its other», «language is aware of itself in being». (Ibid., pp. 384-385.)
63
Thomas does not have to express it: «It is obvious that for those to whom the
work is addressed, the person and the work of Christ are their most intimate realities».
(A. PATFOORT, La Somme de saint Thomas et la logique du dessein de Dieu, Parole et
Silence, Saint-Maur 1998, p. 16).
64
Only faith allows the play of being to support the play of the word: for being
to guarantee the word – so that the interpreter of Scripture recognises the Christian
mysteries in the words which do not at first designate them; so that the metaphysician
identifies the prime mover in the God whose closeness he experiences; so that the
theologian recognises the qualities of this God in their distant created reflections –it is
necessary that God be manifested in the order of the word.
God exercises its force of attraction on an apparently human meaning.

However, can the secular reader of our time accept such a proposition,
where the noetic joins with the mystical?
Many years ago, Michel Foucault reminded us how much our
sensitivity to the life of language had been weakened in the West, with
the advent of the classical theories of representation founded on a sign
decomposable into clear and distinct ideas. Up until the 17th century, the
question asked was how to know that a sign really designated that which it
signified; after that time, the question asked was how can a sign be linked
with that which it signifies. «A question to which the classical period was
to reply by the analysis of representation, and to which modern thought
was to reply by the analysis of meaning and signification. But given the
fact itself, language was never to be anything more than a particular case of
representation (for the classical) or of signification (for us). The profound
kinship of language with the world was thus dissolved. The primacy of the
written word went into abeyance. And that uniform layer, in which the seen
and the read, the visible and the expressible, were endlessly interwoven,
vanished too. Things and words were to be separated from one another.
The eye was thenceforth destined to see and only to see, the ear to hear and
only to hear. Discourse was still to have the task of speaking that which
is, but it was no longer to be anything more than what it said»65. At the
intersection of the act of speech and of sight, the spiritual and mystical
things of which the theologian speaks are precisely those that man does
not see in this life except through reading about them, hearing them spoken
about and speaking about them –that is why the theological manifestatio
does not abolish the metaphor of the Scripture, but refines and extends it.
4. The dove of St. Thomas
The cultural context of Saint Thomas is rather the inverse of ours.

We have nearly been suffocated by positivism and our greatest poets
search the lost secret of the song of the world –and even physicists sense
a trace of it in the indeterminacy of their results. Thomas, on the other
hand, promulgated the coherence of an organised nature in a still epiphanic
65
M. FOUCAULT, Les Mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines,
Gallimard, Paris [1966]² 1979, pp. 57-58.
world. How could he, the Aristotelian observer of the facts of the natural
world, believe in miracles? It is not in renouncing the truth of rationality
and plunging into the imaginary world of symbol that Thomas achieves
the «hermeneutic leap» from the letter to the spirit but, paradoxically, by
following rationality to its final limits.
Another marker of the historical distance which separates us from
Aquinas is that what in our time in the interpretation of Scripture is treated
as metaphor, allegory or symbol, Thomas took quite literally. His faith,
and a common sense reaction against the excesses of a certain tradition
of allegorical interpretation, led him to practice the most literal reading
possible of the Bible, which has sometimes been seen as a sign of certain
shortsightedness on his part, not allowing him to appreciate words as
clearly as things. In reality, the effort of intelligence, which follows the
postulate of literalism, far from preventing penetration of the text, permits
the uncovering of its most profound meanings and applications. It is as if,
in this theological discourse, words, in the purified world of thought, acted
themselves as symbols.
Let us take an example. In the Tertia pars, Thomas looks at different
moments in the life of Christ; question 39 is consecrated to his Baptism.
While a modern exegesis would probably treat it as an element in the genre
of literary narrative, what does the mediaeval theologian make of the dove,
symbol66 of the Holy Spirit, which descends on Jesus? After enumerating
several arguments on the inappropriateness of such a descend by the
Holy Spirit (Videtur quod inconvenienter Spiritus sanctus super Christum
baptizatum dicatur in specie columbae descendisse)67, centred on its
inutility to the Word Incarnate, source Himself of all plenitude, Thomas
brings back the discussion to the unbreakable work of the Bible:
Sed contra est quod dicitur Lc 3,22: descendit Spiritus sanctus

corporali specie sicut calumba in ipsum.
66
Cf. A. FEUILLET, «Le symbolisme de la colombe dans les récits évangéliques
du Baptême», Recherches de science religieuse, 46 (1958) 524-544, or the article
«Peristera» of the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Stuttgart, 10 vol.,
vol. 6, pp. 63-72, especially the discussion on the reality of the «phenomenon of the
dove»: pp. 67-68.
67
It appears inappropriate to say that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in the
form of a dove during His Baptism.
In the Gospel according to Luke (Lk 3:22), we read: “The Holy

Spirit came down upon him in the bodily form of a dove.”.
The following article confirms Thomas’s literal reading: the dove of the
Baptism defends itself firmly against any purely metaphorical reduction:
Non decebat ut Filius Dei, qui est Veritas Patris, aliqua fictione
uteretur: et ideo non phantasticum sed verum corpus accepit. Et quia
Spiritus Sanctus dicitur Spiritus veritatis, ut patet Io. XVI, 13, ideo
etiam ipse veram columbam formavit, in qua appareret, licet non
assumeret ipsam in unitate personae68.
It was unbecoming that the Son of God, who is the Truth of the
Father, should make use of anything unreal; wherefore He took, not
an imaginary, but a Real body. And since the Holy Ghost is called
the Spirit of Truth, as appears from John 16:13, therefore he too
made a real dove in which to appear, though He did not assume it
into unity of person.
In his note to the translation of this article M-J. Nicolas also asks «why
such attachment to the reality of the dove which seems to have only a
symbolic role?» and answers that Thomas «followed a patristic tradition
at the same time as the reason given: a physical, objective reality was
necessary to signify clearly the distinct reality of the Holy Spirit and his
coming. Certainly, the Holy Spirit did not wait for his baptism to descend
on Jesus, but in his baptism it has its place and the Beloved Son represents
not only himself but us with him»69.
68
ST III, q. 39, a. 7, c. Note that the realism of the Incarnation is here the model
on which is built the fully meaningful reality of the historical details referred to in
the words of Scripture. (Cf. Ibid., s.c. «Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro
De agone christiano (c. 22): Neque hoc ita dicimus, ut Dominum Iesum Christum
solum verum corpus habuisse, Spiritum autem sanctum fallaciter apparuisse oculis
hominum: sed ambo illa corpora vera esse credimus»; Ibid., resp.: «Omnipotenti Deo
qui universam creaturam ex nihilo fabricavit, non erat difficile verum corpus columboe
sine aliarum columbarum ministerio figurare sicut non fuit.ei difficile.verum corpus
in utero Marioe sine virili semine fabricare: cum creatura corporea et in visceribus
feminoe ad formandum hominem et in ipso mundo at formandum columbam, imperio
Domini voluntateque serviret»). We have show in La langue de l’ineffable that the
semiotics of Thomas is entirely founded on this theological paradigm.
69
M.-J. NICOLAS, «Note 6» to Saint Thomas d’Aquin, Somme Théoloque, Cerf,
Paris 1986, vol. 4, p. 296.
In the heart of these theological arguments, a profound teaching appears

on the language of theology. It could have been a concern that Thomistic
interpretation, postulated on realism, could turn into fundamentalism.
But paradoxically, its literalism leads him to develop and unfold the
symbolism of the dove with a depth and subtlety which easily matches
that of modern research. After speculations on the type of union between
the Holy Spirit and the animal, on the need for the inauguration of every
spiritual mystery (here the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the faithful)
by a visible manifestation, Thomas analyses this symbolism in four points,
subdivided into profuse enumerations in his answer to the fourth argument,
which contrasted the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of fire70 to that
in form of a dove.
Without enumerating them all, Thomas borrows many of them from
different Church Fathers which he cites in Catena aurea71. The dove, a
creature simple and without guile, signifies the attitude required for baptism;
its traits make it a living image of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit; its
gentleness evokes the reconciliation which is the result of baptism, and
its tendency to live with others illustrates the construction of the unity of
the Church by this sacrament. Let us quote, for the beauty of the picture it
paints, the little eulogy which comprises the second point:
[Spiritus Sanctus in specie columbae apparuit super Christum

baptizatum] secundo ad designandum septem dona Spiritus Sancti,
quae columba suis proprietatibus significat. Columba enim secus
fluenta habitat, ut, viso accipitre, mergat se et exeat. Quod pertinet ad
donum sapientiae, per quam sancti secus Scripturae divinae fluenta
resident, ut incursum diaboli evadant. – Item columba meliora grana
eligit. Quod pertinet ad donum scientiae, qua sancti sententias sanas,
quibus pascantur eligunt. – Item columba alienos pullos nutrit.
Quod pertinet ad donum Consilii, quo sancti homines, qui fuerunt
pulli, idest imitatores diaboli, doctrina nutriunt et exemplo. – Item
columba non lacerat rostro. Quod pertinet ad donum intellectus,
quo sancti bonas sententias lacerando non pervertunt.haereticorum
more. – Item columba felle caret. Quod pertinet ad donum pietatis,
per quam sancti ira irrationabili carent. – Item columba in cavernis
petrae nidificat. Quod perinet ad donum fortiudinis, qua sancti in
plagis mortis Christi, qui est petra firma, nidum ponunt, idest suum
70
Cf. Acts 2, 3.
71
Thomas Aquinas, Cat. In Matth. 3, § 7.
refugium et spem. – Item columba gemitum pro cantu habet. Quod

pertinet ad donum timoris, quo sancti delectantur in gemitu pro
peccatis72.
Secondly, in order to designate the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost,
which are signified by the properties of the dove. For the dove dwells
beside the running stream, in order that, on perceiving the hawk, it
may plunge in and escape. This refers to the gift of wisdom, whereby
the saints dwell beside the running waters of Holy Scripture, in
order to escape the assaults of the devil. Again, the dove prefers the
more choice seeds. This refers to the gift of knowledge, whereby
the saints make choice of sound doctrines, with which they nourish
themselves. Further, the dove feeds the brood of other birds. This
refers to the gift of counsel, with which the saints, by teaching and
example, feed men who have been the brood, i.e. imitators, of the
devil. Again, the dove tears not with its beak. This refers to the gift
of understanding, wherewith the saints do not rend sound doctrines,
as heretics do. Again, the dove has no gall. This refers to the gift
of piety, by reason of which the saints are free from unreasonable
anger. Again, the dove builds its nest in the cleft of a rock. This
refers to the gift of fortitude, wherewith the saints build their nest,
i.e. take refuge and hope, in the death wounds of Christ, who is the
Rock of strength. Lastly, the dove has a plaintive song. This refers
to the gift of fear, wherewith the saints delight in bewailing sins.
How is such a passage from the literal-historic to be literary-

metaphorical possible? The third argument and its answer in the following
article indicate a response:
Proprietates cuiuslibet rei ducunt in cognitionem naturae illius rei.

Si ergo fuisset verum animal, proprietates columbae significassent
naturam veri animalis, non autem effectus Spiritus Sancti. Non ergo
vidatur quod illa columba fuerit verum animal73.
Further, the properties of a thing lead us to a knowledge of that
thing. If, therefore, this were a real dove, its properties would have
signified the nature of the real animal, and not the effect of the Holy
Ghost. Therefore it seems that it was not a real dove.
72
ST III, q. 39, a. 6, ad 4.
73
ST III, q. 39, a.7, 3.
Against this univocal description of the structures of the real, Thomas

affirms the real polysemy of created beings (in this case the dove); reality
is naturally symbolic:
Ad tertium dicendum quod proprietates columbae.eodem modo

ducunt ad significandum naturam columbae et ad designandos
effectus Spiritus Sancti. Per hoc enim quod columba habet tales
proprietates, contingit quod columba significat Spiritum Sanctum
(a. 5, ad 4)74.
The properties of the dove lead us to understand the dove’s nature
and the effects of the Holy Ghost in the same way. Because from the
very fact that the dove has such properties, it results that it signifies
the Holy Ghost.
For Thomas, all beings carry in themselves divine meanings, precisely

because they are created by God. It is the logical consequence of the vision
of faith: far from suspecting Scripture of a lie in moving from the letter to
the spirit, Thomas works from a theory of signification which permits the
inspired word to be entirely anchored in referential reality. In the light of
Scripture, there is no essential difference between simple “nomination”
and «figurative nomination». One and the other consist of giving a name to
a real thing (or to its concept?) which is not completely understood (even
the essence of a mosquito remains mysterious to man). The name in its
literal use already has a relation of sign or figure to the reality it designates.
Seen from another angle, or in another mode, the real could receive another
name (for example, concerning the Pauline metaphor of Christ-rock,
«Petra autem erat Christus»75, Thomas notes: «The rock already existed
as creature, and it is through the mode of its action that it was invested
with the name of Christ, whom it signified»76. Before receiving any name,
simply because it is created, reality already has meaning.
Furthermore, God is capable of creating realities only for the sake of

meaning:
74
ST III, q. 39, a.7, ad 3.
75
In 1 Cor., 10, 4.
76
ST III, q. 39, a.6, ad 2: «Illa enim iam erat in creatura et per actionis modum
nuncupata est nomine Christi, quem significabat».
Illa autem columba ad hoc tantum significandum repente extitit et

postea cessavit, sicut flamma quae in rubro apparuit Moysi77.
Whereas this dove came suddenly into existence, to fulfil the
purpose of its signification, and afterwards ceased to exist, like the
flame which appeared in the bush to Moses.
Is faith then to be reduced to the adhesion to a fiction? The fiction

which Thomas rejects is that of the gratuitous or misleading artefact; but
his way of understanding the passage about the dove, with a radical faith
in the historically and referentially literal meaning, could be analysed
in literary terms as an agreement to the «fictional contract». It seems
that faith fulfils fiction as grace fulfils nature: the act of faith leads the
theological word from language to reality. Nevertheless, article 6 opens
into an abundant expression of the symbolism of the dove which threatens
to dissolve it into allegory, to the point that the following article begins by
doubting its reality: «Videtur quod illa columba in qua Spiritus Sanctus
apparuit non fuerit verum animal»78. Therefore, Thomas’s attitude is not
one of credulity: reason is given all its due in theological discourse, but,
understanding itself as speaking, it roots itself in faith in a Word which
encompasses the real as the cause transcends its effect.
Moreover, it is a profound intuition to draw a parallel between the
appearance of the dove and the episode of the burning Bush. We find
several times mention of the bush Moses saw burning without burning
up: it is the epiphanic sign of the God whose name is a tautology («I am
who I am»), who thereby seals the use of language for man to name God
in trust, in a non-verificationist manner. The dove is a reality which links
man to God, the baptised (of whom it symbolises the simplicity) and the
Holy Spirit (of whom it symbolises the gifts): it finally appears as a true
demonstratio of the Spirit79.
It is clearly stated in the article: the responsio takes up the idea of
Chrysostom, according to which the Baptism of Christ prefigures that of
all Christians: «What took place with respect to Christ in His baptism is
connected with the mystery accomplished in all who were to be baptized
77
Ibid.
78
ST III, q. 39, a. 7, incipit.
79
ST III, q. 39, a. 6, ad 4 in fine.
afterwards»80. Since they receive the Spirit in this sacrament – unless

they receive it insincerely (nisi ficti accendant) – it was necessary that
the Spirit was concretely manifested on this occasion. The dove is an
exact representation of the baptised; Thomas compares the attitude of the
baptised toward holy Scripture to the behaviour of the dove:
Columba enim secus fluenta habitat, ut, viso accipitre, mergat se et

exeat. Quod pertinet ad donum sapientiae, per quam sancti secus
Scripturae divinae fluenta resident, ut incursum diaboli evadant (ad
4).
For the dove dwells beside the running stream, in order that, on
perceiving the hawk, it may plunge in and escape. This refers to the
gift of wisdom, whereby the saints dwell beside the running waters
of Holy Scripture, in order to escape the assaults of the devil.
We are in the centre of the circle of the argument: Thomas symbolises

in the dove his own attitude to the text in which it figures; it is because he
is himself that dove plunged in the Scripture and gifted with the seven gifts
of the Spirit that he can explain the dove of the Baptism and escape the
assaults of the diabolos in the divine symbolon of words and things present
in Scripture.
The dove of Saint Thomas is emblematic of the statute accorded to
the revealed text in a theological discourse which gives it a full ontological
depth. It is a particularly striking example81, but it would be possible to
analyse in a similar way most of the biblical themes or metaphors ‘explained’
by Thomas. It is difficult to resist citing here the lovely and significant
parallel between the grace of God and the rapidity of the dromedaries,
which makes worthwhile the willingness to entertain the plausibility of a
literal reading of the text of the visit of the Magi:
Magi visa stella iter arripientes, longissimum iter in tredecim diebus

peregerunt, partim quidem adducti divina virtute, partim autem
dromedarium velocitate82.
80
ST III, q. 39, a. 6, c.
81
One could develop it further: cf. Augustus Varenius, De Columba super capita
Christi Iordane visa … disputatio philolologico-theologica, Kilia, Rostochiensis 1671,
which contains the previous literature starting with Pliny the Elder.
82
ST III, q. 36, a. 6, ad 3.
The Magi set off as soon as they saw the star, and accomplished a
journey of very great length in thirteen days, owing partly to the
Divine assistance, and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries.
Here realism joins the imagination, and piety the practical! Even when
he allows himself a more literary criticism his practice (on the subject of the
“opened heavens” at the Baptism of Christ, to take the nearest example) is
to respect the integrity of the biblical phrase throughout his analysis, which
unfolds within the mental space which the text itself has opened. This is how
Thomas’s writing is magnetised by Scripture, which makes it so captivating;
this is also the sublimity of theological discourse, when the inspired text
comprehends the one who reads it before he himself can comprehend it.
Conclusion
Let us now conclude these remarks on metaphor in Aquinas. Our aim

in this essay has not been to value literary expression at the expense of
speculative theology, but to give to each its due through comparing what
they have in common: a certain approach to the real, a certain way of using
language. It has thus been important to recognise the literary dimension of
theological language and theological dimension of literary language. For that,
a serious engagement with what one could call the scriptural metaphysics of
the Bible proves to be pivotal. Thomist commentators83, sharing Thomas’s
faith, but with the steadily more utilitarian vision of language developed
during the last seven centuries, have for a long time tried to defend the
coherence of an atemporal philosophy. Ignoring their own assumptions,
marked (if only by reaction) by rationalism and positivism, they.have read
his texts mostly on the level of thought. Following the hermeneutic turn that
we have touched upon84, the Christian anthropology underlying theological
83
For more insight on these authors, cf. H. DONNEAUD, «Histoire d’une histoire.
M.-D. Chenu et La théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle», Mémoire dominicaine, 4
(1994) 139-175, esp. 149-156.
84
Whoever believes that he can reach the other horizon, that of the past, without
taking into account his own horizon inevitably brings into his supposedly objective
reconstruction of the past subjective perspectives of appreciation. (H.-R. JAUSS,
Ästhetische Erfahrung und literarische Hermeneutik. Band 1: Versuche im Feld
der ästhetischen Erfahrung, Fink, München 1977. French translation: Pour une
herméneutique littéraire, Gallimard, Paris 1988, pp. 26-27).
research has re-examined the historical dimension so essentially linked to

the Incarnation of God, which founds it: man reaches the universal in the
particular, and touches eternity in history. That is probably what Servais
Pinckaers sensed when he described the need continually to make a
connection between the Summa and the Bible85. In so doing, he re-opened
another direction to the reading of Thomas’s work; to explore, to think more
deeply, through Thomas, the truth of the Christian revelation.
On the other hand, the theological poetics of metaphor reminds us of a
more humble and more profound conception of the being of language. Better
still: it teaches us that we can only believe in words because God himself
has guaranteed their use. It does more than disclose the common process
of signification: it establishes it, by situating the ontology of language thus
discovered in a divine paradigm. The sacred text, from which theology
derives its source, through multiple literary genres, is characterised by the
meeting of reality and symbol in «sacred history»– the preaching of Christ,
his identity even, is founded upon such a meeting.
Finally, it is the experience of illumination by the Word which appears
in the metaphorical opening of theological discourse: natural illumination
giving intelligence to every man who comes into the world, prefiguring
the baptismal illumination and entry into the world of grace. Thus, the
Christian faith accomplishes the act of confidence in language and literary
fiction, as Christ, Word of God made flesh, claimed to accomplish the text
of Scripture86. The divine Word magnetising the human does not come
elsewhere but home. Since the Gospel of John,87 an intimate relation has
been established between the act of speaking and the Incarnation, the act of
reading and the Resurrection. The reading of and commentary on the Bible
eventually creates a profound mental link between the Paschal mystery
itself and the presence of spirit in the letter, the appearance of meaning
in the text88. Something of the theandric mystery resonates in the reading
of the text. Whoever understands it is able to feel the spiritual delectatio
introduced by metaphor into doctrina sacra.
85
Cf. S. PINCKAERS, Le renouveau de la morale. Études pour une morale fidèle à
ses sources et à sa mission présente, Téqui, Paris 1978, pp. 61-75.
86
Cf. Matth. 5: 17-18.
87
Cf. John 1: 1-18.
88
Cf. ST I, q. 27 and the «Note explicative [6]» by H.-F. DONDAINE in the Latin-
French edition in Revue des Jeunes, ‘La Trinité, 1’ (1943), pp. 161-162; ScG IV, c. 11 ;
De pot., q. 2, a. 1 and q. 9, a. 5.
TIMOTHY F. BELLAMAH, OP*
THE INTERPRETATION OF A CONTEMPLATIVE. THOMAS’

COMMENTARY SUPER IOHANNEM
What contributions did Thomas Aquinas’ commentary on John’s

Gospel make to the Church’s understanding of that book? Does this
commentary lend support to Henri de Lubac’s remark that in his exegesis,
Thomas is «so often the simple and faithful echo, even in the details, of a
long tradition»1. Any attempt at a reply must begin with a consideration of
the commentary’s historical context and sources, as well as an examination
of Thomas’ exegetical methods. This study comprises two sections. The
first is historical, concerning the Johannine commentorial tradition in the
Medieval Latin West, the origins of Thomas’ commentary, the sources at his
disposition, and this work’s diffusion in manuscript and print. The second
is theoretical, focusing on the principles and techniques Thomas brings to
bear in his prologue to the commentary, his employment of sources, and
his literal and spiritual expositions of the Biblical text. What comes into
view is a commentary that takes stock of the tradition in which it stands, all
the while advancing it in remarkably innovative ways.
1. Historical background
Late medieval Gospel commentaries
In the prologue to his Latin translation of John Chrysostom’s Homelies

on John’s Gospel (ca. 1173), Burgundio of Pisa offered two reasons for
his undertaking. The first was his previous translation of Chrysostom’s
commentary on Matthew; the second was the scarcity of expositions on John.
Burgundio added that he had found no continuous exposition of the Gospel,
*
Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception, Dominican House of Studies,
487 Michigan Ave., NE Washington, D.C., 20017; Leonine Commission, 20 rue des
Tanneries, Paris, France 75013; bellamahop@dhs.edu.
1
«Comme il lui arrive si souvent, saint Thomas est le simple et fidèle écho,
jusque dans le détail, d’une longue tradition», H. DE LUBAC, Exégèse médiévale 1, Les
quatres sens de l’écriture, Éditions Montaigne, Lyon 1959, p. 301.
230 TIMOTHY F. BELLAMAH, OP
apart from Augustine’s2. Why he left Alcuin’s commentary unmentioned

must on the present evidence remain a matter of speculation. Less difficult
to explain is his unawareness of Rupert of Deutz’s commentary, whose
editor, Rhabanus Haacke, noted that Burgundio could not have known of the
work due to its limited diffusion3. To these oversights, more recent studies
have added a few other overlooked commentaries4. All the same, Beryl
Smalley was basically right in drawing attention to the remarkable change
in status of all the four Gospels in the eyes of medieval commentators from
the early 12th to the 13th centuries5. By the time Thomas Aquinas lectured
on John, the situation described by Burgundio had changed considerably.
Complete commentaries had been provided by Peter Comestor, Stephen
2
«… explanationem Euuangelii sancti Iohannis Euuangeliste a beato Iohanne
Crisostomo Constantinopoleos patriarcha mirabiliter editam, de greco in latinum uertere
statui sermonem, tum quia eiusdem sancti Iohannis Crisostomi commentationem supra
Euuangelium sancti Matthaei Euuangeliste iam pridem beate memorie tertio Eugenio
Pape integre translatam tradideram; tum quia huius Iohannis euangeliste expositionis
penuria apud Latinos maxima erat. Nullum enim alium nisi sanctum Augustinum
eum continue exponentem inueni.»; Burgundio of Pisa, mss. Arras, Bibliothèque
municipale 1083, f. 1ra; Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 1782, f. 1ra;
Vaticano, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Ottob. lat. 227, f. 1ra; partially quoted by P.
CLASSEN, Burgundio von Pisa: Richter, Gesandter, Übersetzer, Sitzungsberichte der
Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-hist. Klasse 1974, 4, Carl Winter
Verlag, Heidelberger 1974, p. 84; quoted by B. SMALLEY, The Gospels in the Schools
c. 1100 – c. 1280, Hambledon, London 1985, p. 1. On Burgundio’s translations, see
also by SMALLEY in the same work, p. 129-130; G. VUILLEMIN-DIEM, R. M. RAHED,
«Burgundio de Pise», Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 64 (1997)
136-198; C. H. HASKINS, Studies in the History of Medieval Science, second ed.,
Harvard UP, Cambridge 1927, p. 206-209; J.-P. BOUHOT, «Les traductions latines
de Jean Chrysostome du Ve au XVIe siècle», in G. CONTAMINE (ed.), Traductions et
traducteurs au Moyen Âge, Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
(CNRS), Paris 1989, pp. 31-39.
3
R. HAACKE, «Prolegomena», Ruperti Tuitiensis, Commentaria in euangelium
sancti Iohannis, Ed. by R. HAACKE, Brepols, Turnhout 1969, p. vii (CCCM, 9), quoted
in SMALLEY, Gospels in the Schools, p. 1.
4
See A. ANDRÉE, «Anselm of Laon Unveiled. The Glossae super Iohannem
and the Origins of the Glossa ordinaria on the Bible», Mediaeval Studies, 73 (2011)
217-240; «The Glossa ordinaria on the Gospel of John. A Preliminary Survey of the
Manuscripts with a Presentation of the Text and its Sources», Revue bénédictine, 118
(2008) 109-34, 289-333.
5
«Custom changed during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The gospels took
a more central place in the syllabus», SMALLEY, Gospels in the Schools, p. 2.
THE INTERPRETATION OF A CONTEMPLATIVE 231
Langton, Joichim of Fiore, Alexander of Hales, Hugh of St. Cher, Guerric

of St. Quinten, Bonaventure, William of Alton, and Albert the Great6, to
name only those by authors whose names are well known. It is also worth
noting that these are generally among the most highly developed of these
authors’ commentaries. Such is the case with Thomas, whose commentary
on John remains a particularly rich source for his theological speculation,
notably on the Trinity, the Incarnation and grace. Generally counted among
his finest commentaries, it is far more expansive than his expositions of the
prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah7.
The origins of the work
As does the Lectura on Matthew, the work now known as the Lectura
on John originated in a reportatio, that is, a reporter’s record produced
from both memory and notes taken during the lecture. In this case, we
know the name of the reporter, Thomas’ secretary Reginald of Piperno, and
6
While the final redaction of Albert the Great’s commentary on John has yet
to be assigned a precise date, the present evidence points to a terminus ad quem
sometime after 1264. An extensive review of the evidence for this dating is given by B.
SCHMIDT, «Prolegomena», Alberti Magni Super Matthaeum, Institutum Alberti Magni
Coloniense, Köln 1987, p. xiii–xvi (Opera omnia, t. XXI/1). He concludes: «terminum
ad quem circa annum forte 1264 statuendum», p. XVI. For a concise sketch of Albert’s
biography, see J. WEISHEIPL, «Albert the Great and Medieval Culture», The Thomist,
44 (1980) 481–501.
7
Thomas’ commentaries on Isaiah and Jeremiah probably date to the period
following his arrival in Paris 1251 or 1252 as a bachelor studying under the tutelage of
Albert the Great. See A. OLIVA, Les Débuts de l’enseignement de Thomas d’Aquin et
sa conception de la sacra doctrina, Vrin, Paris 2006, pp. 207-224. As is typical of the
works of a bachelor, they are cursory presentations of the literal sense, accompanied by
the interpretations of the Glossa ordinaria, but containing little spiritual interpretation
or theological speculation. By contrast, the commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Lamentations and Ezekiel by Thomas’ Dominican contemporary William of Alton
are evidently the works of a master, pervaded as they are by spiritual interpretation
and the resolution of questions. But William’s corpus, too, bears witness to the
relative importance of Gospel commentaries at the time, as his commentaries on the
prophets are quite simple by comparison with his commentary on John’s Gospel. See
T. BELLAMAH, The Biblical Interpretation of William of Alton, Oxford University Press,
New York 2011, pp. 216-221.
of his patron, the provost of Saint-Omer, Adenulph de Anagni8. Whereas

the report of the Lectura on Matthew was described in the early catalogues
(Stams) as defective9, the latter was described as better than any other to
be found (quae non invenitur melior). For the Marrietti editor Raphael Cai
this was an apology for its defects, but Marie-Dominique Chenu and other
scholars have more reasonably read the remark as an acclamation of the
transcript’s unsurpassed quality10.
Also disputed is the editorial role exercised by Thomas. By the accounts
of his early biographers Ptolomy of Luca and Bernardo Gui, Thomas wrote
the first five chapters and personally revised the rest. But this possibility
would appear to be excluded by Reginald’s account of his own work:
These are the things that I, Brother Reginald of Piperno of the Order
of Friars Preachers, at the request of certain colleagues and especially
by the order of the Rev. Lord Provost of Saint-Omer, have harvested
from Brother Thomas Aquinas, as someone gathering grapes after a
harvest, I hope without loss11.
8
Nephew of Pope Gregory IX, Adenulph of Anagni was a student of Thomas
who eventually became a master at Paris (1282-1285), was elected bishop of Paris
in 1288, but died in 1289 before being ordained, cf. L.-J. BATAILLON, «La diffusione
manoscritta e stampata dei commenti biblici di Tommaso d’Aquino», Angelicum, 71
(1994) 579-590 (589).
9
«lectura quae defectiva est», Laurentii Pignon Catologi et Chronica, accedunt
Catalogi Stamensis et Upsalensis Scriptorum O. P., G. MEERSSEMAN (ed.), Monumenta
ordinis fratrum praedicatorum historica XVIII, 24, n. 16. The written record of Thomas’
lectures on Matthew results from two reports, neither of which is complete; see J.-P.
RENARD, «La Lectura super Matthaeum V, 20-48 de Thomas d’Aquin», Rechearches
de Théologie ancienne et médiévale, 50 (1983) 145-190; H. SHOONER, «La Lectura in
Matthaeum de S. Thomas. Deux fragments inédits et la Reportio de Pierre d’Andria»,
Angelicum, 33 (1956) 121-142.
10
M.-D. CHENU, Introduction à l’étude de saint Thomas d’Aquin, Institut
d’édtudes médiévales – Vrin, Montréal – Paris 1950, p. 211; J. WEISHEIPL,
«Introduction», Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Magi Books, Albany 1980,
p. 1; J.-P. TORRELL, Initiation à Saint Thomas d’Aquin. Sa personne et son œuvre,
Cerf, Fribourg (Suisse) – Paris 1993, p. 290; BATAILLON, «La diffusione manoscritta
e stampata», pp. 588-589.
11
«Hec ergo sunt que ego frater Reginaldus de Piperno ordinis predicatorum ad
preces quorundam sanctorum et specialiter ad mandatum reuerendi patris prepositi
sancti adomari, post fratrem thomam de aquino. quasi qui colligit racemos <post>
uindemiam utinam non diminute collegi ubi de bene dictis <deo> inspiranti laudes.
magistro dicenti grates a legentibus referantur. Sed de minus bene dictis michi tantum
In view of these remarks, Jean-Pierre Torrell has qualified the entire

text as a reportatio, produced, revised and amplified by Reginald12. Indeed,
examination of the commentaries of contemporary authors transmitted by
reportatio (Guerric of Saint Quentin, Peter Tarantaise, William of Alton,
William of Luxi, et al.) shows that the style of Thomas’ commentary on
John is unusually refined. For all that, there is no reason to suppose that
Reginald exercised authorship in a strict sense. His own writings show
none of the originality or speculative depth in evidence throughout this
work. There is much that we do not know about the production of the
reportatio and the extent to which reports were normally revised, either by
masters or students, but we have good reason to doubt that Reginald made
a substantive contribution to this work’s content13.
Less controversial is the traditional dating of the work to Thomas’
second Paris regency, 1268/69-1271/72, the period of his most prodigious
literary productivity14. Information on the dates of the other works of the
attribuendis ueniam labor et <im>peritia impetrent. Caritas uero quia labor assumitur
orationum suffragia merentur», ms. Amiens, Bibliothèque Municipale 78, f. 129ra.
From another manuscript, this text has been presented by R.-A. GAUTHIER, «Quelques
questions à propos du commentaire de S. Thomas sur le De anima», Angelicum 51
(1974) 456, quoted by TORRELL, Initiation, p. 289.
12
TORRELL, Initiation, p. 290; cf. BATAILLON, «La diffusione manoscritta e
stampata», p. 589.
13
On the reportatio, see L.-J. BATAILLON, «Problèmes d’authenticité des reportations»,
in Sermones, Sancti Thomae de Aquino, ed. Leonina, t. XLV, 1, pp. 15-17. See also N.
BÉRIOU, L’avènement des maîtres de la Parole. La prédication à Paris au XIIIe siècle,
2 vols., Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, Paris 1998, vol. I, pp. 73-131. As she puts it:
«Toute réportation est donc un document singulier, dont on ne peut jamais préjuger de la
fidélité aux paroles qu’elle prétend rapporter. Néanmoins, les conditions particulières de
la production des réportations rédigées dans le milieu parisien engagent à accorder une
relative confiance à ces documents, si imparfaits soient-ils», p. 104. In a lucid account of
the manifold problems the reportatio presents to the study of texts, J. HAMESSE remarks:
«on ne peut jamais considérer les réportations comme des vestiges pleinement authentiques
du texte d’un auteur», «Reportatio et transmission des Textes», in M. ASZTALOS (ed.), The
Editing of Theological and Philosophical Texts from the Middle Ages, Almquist and Wiksell
International, Stockholm 1986, pp. 11-34 (17). See also, by the same author «La méthode
de travail des réportateurs», Medioevo e Rinascimento, 3 (1989) 51–67; «Approaches to
the Study of Mediaeval Sermons», Leeds Studies in English, 9 (1980) 19-35; and SMALLEY,
The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, Oxford 1940 (3rd ed. 1983), pp. 201-207.
14
From the three and a half years of Thomas’ second Paris regency (1268/69-
1271/72), we may list the following works: Super Matthaeum, Super Iohannem, a
period offers good reason to narrow the time frame to 1270-1271. A decade
had passed since Thomas had consulted the early ecumenical councils’
documents at the Papal libraries at Rome and Orvieto15. By then he had
read extensively the originals of the Latin and Greek Fathers as well as the
recent translations of Aristotle. Moreover, his previous work on the Catena
aurea on John provided the basis for his citations of the Latin and Greek
Fathers in this work16.
Sources
The commentorial tradition to which Thomas’ Super Iohannem

belongs incorporates varied and often obscure sources, pagan and
Christian, Latin and Latin translations of Greek originals, far too many
to be listed here. Yet its origin lies in one conspicuous work, Augustine’s
Tractatus17, which had been the standard reference for medieval Latin
commentaries on John. Among these, the most frequently consulted
possible course on Romans, the entirety of the Secunda pars of the ST and q. 1-25 of
the Tertia pars, one dozen commentaries on Aristotle, the disputed questions De malo,
De virtutibus, and De unione Verbi incarnati, the Super Librum de causis, as well as
about fourteen opuscula. TORRELL remarks, «Si les probabilités historiques –et parfois
des certitudes– n’étaient aussi fortes, ce n’est pas seulement l’étonnement que cette
liste provoquerait, mais bien l’incrédulité», Initiation, p. 351.
15
Before Thomas’ consultations of the documentary evidence, the Latin West
had only derivative knowledge of the decrees of the early councils. For extensive
documentation of Thomas’ citations of the first ecumenical councils, see M. MORARD,
«Thomas d’Aquin lecteur des conciles», Archivum franciscanum historicum, 98 (2005)
211-365. Still worth consulting is the pioneering study of G. GEENEN, «En marge du
Concile de Chalcédoine. Les textes du Quatrième Concile dans les œuvres de Saint
Thomas », Angelicum, 29 (1952) 43-59. Geenen draws attention to the observation
of B. KLUMPER, et al., editors of the Quaracchi edition of the Summa fratris Alexandri
of that work’s lack of citations of Chalcedon, «Prolegomena», Alexander of Hales,
Summa Theologica, t. IV (liber tertius), Quaracchi 1948, p. xc.
16
See C. CONTICELLO, «San Tommaso ed i padri. La catena aurea super Ioannem»,
Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age, 65 (1990) pp. 31-92 (79-
86); G. BERCEVILLE, «Les commentaires évangéliques de Thomas d’Aquin et Hugues
de Saint-Cher», in L.-J. BATAILLON – G. DAHAN – P.-M. GY (eds.), Hugues de Saint-
Cher, bibliste et théologien, Brepols, Turnhout 2004, pp. 173-196.
17
Augustine of Hippo, In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus, Ed. by R. WILLEMS,
Brepols, Turnhout 1954 (CCSL, 36).
were the Commentaria by the Carolingian author, Alcuin of York18, the

anonymous Glossa ordinaria on John compiled early in the 12th century,
and the Postille in totam Bibliam compiled under the direction of Hugh
of St. Cher in the 13th. Though Augustine was the principle source for
medieval exegetes to the end of the 12th century, during the 13th, John
Chrysostom’s Homelies on the Gospel of John also commanded their
attention, thanks to the diffusion of the Latin translation of this work by
Burgundio of Pisa. Rather than trying to homogenize the interpretations
of the two doctors, commentators generally recognized their differences
and presented them either as complementary or as alternatives. This
development appears clearly enough in the Postilla of Hugh of St. Cher,
as well as the commentaries of Guerric of Saint-Quentin, Bonaventure
(d. 1274) and William of Alton (d. c. 1270).
But Thomas introduces a new source, namely, Origen, whose
commentary had previously had little influence in the Latin West19.
Thomas does not consider him an auctoritas, a doctor whose statements
cannot be set aside lightly, and he often presents his interpretations
as erroneous or even heretical. But more often he presents them
favorably, juxtaposing them to those of Augustine and Chrysostom,
adjudicating between the alternatives only when they appear to be
in conflict. To be sure, not all of the quotations Thomas attributes to
Origen are his. Several originate in the 9th century commentary of John
Scotus Eriugena, whose Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis was
often confused during the Middle Ages with Origen’s commentary20.
The rest are authentic.
The provenance of these borrowings, however, has defied precise
identification, as the first known Latin translation of Origen’s commentary
belongs to the 16th century translator Ambroggio Ferrari (Venice, 1551). In
all likelihood, Thomas’ source was a Greek florilegium, several of which are
18
Alcuin of York, Commentaria in s. Joannis Evangelium, P.L., vol. 100, Paris
1863, col. 743-1008.
19
Origen, Commentaria in Evangelium Joannis, P.G., vol. 14, Paris 1862, col.
21-830.
20
John Scotus Eriugena, Commentarius in Evangelium Iohannis, Ed. by É.
JEAUNEAU, Brepols, Turnhout 2008 (CCCM, 166). On Aquinas’ borrowings from
Origen and Eriugena, see CONTICELLO, «San Tommaso ed i padri», pp. 72-75. On the
influence of Eriugena’s commentary on the Glossa ordinaria on John, see ANDRÉE,
«The Glossa ordinaria on the Gospel of John», pp. 109-134.
known to have contained excerpts from this work21. To be sure, Thomas did
not read Greek, but we have clear evidence indicating that he comissioned
the translations of several other Greek sources he employed for the Catena
aurea22. It is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that he was similarly
responsible for the translation of Origen’s comments on John.
Lectura, expositio, postilla and a few other terms
In Thomas’ time, a lectura was either a class lecture, considered in its

oral form, or an interpretation, or reading, of a given text23. In medieval
commentaries the terms lectura, expositio and postilla could each have a
range of meanings24. All the same, the university masters’ normal usage
leaves good reason to use lectura to designate a commentary’s oral
presentation, and postilla to designate its written form. Expositio was often
used to designate a commentary on an entire book of the Bible. Thomas’
commentaries on Isaiah, Job and the Pauline Epistles usually travelled
under the title expositio, both in manuscripts and in early printed editions.
But the term also had another common meaning. As distinct from the
prologus and the diuisio textus, the expositio was often the exposition of a
given line, or lemma, of the biblical text . In this sense it was distinct from
the other key elements of a university commentary, namely, the prologus,
divisio textus, and questio. For this reason, here we will use the term
‘exposition’ according to this more specific meaning25.
21
R. DEVREESSE, «Notes sur les chaînes grecques de Saint Jean», Revue Biblique,
36 (1927) 192-215; CONTICELLO, «San Tommaso ed i padri», pp. 31-92 (72-73).
22
For evidence of Thomas’ involvement in the translation of some Greek
sources appearing in his Catena on John, see CONTICELLO, «San Tommaso ed i padri»,
p. 56-60.
23
In his biblical commentaries Thomas provides a few examples of the latter
usage, In Ps. 46, n. 3: «Sed prima lectura est melior»; In II Cor. 4, 1: «servato tamen
eodem modo exponendi, sicut in prima lectura»; In Gal. 4, 4: «Sed licet haec lectura
sustineri possit, non tamen est secundum intentionem apostoli».
24
We may still affirm what B. SMALLEY observed over half century ago, that the
precise shade of difference between the terms expositio, lectura and postilla remains
to be satisfactorily worked out, Study of the Bible, pp. 270-271.
25
See G. DAHAN, L’exégèse chrètienne de la Bible en Occident Medieval, XIIe-
e
XIV siècle, Cerf, Paris 1999, pp. 108-116, and «Genres, Forms and Various Methods
in Christian Exegesis of the Middle Ages», in M. SÆBØ (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old
As was generally the case with the biblical commentaries of

university masters, all of Thomas’ originated in classroom lectures. With
the exceptions of his commentaries on Isaiah and Jeremiah, all of them
took written form as reportationes. Thomas’ Super Isaiam survives in an
autograph containing his written preparation for lectures he delivered in
Paris. No autograph for Super Ieremiam survives, but there is good reason
to suppose that it had a similar origin26. By contrast with several of his
other works27, none of Thomas’ surviving biblical commentaries originated
in a dictation.
Transmission in manuscript and print
As were Thomas’ other surviving biblical commentaries, the one on

John was published posthumously. The delay, however, did not prevent
its wide diffusion. It’s popularity is indicated by the survival of twenty-
eight complete and seventeen incomplete manuscript copies, as well as
a few fragmentary witnesses28. From Marcus Antoninus Luciano’s editio
Testament. The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1, part 2, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
Göttingen 2000, pp. 196-236 (213).
26
Recent scholarship has assigned Thomas’ Super Isaiam and Super Ieremiam
to the period immediately following his arrival in Paris as a bachelor during the
summer of 1251 or 1252; see A. OLIVA, Les Débuts de l’enseignement de Thomas
d’Aquin, pp. 207-224. Thomas’ commentary Super Isaiam survives in an autograph
containing his written preparation for lectures delivered in Paris; though no
autograph for Super Ieremiam survives, it is reasonable to suppose that this work had
a similar origin; the commentary on Lamentations often listed under Thomas’ name
is of dubious authenticity; cf. BATAILLON, «La diffusione manoscritta e stampata»,
pp. 584-585.
27
E.g. Quaestiones disputatae de veritate and Sententia libri Metaphysicae.
28
Of the manuscript witnesses to Thomas’ commentary on John, pecia markings
appear on ten, five of which are complete or nearly complete, mss. Amiens 78 (13th
c.), Brugge, Stadsbibliotheek 75 (14th c.), Bruxelles II 929 (13th-14th c.), Leipzig Univ.
161 (14th c.), Padova Anton. 331 (13th c., inc. 2, 20). Three others were likely also
copied directly from an exemplar, though their scribes have left no such indications,
mss. Padova Anton. 333 (13th c., inc. 1, 43), Paris BnF lat. 17479 (14th c.), Praha
Knihovna 202 (14th c.). Only the most sought after books were disseminated by the
system of exemplar and pecia. Works originating in a reportatio seldom fell into this
category, but this is one such example. The system of exemplar and pecia for the
reproduction of books, received its first systematic study in J. DESTREZ, «La pecia dans
princeps of Venice, 1508, until Marietti’s printing in Turin and Rome,

1952, this work has appeared in print no fewer than 20 times.
Here something must be said about the title. It was not until its third
printing, Lyons, 1562, that this work was first called a Lectura. In most
of the manuscripts, and all the early ones, as well as the editio princeps,
the work was called simply the Postilla super Iohannem (some copies
present the plural designation postille)29. Such early evidence favoring
the title Postilla argues for its use in any future edition, notwithstanding
four and a half centuries of accepted usage of the name by which it is
currently known. For ease of reference, we will use the name Super
Iohannem.
2. Thomas’ approach to John
The prologue
Thomas saw John as the evangelist who reveals the fulfillment of

Scripture in the divinity of the Word made flesh. For a broad perspective
of Thomas’ purpose in this work, there is no better place to look than
its prologue. This introduction belonged to a well established genre
of late medieval commentary, whose provenance lies in early medieval
reproductions of profane literature. Known as an accessus, this form of
introduction to the author and his work had by the late eleventh century
become a stock feature of Biblical commentaries. During the twelfth
les manuscrits du moyen âge», Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 13

(1924) 182-197. Later studies appear in La production du livre universitaire au Moyen
Âge. Exemplar et pecia, L.-J. BATAILLON, B. GUYOT and R. ROUSE (eds.), Éditions du
CNRS, Paris 1991. Among these, see esp. H. SHOONER, «La production du livre par la
pecia», p. 17-37; R. and M. Rouse, «The Book Trade at the University of Paris, ca.
1250-1350», pp. 41-114; L.-J. BATAILLON, «Les textes théologiques et philosophiques
diffusées à Paris par exemplar et pecia», pp. 155-163. See also G. MURANO, Opere
diffuse per ’exemplar’ e ’pecia’, Brepols, Turnhout 2005.
29
For example, mss. Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellónska 1593, f. 7a; Leipzig,
Universitätsbibliothek 161, f. 106rb; Oxford, Merton College Library M.3.7 (158),
f. 151rb; apostille, Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine 801, 208ra; or postillatio, ms.
Bruxelles, Bibliothèque Royale 1966, f. 262vb. Singular and plural forms of the term
were typical of manuscript ascriptions of university commentaries of the time, see
BELLAMAH, William of Alton, p. 10.
century it acquired a schema typically including a study of the following

elements of the work subject to commentary: auctor, titulus, modus
agendi, and intentio or utilitas. By the late twelfth century, a Biblical verse
to introduce and organize the prologue had become typical, notably in the
commentaries of Peter Comestor (d. 1179), Peter the Chanter (d. 1197), and
Stephen Langton (d. 1228). To structure his prologue to Super Iohannem,
Thomas employs a verse from Isaiah, placing the prophet’s words on the
lips of the Evangelist:
I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and exalted, and the
house was filled with his majesty, and the things that were under
him filled the temple (Is 6,1). The words proposed are the words
of a contemplative, and if they are taken as if brought forth from
the mouth of John the Evangelist, they clearly pertain to the
announcement of this Gospel30.
By Thomas’ time changing philosophical commitments had engendered

the assimilation of the aforementioned elements into the framework of
Aristotle’s efficient, material, formal and final causes, respectively31. All
the while adopting the theoretical framework of Aristotle’s four causes,
Thomas retained the earlier terminology, as we see in his account of the
Gospel’s four causes:
From the foregoing we may gather the matter of this Gospel,

because, whereas the other Evangelists draw out principally the
30
«Vidi Dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et eleuatum et plena erat
domus a maiestate eius et ea que sub ipso erant replebant templum, Ys. VI1. Verba
proposita uerba sunt contemplantis, et si accipiantur quasi ex ore Iohannis euangeliste
prolata satis pertinent ad declarationem huius euangelii». In Ioh. prologue (no. 1).
Here and afterwards the English translations of In Iohannem are my own, and the
Latin texts are from a provisional recension established on the basis of the known
manuscript witnesses to an exemplar at Paris. In parentheses ( ) are the numbers of the
corresponding texts in the edition of R. CAI, Marietti, Turin 1952.
31
On the development of the prologus as a feature of medieval commentary,
see G. DAHAN, «Les prologues des commentaires bibliques», in J. HAMESSE (ed.), Les
Prologues médiévaux, Brepols, Turnhout 2000, pp. 427-469 (Textes et Études du
Moyen Âge, 15); BELLAMAH, William of Alton, p. 26-40; A. SULAVIK, «Principia and
Introitus in Thirteenth Century Christian Biblical Exegesis with Related Texts», in
G. CREMASCOLI (ed.), La Bibbia del XIII Secolo. Storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi,
Galuzzo, Firenze 2004, pp. 269-287.
mysteries of Christ’s humanity, John especially and principally

discloses Christ’s divinity. From the aforesaid words the order of this
Gospel is apparent. First he shows us the Lord seated on a throne,
high and exalted, in the first part, when he says: In the beginning was
the Word (1,1). In the second part he shows how the house was full of
his majesty, when he says: All things were made through him (1,3).
In the third part he shows how the things that were under him filled
the temple, when he says: the Word was made flesh etc., and we have
seen his glory etc. (1,14). Also apparent is the end of this Gospel,
which is that the faithful, made into the temple of God, become filled
with the majesty of God. And so John says 20 (31): These things are
written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God. Thus is apparent this Gospel’s matter, which is knowledge of
the divinity of the Word. Also apparent is its order and end32.
The human author, or instrumental efficient cause is, of course, John.

A description of him as the model of the contemplative life occupies the
greater part of the prologue, and his status as an author (conditio auctoris)
is given a four-fold mystical description. The first is in terms of his name:
«John is interpreted: ‘in whom is grace’, because the secret of divinity
can be seen only by those who have within themselves the grace of God.
John therefore saw the Lord seated». The second is in terms of his virtue:
«Because he was a virgin, to such it belongs to see the Lord». The third is in
terms of his prefiguration: «John is prefigured by an eagle flying as an eagle
above the cloud of human weakness, with the most acute and firm eye of the
heart, he looks upon the light of immutable truth, and gazing at the divinity
itself of the Lord Jesus Christ, by which he is equal to the Father, strove to
32
«Sic ergo ex premissis colligitur materia huius euangelii quia, cum alii
euangeliste principaliter tractant misteria humanitatis Christi, Iohannes specialiter
et precipue diuinitatem Christi in euangelio suo insinuat, ut supra dictum est, nec
tamen pretermittens misteria humanitatis. Patet etiam ordo istius euangelii ex uerbis
premissis. Primo enim insinuat nobis Dominum sedentem super solium etc. in prima
parte cum dicit In principio erat Verbum etc.; in secunda uero parte insinuat quomodo
omnis terra plena est maiestate eius cum dicit 1,3OMNIA PER IPSUM FACTA SUNT; in tertia
parte manifestat quomodo ea que sub ipso erant replebant templum cum dicit Verbum
caro factum est etc. et uidimus gloriam eius etc. Patet etiam finis huius euangelii,
qui est ut fideles templum Dei effecti repleantur a maiestate Dei; unde ipse Iohannes
dicit, xx:20,31Hec scripta sunt ut credatis et ut credentes uitam habeatis etc. Patet ergo
materia huius euangelii, que est cognitio diuinitatis Verbi; patet ordo, patet et finis». In
Ioh., prologus (no. 10).
commend it to us». And the fourth is in terms of his privilege: «among the
other disciples of the Lord, John was more loved by Christ»33.
Literal interpretation
For Thomas, and Dominican masters generally, the work of interpreting

the Bible had as its immediate purpose the preparation of the Dominican
students in his charge for their task of fulfilling their Order’s universal
preaching mission34. Relevant to our purposes here is the keen interest they
took in the human author’s way of speaking. Studying the author’s literary
genre and historical background, interpreters set for themselves the task of
discerning his intention, the key to the literal sense. Stimulating this tendency
was a reassessment of the human powers of cognition under the influence of the
newly appreciated thought of Aristotle, and particularly the diffusion of his De
anima. Earlier commentators had usually assumed a neo-Platonic perspective
of the human condition, wherein the soul exists in its own right, albeit within
a body, and knowledge is had by a process of enlightenment, rather than sense
perception35. Aristotle and his readers of the thirteenth-century, on the other
33
«Sequitur condicio auctoris, que quidem describitur in premissis quantum ad
quatuor: quantum ad nomen, quantum ad uirtutem, quantum ad figuram et quantum
ad priuilegium. Quantum ad nomen, quia Iohannes hic auctor fuit. Iohannes enim
interpretatur ‘in quo est gratia’, quia secreta diuinitatis uidere non possunt nisi qui
gratiam Dei in se habent. Quantum ad uirtutem, quia uirgo: talibus enim competit
uidere Dominum. Quantum ad figuram, quia Iohannes designatur per aquilam. Et
hoc quia Iohannes uero supra nubila infirmitatis humane uelud aquila uolans lucem
incommutabilis ueritatis acutissimis atque firmissimis oculis cordis intuetur, et ipsam
diuinitatemDomini Ihesu Christi qua Patri equalis est intendens, eam in suo euangelio
quantum inter homines sufficere credidit studuit precipue commendare. Quantum ad
priuilegium autem, quia inter ceteros discipulos Domini Iohannes fuit magis dilectus
a Christo». In Ioh., prologus (no. 11). Thomas has drawn the interpretation of the
name John from Jerome’s Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, Ed. by P. DE
LAGARDE, Brepols, Turnhout 1959, p. 69 (CCSL, 72).
34
In February 1218, Pope Honorius III issued a bull granting Dominic’s nascent
Order official status as preachers with a universal mission, indicating that prelates
throughout the Church were to welcome them as the fratres ordinis predicatorum;
cf. A. WALZ, Compendium historiae Ordinis Praedicatorum, Angelicum, Rome 1930,
p. 8, 24.
35
Augustine’s account of human sensation is telling: «Nec sane putandum
est facere aliquid corpus in spiritu, tamquam spiritus corpori facienti materiae vice
hand, considered the soul the form of the body, and as such unable to acquire
knowledge unmediated by the senses and the imagination36.
As a result, thirteenth-century expositors realized the importance of the
human author’s imagination with respect to the literal sense of what he wrote.
Thomas and his contemporaries considered literary figures as falling within
the human author’s intention, and thus as belonging to the literal sense,
wherein words signify realities (res). No longer obliged to relegate symbolic
language to the realm of spiritual interpretation, commentators treated it
as understood and intended by the human author. In Super Iohannem it is
not uncommon to find Thomas coming to terms with the meaning either
of the Evangelist or of Jesus himself by identifying within their locutions
metaphor37, antonomasia38 and hyperbole39. Early on in his commentary on
Job, Thomas summed it up as follows: «The literal sense is that which is first
intended by the words, whether properly said or figuratively»40. As we shall
subdatur. Omni enim modo praestantior est qui facit ea re, de qua aliquid facit. Neque
ullo modo spiritu praestantius est corpus, immo perspicuo modo spiritus corpore»;
and later: «Neque enim corpus sentit, sed anima per corpus, quo velut nuntio utitur ad
formandum in seipsa quod extrinsecus nuntiatur». De Genesi ad litteram libri XII, XII,
Ed. by J. ZYCHA, Wien 1894, p. 402, 416 (CSEL, 28.1).
36
Thomas’ understanding of the relation between divine and human authorial
roles in the literal sense also owes much to the Neo-Platonic Liber de causis, a work
generally attributed to Aristotle until Thomas recognized its dependence on Proclus’
Elements of Theology. See T. BELLAMAH, «Tunc scimus, cum causas cognoscimus: Some
Medieval Endeavors to Know Scripture in Its Causes», in M. LAMB (ed.), Philosophy in
Theological Education. Essays in Honor of Ralph McInerny, The Catholic University
of Amercia Press, Washington D.C. (in press).
37
E.g.: «cum dicitur quod corpus Christi est templum, est metaphorica locutio,
in qua quidem locutione non attenditur similitudo quantum ad omnia, sed quantum ad
aliquid, scilicet quantum ad inhabitationem». In Ioh. 2, 21 (no. 413).
38
E.g.: «SI NON UENISSEM ET LOCUTUS EIS NON FUISSEM, PECCATUM NON HABERENT. Sed
non loquitur hic Dominus de quocumque peccato, sed de peccato infidelitatis, scilicet
quod non credunt in Christum: quod anthonomastice peccatum dicitur quia isto peccato
existente nullum aliud peccatum remitti potest, cum nullum peccatum remittatur nisi
per fidem Ihesu Christi, per quam est iustitia». In Ioh. 15, 22 (no. 2046).
39
E.g.: «Hoc autem quod sequitur 21,25SI SCRIBANTUR, TOTUS MUNDUS etc. potest
tripliciter exponi. Alio modo ut sit locutio yperbolica, et significat excessum operum
Christi. Non enim est intentio dicentis ut credatur quod dicit sed quod intendit figurare,
scilicet excessum operum Christi». In Ioh. 21, 25 (no. 2658-2659).
40
«sensus litteralis est qui primo per verba intenditur, sive proprie dicta sive
figurate». In Iob I, ed. Leonina, t. XXVI, Rome 1965, p. 7b.
see, this development similarly allowed late-medieval commentators such

as Thomas to find prophecy in the literal sense. Throughout his systematic
and exegetical works Thomas approaches problems of interpreting the literal
sense with the objective of determining the intention of the biblical text’s
human author. In Super Iohannem, he is often explicit in his pursuit of the
Evangelist’s meaning. For a few examples we need look no further than
his exposition of John 1, 3 (All things were made through him). Thomas
undertakes a consideration of the different kinds of words uttered by persons
of different kinds of intellectual natures:
An intellectual nature is human, angelic or divine. So there is the

human word, Psalm (13, 1): The fool has said in his heart etc.
And there is the angelic word, as is plain in Zechariah 1 (9) and in
many places of sacred Scripture, The angel said etc. And there is
the divine word, Genesis 1 (3), God said, ‘Let there be light.’ etc.
About which of these words does the Evangelist speak when he
says, In the beginning was the Word? Evidently he is not speaking
of a human or angelic word, since each of these words has been
made, as no word precedes its speaker. Both man and angel have
a cause and principle. The word of which the Evangelist speaks
has not been made, as since 1,3ALL THINGS WERE MADE THROUGH HIM. If
therefore, the Evangelist hasn’t spoken of either of the first two, he
must necessarily be understood as speaking of the third, namely, the
Word of God41.
By eliminating the possibility that the Evangelist had in mind the word
of a man or an angel, Thomas has settled a question not yet made clear by
the text. This he has done not by a parsing of the words of the passage at
hand, but by a show of speculative reasoning: any supposition that John was
41
«Natura autem intellectualis est natura humana, angelica et diuina. Et ideo
est uerbum humanum, Ps. Dixit insipiens in corde etc. Est et uerbum angelicum,
sicut Zach. I et in multis sacre Scripture locis patet: Dixit angelus etc. Et est uerbum
diuinum, Gen. I Dixit Deus: Fiat lux etc. De quo ergo istorum uerborum dicit hic
Euangelista cum dicit In principio erat Verbum? Constat quod non dicit de uerbo
humano neque angelico quia utrumque uerborum istorum factum est, cum uerbum
non precedat dicentem, homo autem et angelus causam habeant et principium. Sed hoc
uerbum de quo Iohannes loquitur non est factum, sed 1,3OMNIA PER IPSUM FACTA SUNT. Si
ergo non dicitur de primis duobus, necesse est ut intelligatur de tertio, scilicet de uerbo
Dei». In Ioh. 1, 1-3 (no. 25).
speaking of a man or an angel is nonsensical, as it would have something

made be the maker of all things. Even if someone schooled in modern
exegesis could be tempted to criticize such a procedure as artificial, as an
imposition of dogma on the biblical text, one would do well to recognize
the thoroughly Biblical character of Thomas’ inquiry. For each of the kinds
of words under consideration, he has adduced a Biblical example, with the
result that his use of logic for interpreting the passage at hand falls entirely
within a Biblical frame of reference.
Further along in his exposition of the same verse a similar procedure
is at work in Thomas’ reply to a faulty interpretation of Origen. As the
Alexandrian would have it, the Holy Spirit is to be counted among all the
things made through the Word. To show that this is not what the Evangelist
meant, Thomas appeals not to logic, but to Christian doctrine:
The second error to be avoided is that of Origen, who understands

1,3
ALL THINGS WERE MADE THROUGH HIM to say that even the Spirit had
been made through the Word, from which it follows that he is a
creature, as Origen held. But this is heretical, since the Holy Spirit
is of the same dignity and substance as the Father and the Son.
Accordingly, Matthew 28 (19): Make disciples of all the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit. Also: There are three who give testimony in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one
(l John 5, 7). When therefore the Evangelist says 1,3ALL THINGS WERE
MADE THROUGH HIM, this is not to be understood simply to say that all
things are made, but those in the realm of creatures and of things
made. As if to say: «All things that were made were made through
him». Otherwise, if «all things» were taken absolutely, it would
follow that even the Father was made through him, which is false.
Therefore, neither the Father nor anything consubstantial with the
Father was made through the Word42.
42
«Secundo uitandus est error Origenis qui in hoc quod dicit 1,3OMNIA PER IPSUM
FACTA SUNT intelligit etiam Spiritum inter omnia factum fuisse per Verbum; ex quo
sequitur ipsum esse creaturam: quod Origenes posuit. Sed hoc hereticum est, cum
Spiritus Sanctus sit eiusdem dignitatis et substantie cum Patre et Filio, iuxta illud Matth.
ult. Docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti,
et iuxta illud Io. Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo: Pater, Verbum et Spiritus
Sanctus; et hii tres unum sunt. Cum ergo dicit Euangelista Omnia per ipsum facta sunt,
non est intelligendum simpliciter facta esse omnia, sed in genere creaturarum et rerum
factarum; quasi dicat: omnia que facta sunt per ipsum facta sunt. Alias si simpliciter
It is not uncommon to find Thomas approaching exegetical questions

by considering the Evangelist’s mode of speaking. Here he inserts a
technical term ‘properly’ (proprie) to set his study of John’s intention
within a framework of varying degrees of propriety of signification:
If we rightly consider the aforementioned words, 1,3ALL THINGS WERE

MADE THROUGH HIM, it appears plainly that the Evangelist spoke most
properly (propriissime). Whoever makes anything must preconceive
it in his wisdom. Otherwise no one would ever make anything
unless there preexisted the actual conception of his wisdom, which
is the form and reason of the thing made, just as the form of an ark
preconceived in the mind of an artisan is the reason of the ark to be
made. So therefore God makes nothing except through the concept
of his intellect, which is Wisdom, conceived from eternity, namely,
the Word of God, and the Son of God. Therefore it is impossible that
he should make anything except through the Son43.
The application of various forms ‘properly’ (proprie) and its opposite

‘largely’ (large) was a standard feature of scholastic dialectic. It was
directed to the study of the actual usage of key terms by ancient authors,
as measured against their proper significations44. By his account of the
psychology of an artisan, Thomas shows that there is nothing figurative
in John’s language in the verse at hand. The Evangelist’s words are to be
taken as he used them, most properly.
To be sure, Thomas realizes the difficulties involved in determining
the meaning of any Biblical author, and he is particularly well aware of the
frequent elusiveness of John’s meaning. For this reason, he often employs
intelligatur etiam Pater per ipsum factus esset: quod falsum est. Igitur nec Pater nec
aliquid Patri consubstantiale per Verbum factum est». In Ioh. 1, 1-3 (no. 74).
43
«Si autem recte considerentur uerba predicta 1,3OMNIA PER IPSUM FACTA SUNT,
euidenter apparet Euangelistam propriissime fuisse locutum. Quicumque enim aliquid
facit oportet quod illud preconcipiat in sua sapientia, alioquin nunquam aliquis faceret
aliquid nisi preexistat actualis conceptio sue sapientie que sit forma et ratio rei facte,
sicut forma arche in mente artificis preconcepta est ratio arche faciende. Sic ergo Deus
nichil operatur nisi per conceptum sui intellectus qui est sapientia ab eterno concepta,
scilicet Dei Verbum et Dei Filius: et ideo impossibile est quod aliquid faciat nisi per
Filium». In Ioh. 1, 1-3 (no. 77).
44
On the functioning of such terminology in the thought of Thomas, see CHENU,
Introduction, pp. 118-119.
several alternative interpretations drawn from his sources, and this to

maintain the broadest possible context for literal interpretation. Origen’s
dubious orthodoxy doesn’t prevent Thomas from favorably presenting his
interpretations in no small number of other places, often to complement the
interpretations of others. In his exposition of John 1, 3-4, he draws attention
to three different ways of punctuating the passage, two from Saints Hillary
and Augustine, and another from Origen, whose interpretation Thomas
finds a credible alternative:
Origen, commenting on John, reads this differently, punctuating it

thus: 1,3THAT WHICH WAS MADE 1,4IN HIM, and then, WAS LIFE. Here it is
to be noted that with respect to the Son of God some things are
said of him without qualification, such as, he is said to be God,
omnipotent, and the like. Other things are said of him by comparison
with ourselves, such as when he is said to be Savior and Redeemer.
Sill other things are said of him in both ways, such as Justice and
Wisdom. And so Origen, explaining it along these lines, says that
although in himself the Son is life, yet he was made life for us by
the fact that he gave us life45.
Here Thomas presents Origen’s reading as one of several alternatives for

literal interpretation46. To be sure, he usually advances plural construals either
45
«Origenes uero super Iohannem legit hoc aliter, punctando sic: 1,3QUOD FACTUM
1,4
EST IN IPSO, distingue, UITA ERAT. Vbi notandum est quod de Filio Dei dicitur aliquid
etiam secundum se, sicut dicitur Deus omnipotens et huiusmodi; aliquid uero dicitur
de eo per comparationem ad nos, sicut Saluator et Redemptor; aliquid uero utroque
modo, sicut Iustitia et Sapientia. In omnibus autem que absolute et secundum se de Filio
dicuntur non dicitur quod Filius sit factus, sicut non dicitur Filius factus Deus neque
omnipotens; sed in illis que dicuntur in comparatione ad nos, seu utroque modo, potest
addi adiunctio facti, ut dicatur secundum illud I Cor. I: Qui factus est nobis sapientia a
Deo etc. Et sic, licet semper in se fuerit et iustitia et sapientia, tamen potest dici quod de
nouo factus est nobis iustitia et sapientia. Secundum hoc ergo Origenes exponens dicit
quod, licet secundum se sit uita, tamen factus est nobis uita per hoc quod nos uiuificauit,
iuxta illud Ro. XV: Sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes uiuificabuntur.
Et ideo dicit quod Verbum quod factum est nobis IN IPSO UITA ERAT, ut quandoque nobis
fieret uita; et ideo statim subdit ET UITA ERAT LUX HOMINUM». In Ioh. 1, 1 (no. 92).
46
G. DAHAN has observed that the multiplication of alternative interpretations at
both the literal and spiritual levels is a general feature of medieval biblical commentary,
«Les Pères dans l’exégèse médiévale», Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et
Théologiques, 91 (2007) 109-126 (120).
as alternatives or as complementary, often introducing them by the conjunction

‘or’ (uel). But he also recognized that some Biblical passages have more than
one literal sense, that is, more than one meaning intended by the human author.
In such cases, the operative conjunction for coordinating the various senses
is at least implicitly ‘and’ (et). On this understanding, an inspired sage could
intentionally describe future events through his recounting of present ones47.
For Thomas and others of his time, such plurality of the literal sense
provided a theoretical framework for prophecy48. But it also addressed
47
Thomas is clear about the possibility of a human author’s capacity for expressing
more than one reality in a single concept or word, «Non est etiam inconueniens quod
homo qui fuit auctor instrumentalis sacrae scripturae in uno uerbo plura intelligeret,
quia prophete, ut Ieronimus dicit super Osee, ita loquebantur de factis presentibus,
quod etiam intenderunt futura significare, unde non est impossibile plura intelligere
in quantum unum est figura alterius», De quolibet VII, q. 6, a. 1, ad 5, ed. Leonina, t.
XXV, 1, 29a-b. Thomas says much the same thing in De potentia q. 4, a. 1, co.: «Unde
non est incredibile, Moysi et aliis sacrae Scripturae auctoribus hoc divinitus esse
concessum, ut diversa vera, quae homines possent intelligere, ipsi cognoscerent, et ea
sub una serie litterae designarent, ut sic quilibet eorum sit sensus auctoris», ed. Parma,
t. VIII, 79a. Particularly important and controversial is ST I, q. 1, a.10, co.: «Quia vero
sensus litteralis est, quem auctor intendit: auctor autem sacrae Scripturae Deus est, qui
omnia simul suo intellectu comprehendit: non est inconveniens, ut dicit Augustinus XII
Confessionum, si etiam secundum litteralem sensum in una littera Scripturae plures
sint sensus», ed. Leonina, t. IV, 25b; cf. De quolibet VII, q. 6, a. 2, co., ed. Leonina, t.
XXV, 1, 30a-31a. Among Thomists who have denied that Thomas held that a human
author could intend multiple senses is P. SYNAVE, «La doctrine de S. Thomas d’Aquin
sur le sens littéral des Ecritures», Revue Biblique, 35 (1926) 40-65; C. SPICQ, Esquisse
d’une histoire de l’exégèse latine au Moyen Âge, Vrin, Paris 1944, pp. 214-217;
and more recently M. AILLET, Lire la Bible avec S. Thomas, Éditions universitaires,
Fribourg (Suisse) 1993, pp. 99-128. But Mark Johnson has presented evidence for this
view in Thomas’ thought, and shows that the 20th-century rejection of the possibility
of multiple literal senses is at odds with the views of a considerable number of notable
Thomists, namely, CAJETAN, In ST I, q. 1, a.10, ed. Leonina, t. IV, 26b; Domingo Bánez,
Scholastica Commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologiae, ed. L. URBANO,
Editorial FEDA, Madrid 1934, I, pp. 90-99; JOHN OF ST. THOMAS, Cursus Theologicus
1.2.12, Paris 1931, p. 410. n. 19. To these Johnson joins the Salamanca Thomists
generally. The references above are his. Cf. M.D. JOHNSON, «Another Look at St.
Thomas and the Plurality of the Literal Sense of Scripture», Medieval Philosophy and
Theology, 2 (1992) 118-142.
48
What follows are two examples from Thomas’ literal commentary on Isaiah:
«Dominorum: Assyriorum, Caldeorum, Romanorum», In Is. 19, 4, ed. Leonina, t.
XXVIII, 105a; «ponit promissionem: Cum transieris per aquas, Egiptios, flumina,
a problem brought to the fore by the Church’s condemnation of a mode

of interpreting the Psalms espoused by Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca.
350-428). Countering the abundant recourse to allegorical interpretation
characteristic of Alexandrian commentators, Theodore had said that only
five Psalms speak about Christ directly, while the others could be applied
to him only by adaptation49. Fairly or not, this view was eventually taken as
a denial that the Old Testament as a whole spoke literally of Christ, which
proposition was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in
553. As a consequence, Thomas considered the prophetic literal sense a
matter of doctrine, its denial a matter of heresy50.
It is true that Thomas’ most conspicuous use of this mode of
interpretation is in his Old Testament commentaries. All the same, there
are several occasions in Super Iohannem where Thomas may be found
expounding a prophetic literal sense. One of them is his exposition of 12,
41, where the Evangelist thus describes Isaiah’s vision of the Lord sitting
on a throne: Isaiah said this when he saw his glory. He said this of him.
To explain the verse, Thomas mentions Theodore’s limitation of the Old
Testament’s literal meaning to present events, as well as the Manicheans’
complete denial of its prophetic character, and then employs both errors as
a foil for his own elaborate account of revelation and inspiration:
Chaldei, igne, Greci, flamma, Romani» (In Is. 43, 2, ibid., 181a-b). On this mode
of interpretation in the work of one of Thomas’ Dominican contemporaries, see
BELLAMAH, William of Alton, pp. 56-59.
49
The Fifth Council’s condemnation did not touch Theodore’s person, but it was
unambiguous about his responsibility for this mode of reading the Old Testament. On
the condemnation’s effect on medieval Biblical interpretation, see A. MINNIS, Medieval
Theory of Authorship, 2nd ed., University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia 1988,
p. 87-88. On the possibility of a multiplicity of literal senses, at least one more recent
official ecclesial pronouncement is considerably more restrained, «Does a text have
only one literal sense? In general, yes; but there is no question here of a hard and fast
rule», Pontifical Biblical Commission (1993), The Interpretation of the Bible in the
Church II, 1.
50
«Theodorus enim Mopsuestenus dixit, quod in sacra Scriptura et prophetiis nihil
expresse dicitur de Christo, sed de quibusdam aliis rebus, sed adaptaverunt Christo
[…] Hic autem modus damnatus est in illo concilio: et qui asserit sic exponendas
Scripturas, haereticus est», Thomas Aquinas, In Ps., prol., ed. Parma, t. XIV, 149b.
Later in the same work Thomas returns to the matter: «Et in synodo Toletana quidam
Theodorus Mopsuestenus, qui hunc ad litteram de David exponebat, fuit damnatus, et
propter hoc et propter alia multa; et ideo de Christo exponendus est», In Ps. 21, 7, ed.
Parma, t. XIV, 1863, p. 217b.
Then when he says: 12,41ISAIAH SAID THIS, the Evangelist shows

the pertinence of the aforesaid authoritative citations (Is 53,1;
6, 10). Hence he says: 12,41ISAIAH SAID THIS WHEN HE SAW HIS GLORY.
Simultaneously he saw the glory of God and the blinding of the
Jews, as is clear in Isaiah 61, where he first says: I saw the Lord
seated etc., and afterwards he adds: Blind the heart of this people
etc. And so Isaiah, seeing the glory of the Son, also saw the glory
of the Father, and indeed of all the Trinity, which is one God, seated
upon a high throne, to whom the seraphim proclaimed: Holy, holy,
holy, not however such that Isaiah saw the essence of the Trinity,
but rather an imaginary vision. With understanding he expressed
certain signs of this majesty, according to Numbers 126: If there is
a prophet of the Lord among you, I will speak to him in a dream
or in a vision. By that which is said next: 12,41HE SAID THIS OF HIM,
we find excluded the error of the Manicheans, who said that there
were no prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament, as Augustine
recounted in his book Against Faustus. Also excluded is the error of
Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that all the prophecies of the Old
Testament were spoken in connection with current events, though by
a certain adaptation the apostles and evangelists appropriated them
to the ministry of Christ, just as things said about one event can be
adapted to another event. Yet all this is excluded by the following,
which says: 12,41HE SAID THIS OF HIM, that is, of Moses, just as above in
chapter 546, the Lord says of Moses: He wrote this of me51.
51
«Deinde cum dicit: 12,41HEC DIXIT YSAIAS etc., ostendit predictas auctoritates ad
propositum pertinere; unde dicit: HEC DIXIT YSAIAS QUANDO UIDIT GLORIAM EIUS. Simul enim
uidit gloriam Dei et excecationem Iudeorum, ut patet Ys. VI1, ubi primo dicitur: Vidi
Dominum sedentem etc., et postea subdit: Exceca cor populi huius etc. Videns ergo Ysaias
gloriam Filii uidit et gloriam Patris; immo totius Trinitatis, que est unus Deus sedens super
solium excelsum, cui Seraphin proclamabant: Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus. Non autem ita quod
Ysaias essentiam Trinitatis uiderit, sed ymaginaria uisione cum intelligentia quadam signa
maiestatis expressit, secundum illud Num. XII6: Si quis inter uos fuerit propheta Domini, per
sompnium aut in uisione loquar ad eum. Per illud uero quod secundo dicitur: HEC LOCUTUS
EST DE EO excluditur error Manicheorum, qui dixerunt nullas prophetias in Veteri Testamento
precessisse de Christo, ut Augustinus narrabat in libro Contra Faustum; et etiam Theodori
Mosuesteni, qui dixit omnes prophetias Veteris Testamenti esse de aliquo alio negocio dictas,
per quamdam tamen adaptationem esse adductas ab apostolis et euangelistis ad ministerium
Christi, sicut ea que dicuntur in uno facto possunt adaptari ad aliud factum. Omnia autem
hec excluduntur per hoc quod dicitur HEC LOCUTUS EST DE EO, sicut est de Moyse; supra V46,
Dominus de Moyse dicit: De me enim ille scripsit». In Ioh. 12, 41 (no. 1703-1705); cf.
Augustine, Contra Faustum, XXII, Ed. by J. ZYCHA, Wein 1891, p. 676 (CSEL, 25).
Spiritual interpretation
Thomas’ confidence in Isaiah’s capacity for speaking literally of Jesus

Christ is of a piece with his concern for maintaining the broadest possible
scope for literal interpretation. But it would be a mistake to suppose that this
interest corresponds to a disregard on his part for allegorical interpretation52.
One need not look far in Super Iohannem to find him expatiating at length
on a spiritual sense. This he never does, however, without a firm footing in
the literal one, either of the passage at hand or of another from elsewhere
in the Bible. While a detailed account of Thomas’ theoretical framework
for interpreting Scripture’s senses lies beyond our purposes, it may be
noted that he derived it from an account of signification put forward by
Augustine53. In this perspective, Scripture speaks literally whenever its
words (verba) are used by its divine and human authors to signify realities
or events (res); it speaks spiritually (i.e., spiritualiter, allegorice or mystice)
whenever Biblical realities or events (res) themselves become the signs of
other realities or events. Signification of this sort can be attributed only to
Scripture’s divine author, in whose providence alone lies the capacity to
use various contingent things or events to signify others.
As did other masters of his time, Thomas considered it part of his
work to discern such significations in the Biblical text. What follows is
an example drawn from his exposition of the Bread of Life Discourse of
chapter 6, where he expatiates on the narrative’s contrast of corporeal and
spiritual foods. His elaborate discussion finds its basis in the signification
of Moses’ manna in the desert, corporeal fare that prefigures spiritual
nourishment, the Bread of Life. Commenting on John 6, 27, The verse
Work not for food that perishes, but for that which endures for eternal life,
which the Son of man will give you, Thomas puts forward a theoretical
framework for allegorical signification that shows something of the Neo-
platonic dimension of his thought:
52
Several decades after the initial publication of Study of the Bible (1940), SMALLEY
recognized in this work just such a misreading of the Biblical commentary of the friars
of Thomas’ time. In the preface to the third edition (1983), she called the faultiest part
of her chapter on the friars the section under the heading ‘The Spiritual Exposition in
Decline’, remarking «The spiritual senses were too integral to the faith and too useful in
homiletics to be dropped or even pushed far into the margin », p. xiii-xiv.
53
Cf. Augustine of Hippo, De doctrina Christiana I, 2, Ed. by J. MARTIN, Brepols,
Turnhout 1962, lin. 1, pp. 7-8 (CCSL, 32).
The power of this food may be pondered in the fact that it does not
perish. Hence it is to be noted in this respect that corporeal realities
are likenesses of spiritual ones, since they are caused by and derived
from them; and therefore they imitate spiritual realities in some way
(aliquo modo)54.
This dictum is telling. Situating it within his exposition of a narrative

wherein Jesus himself provides an allegorical interpretation for the gift of
manna to Moses and his people (Exodus 16, 4-35), Thomas intends to say
something about the senses of Scripture. Within this framework, the literal
sense of the Exodus text describing the manna in the desert is in some
way caused by and derived from the spiritual sense given it by the letter
of the Johanine text. So it is that without abandoning his principle that
the spiritual senses are founded upon the literal, Thomas suggests that the
literal sense is aliquo modo dependent upon the spiritual. The mode of this
dependence comes into view in his subsequent remark that while corporeal
food is converted into the nature of the body, spiritual food is not converted
into the nature of the spirit, but being imperishable, it changes the eater’s
spirit into itself55. Applied to the senses of Scripture, this could be taken
to mean that, as distinct from the spiritual sense, the literal is perishable.
But this is not what Thomas has in mind. A fairer reading of his comment
would indicate that the literal sense of Exodus 16 has been transformed and
given new meaning by Jesus’ reinterpretation of it in John 6. By signifying
directly the spiritual reality that is signified only allegorically in Exodus
16, the literal sense of John 6 is itself spiritual. Such a reading of Thomas is
supported by his subsequent identification of spiritual food, namely, God,
with truth:
This food is God himself, insofar as he is the Truth to be contemplated

and the Goodness to be loved, by which the spirit is nourished56.
54
«Virtus illius cibi consideratur in hoc quod non perit. Vnde sciendum est circa
hoc quod corporalia sunt quedam similitudines spiritualium, utpote ab eis causata et
deriuata, et ideo imitantur ipsa spiritualia aliquo modo». In Ioh. 6, 27 (no. 895).
55
«Sed corpus sustentatur cibo; illud ergo quo sustentatur spiritus dicitur eius cibus,
quicquid sit illud. Illud autem quo sustentatur corpus cum transeat in corporis naturam
corruptibile est; sed cibus quo sustentatur spiritus est incorruptibilis, quia non mutatur in
ipsum spiritum, sed potius e conuerso spiritus in cibum». In Ioh. 6, 27 (no. 895).
56
«qui quidem cibus est ipse Deus in quantum est ueritas contemplanda et bonitas
amanda, quibus reficitur spiritus». In Ioh. 6, 27 (no. 895).
Thomas here describes as Christ’s gifts both Scripture’s spiritual

truth and the spiritual food of the Bread of Life. To be sure, he does not
unequivocally identify the spiritual sense of Scripture with God, but the
Christological title he uses is worth noticing:
And this is so insofar as the flesh of Christ is conjoined to the Word

of God, which is the food by which the angels live57.
Referring to Christ as the Word of God, Thomas here alerts us to

the Evangelist’s pedagogy of setting the divine giving of spiritual food
within the context of revelation. God’s nourishment and instruction of his
people take the form of Christ’s manifestation of his divinity through his
humanity.
Further along in his exposition of the Bread of Life Discourse, Thomas
returns to the analogy, showing once again that the relation between
corporeal and spiritual food corresponds to the relation between the literal
and spiritual senses of Scripture. In connection with John 6:32-33 (it was
not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true
bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from
heaven and gives life to the world), an objector has called into question
Scripture’s veracity by asking whether this verse indicates that the bread
in the desert of Exodus was false. Thomas replies by pointing out that the
manna was a figure, which was therefore untrue only insofar as truth is
opposed to figure, not insofar as truth is opposed to falsehood:
I respond that if ‘true’ should be taken as contrasted with ‘false’,

then that bread was true, the miracle of the manna was by no means
false. If however ‘true’ should be taken as ‘truth’ is opposed to a
‘figure’, then that bread was not true, but was a figure of spiritual
bread, that is, of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom that manna signified.58
57
«et hoc in quantum est coniuncta Verbo Dei, quod est cibus quo angeli uiuunt».
In Ioh. 6, 27 (no. 895).
58
«Sed contra, numquid non uere panis fuit quem habuerunt patres in deserto?
- Respondeo. Si accipiatur uerum secundum quod diuiditur contra falsum, sic panis
ille uerus fuit: non enim falsum erat miraculum de manna; si autem accipiatur uerum
prout ueritas diuiditur contra figuram, sic panis ille non fuit uerus, sed figura panis
spiritualis, scilicet Domini Ihesu Christi, quem ipsum manna significabat». In Ioh. 6,
32 (no. 908).
Applied to the senses of Scripture, this understanding of figuration

illustrates that the literal sense of the Exodus text is a figure fulfilled by the
Johannine text, which is at once literal and spiritual.
And yet, the true sense of Christ’s words, at once spiritual and literal,
may on occasion have as its carnal counterpart not a figure of the Old
Testament, but rather a superficially literal interpretation of the New.
Commenting on Jesus’ instruction of those disciples who have found hard
his words about the Bread of Life (John 6, 64: It is the spirit that gives life.
The flesh is of no use. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.),
Thomas engages in as excursus on divine self-communication in both
Scripture and the Eucharist that is worth presenting at some length:
With respect to the first, it is to be noted that Christ’s word’s can

be understood according to two senses, specifically, according to a
spiritual sense and a carnal one. Therefore he says: 6,64IT IS THE SPIRIT
THAT GIVES LIFE, that is, if you understand the words I have spoken to
you according to the spirit, that is, according to their spiritual sense,
they will vivify you. THE FLESH IS OF NO USE, that is, if you understand
them in a carnal sense, they will be of no profit to you, because as it
is said in Romans 8 (13): If you live according to the flesh, you will
die. Our Lord’s words about the eating of his flesh are understood
carnally when they are taken according to the external sound of the
words and as belongs to the nature of the flesh. And this is how
they understood them, as has been said. But the Lord said that he
would give himself to them as spiritual food, not that the true flesh
of Christ should not be in the Sacrament of the altar, but because
it is eaten in a certain spiritual and divine way. So therefore the
congruous sense of the aforesaid words is not carnal, but spiritual.
Thus he adds: THE WORDS I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU, specifically, about the
eating of my flesh, ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE, that is, they have a spiritual
sense, and so understood, they give life. It is no wonder that they
have a spiritual sense, because they are from the Holy Spirit59.
59
«Sciendum est ergo quantum ad primum quod uerba Christi secundum duplicem
sensum intelligi possunt, scilicet secundum spiritualem et secundum carnalem. Et ideo
dicit: 6,64SPIRITUS EST QUI UIUIFICAT, id est si ea uerba que dixi intelligatis secundum
spiritum, id est secundum spiritualem sensum, uiuificabunt uos. CARO NON PRODEST
QUICQUAM, id est si secundum carnalem sensum ea intelligatis, nichil uobis proderunt,
immo nocent quia, ut dicitur, Ro. VIII13, Si secundum carnem uixeritis, moriemini.
Tunc autem uerba Domini de carne sua manducanda carnaliter intelliguntur quando
accipiuntur secundum quod uerba exterius sonant et ut natura carnis habet; et hoc modo
As Thomas reads John, the Lord gives himself as spiritual food in

both Scripture and the Eucharist, his words are to be taken «according to
their spiritual sense», and his food, though truly the flesh of Christ, is to be
consumed in a «spiritual and divine way». Taken carnally, these gifts of the
Holy Spirit are of no use; taken spiritually, they give life. Having the Holy
Spirit as its source, Scripture’s ‘congruous’ meaning is naturally spiritual.
Divine revelation, then, is itself the presence of the realities of salvation. Put
another way, Thomas sees revelation as effecting the believer’s encounter
with God in his own self-communication60.
Conclusions
Thomas’ reading of John’s Gospel was at once highly dependent

on the works of earlier interpreters and remarkably original. For the
sake of consulting the broadest possible range of sources, he made use
of virtually all the available Latin commentators on John, as well as the
Latin translations of two important Greek ones, Chrysostom and Origen.
Having personally arranged for the latter’s translation into Latin, he used
his interpretations to show both how John’s Gospel may be read, and how
it should not. Such versatility bears witness to his confidence in his own
mastery of his sources and of Christian doctrine.
Thomas’ desire to maintain an expansive scope for Biblical
interpretation appears also in his refusal to oppose literal interpretation to
spiritual, or vice versa. His commitment to the first presents no obstacle
to the second, but to the contrary provides its framework. Further, his
ipsi intelligebant, ut dictum est. Sed Dominus dicebat daturum se eis sicut spiritualem
cibum, non quin sit in Sacramento altaris uera caro Christi, sed quia quodam spirituali
et diuino modo manducatur. Sic ergo dictorum uerborum congruus sensus est non
carnalis sed spiritualis. Vnde subdit: VERBA QUE EGO LOCUTUS SUM UOBIS, scilicet de
carne mea manducanda, SPIRITUS ET UITA SUNT, id est spiritualem sensum habent, et sic
intellecta uitam dant. Nec mirum si habent spiritualem sensum, quia sunt a Spiritu
Sancto». In Ioh. 6, 32 (no. 992).
60
On Thomas’ understanding of Scripture’s mediation of divine revelation,
see L. ELDERS, «Aquinas on Holy Scripture as Medium of Divine Revelation», in
L. ELDERS (ed.), La Doctrine de la révélation divine. Actes du Symposium sur la pensée
de saint Thomas d’Aquin, tenu à Rolduc, les 4 et 5 novembre 1989, Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1990, pp. 132-152 (135).
exposition of the different senses brings into view another notable feature
of his approach to the Bible, that is, a remarkable breadth of philosophical
influences. While his study of the literal sense is sharpened by his study of
Aristotle, his spiritual interpretation is deepened by his own appropriation
of Christian Neo-platonism.
Far from pretending to mention all that merits consideration in Super
Iohannem, this discussion has had the more modest goal of providing a
sampling of its author’s exegetical interests and methods, and this within the
background of an overview of the work’s provenance and early diffusion.
Its dissemination in print over the past five centuries has made it available
to readers prepared to study it in its original language, and more recently
has made possible its translation into numerous modern languages.
And yet, existing editions leave much to be desired in several respects,
two of which are worth mentioning here: their textual accuracy, and their
documentation of Thomas’ sources, Biblical and non-Biblical. Concerning
the first, comparison with the manuscript witnesses strongly suggests that the
printed texts contain no small number of interpolations and terminological
substitutions that occasionally result in an artificial coloring of his thought.
One may hope that a critical edition, benefitting from the scientific use
of all the known copies in manuscript, will present Thomas’ comments
with greater precision and thereby facilitate the appreciation and study
of his commentary on John’s Gospel. About the second, while existing
editions generally present the Biblical and non-Biblical sources explicitly
mentioned in the text, they are considerably less consistent with the sources
left unnamed, with the result that readers have little access to Thomas’s
creative dependence on the exegetical tradition in which he stood. The
documentation of his sources, with reference to their most recent editions,
will allow the modern reader to better appreciate Thomas’ interpretation of
particular passages within their various contexts, specifically, John’s Gospel
itself, the Bible as a whole, the history of Christian biblical interpretation,
and Christian doctrine. Not least among the many benefits of such a reading
of Super Iohannem will be an appreciation of its contribution to the long
commentarial on John’s Gospel of which Thomas became a part.
LEO J. ELDERS*
THE PRESENCE OF THE CHURCH FATHERS IN AQUINAS’

COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
AND THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
Introduction
Examining the presence of the Church Fathers in the commentaries

of Thomas Aquinas on the Gospels of Matthew and John raises several
questions such as that of the theological importance of their writings and
also that of where Thomas obtained his knowledge of the Greek Fathers.
The Fathers are the witnesses to the ancient Tradition. Their writings
stand in a direct connection with Holy Scripture because of the proximity
of the Fathers with the apostolic period. As Aquinas says, they have been
composed, under the assistance of the same Holy Spirit who inspired the
authors of the Bible1. For this reason the Fathers are a source of Christian
doctrine in so far as they present and explain what is contained in the Bible
and their teachings have been received by the Church2. While firmly rooted
in the authority of Sacred Scripture, St. Thomas also calls to mind the need
to read Sacred Scripture guided by the tradition of the Church, including
the Church Fathers3. Not everything the latter say may have the same value
*
Philosophical-Theological Institute Rolduc, Heyendallaan 82, EP 6464 Kerkrade
(Netherlands), email: elders@tiscali.nl
1
Quodl. XII, art. 26, q. 17, art.unic.: «Dicendum quod ab eodem Spiritu Scipturae
sunt expositae et editae».
2
Cf. In Div. Nom., c. 2, lect. 1, nr. 125 : «Oportet enim non solum conservare
ea quae in sanctis Scripturis sunt tradita, sed et ea quae dicta sunt a sacris doctoribus,
qui sacram Scripturam illibatam conservaverunt» and In Ioh., ch. 21, lect. 6, nr. 2656:
«Notandum autem, quod cum multi scriberent de Catholica veritate, haec est differentia,
quia illi, qui scripserunt canonicam Scripturam, sicut Evangelistae et apostoli, et alii
huiusmodi, ita constanter eam asserunt quod nihil dubitandum relinquunt […] Cuius
ratio est, quia sola canonica Scriptura est regula fidei. Alii autem sic edisserunt de
veritate, quod nolunt sibi credi nisi in his quae vera dicunt».
3
Cf. ST I, q. 1, a. 8, ad 2: «Ad secundum dicendum quod argumentari ex
auctoritate est maxime proprium huius doctrinae, eo quod principia huius doctrinae per
revelationem habentur, et sic oportet quod credatur auctoritati eorum quibus revelatio
facta est. […] Et inde est quod etiam auctoritatibus philosophorum sacra doctrina
258 LEO J. ELDERS
and only after the different heresies had entered the scene the Fathers began
to express themselves with the utmost care in doctrinal matters.
The place of the Fathers in the doctrinal history of the Church as
well as their significance for the spiritual life of the Christians was
fully acknowledged in the age of Thomas. In the writings of medieval
theologians, as for instance in the various Sententiae, numerous texts of the
Fathers are quoted. The fact that Pope Urban IV asked Thomas to compose
a Catena aurea of short comments of the Fathers on each verse of the
four gospels, and the ensuing popularity of this Golden Chain shows the
importance attached to their writings. While composing this admirable
chain of quotations Thomas could use texts or manuscripts present at the
papal court and also at the abbey of Monte Cassino. The fact that the Catena
aurea presents quotations from 57 Greek Fathers and authors attests to the
well-known fact that Thomas was keen to acquire first-hand knowledge of
the writings of the Fathers4.
The theologians of the XIIIth century moreover could also resort to
the so-called Tabulae, collections of important texts of the Fathers, such
as the Tabula aurea in Augustinum, the Tabula in Damascum, etc.5 One
should also mention the different Glosses on scriptural texts, such as the
Glossa ordinaria, the Glossa interlinearis and the Glossa Petri Lombardi
which all contained numerous quotations from the Fathers. Some biblical
commentaries of the Greek Fathers had been translated by Rufinus and
Jerome. Towards the middle of the XIIIth century John Burgundio of Pisa
utitur, ubi per rationem naturalem veritatem cognoscere potuerunt; sicut Paulus,
Actuum XVII, inducit verbum Arati, dicens, sicut et quidam poetarum vestrorum
dixerunt, genus Dei sumus. Sed tamen sacra doctrina huiusmodi auctoritatibus utitur
quasi extraneis argumentis, et probabilibus. Auctoritatibus autem canonicae Scripturae
utitur proprie, ex necessitate argumentando. Auctoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum
Ecclesiae, quasi arguendo ex propriis, sed probabiliter. Innititur enim fides nostra
revelationi apostolis et prophetis factae, qui canonicos libros scripserunt, non autem
revelationi, si qua fuit aliis doctoribus facta».
4
Cf. H.-F. DONDAINE, «Les scolastiques citent-ils les pères de première main?»,
Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 36 (1952) 231-243; P.-M. GY, «La
documentation sacramentaire de Thomas d’Aquin: quelle connaissance S. Thomas a-t-
il de la tradition ancienne et de la patristique?», Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et
Théologiques, 80 (1996) 425-431.
5
Cf. J. DE GHELLINK, «Le traité de Pierre Lombard sur les sept ordres
ecclésiastiques: ses sources, ses copistes», Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 10 (1909)
290-302 and 720-728; 11 (1910) 28-46.
THE PRESENCE OF THE CHURCH FATHERS IN AQUINAS’ 259
made translations of the homilies of Chrysostom on the Gospel according

to Matthew.
The numerous quotations of the Fathers provided a firm foundation for
interpreting the gospel texts and were helpful for a better understanding of
the doctrine of the faith. As Ignatius Backus wrote: «The Fathers render
the road toward the most profound mysteries of the faith safer and provide
light in the darkness. St. Thomas wants to obtain insight from them and
wants to know what they said in order to come to know better the incarnate
Word of God»6.
1. The Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
The commentary on the First Gospel is one of the major biblical

commentaries of St. Thomas and most likely dates from his second Paris
regency (1268-1272), that is after the completion of the Catena Aurea on
Matthew (1263) and during the composition of the Secunda and Tertia
Pars of his Summa theologiae. The most reliable text to date in the Marietti
edition, published in 1951, however, is based on two reportationes by
Peter d’Andria and Leodegar of Besançon, containing lacunae from Mt
5.11-6.8 and from 6.14-19, which were filled in in the first printed edition
of 1517 by material of the thirteenth century Dominican Peter of Scala,
now constituting numbers 444-582 and 603-610 in the Marietti edition7.
6
I. BACKUS, Die Christologie des hl. Thomas von Aquin und die griechischen
Kirchenväter, Schöningh, Paderborn 1931, p. 123. For more details on the role of.the
Church Fathers cf. J. GEENEN, «Le fonti patristiche come ‘autorità’ nella teologia di S.
Tomasso», Sacra Doctrina, 20 (1975) 7-67; J. J. DE MIGUEL, «Los padres de la Iglesia
en la criteriología teológica de Santo Tomás de Aquino», Scripta Theologica, 7 (1975)
125-161; G. BERCEVILLE, «L’autorité des Pères selon Thomas d’Aquin», Revue des
Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 91 (2007) 129-144; W. SENNER, «Thomas
von Aquin und die Kirchenväter - eine quantitative Übersicht», in Th. PRÜGL – M.
SCHLOSSER (edd.), Ekklesiologie und Spiritualität, Festschrift Ulrich Horst, Ferdinand
Schönigh, Paderborn 2007, pp. 22-39; L. J. ELDERS, Sur les traces de saint Thomas
d’Aquin: Étude de ses commentaires bibliques. Thèmes théologiques, Parole et Silence
– Les Presses Universitaires de l’IPC, Paris 2009, pp. 317-350.
7
On the history of the text see J. HOLMES, «Aquinas’ “Lectura in Matthaeum”»,
in Th. G. WEINANDY – D. KEATING – J. YOCUM (edd.), Aquinas on Scripture. An
Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries, T&T Clark International, London – New
York 2005, pp. 73-98. For an English translation, including the text to replace the
260 LEO J. ELDERS
Only in 1955 H.-V. Schooner discovered a complete reportatio by Peter

d’Andria in a manuscript of the university of Basel (Ms. B.V. 12) which
has been published only partially8.
The commentary is divided, as the Gospel itself, in 28 chapters, most of
which are subdivided in some sections, one may consider lessons. Chapter
28 has no such subdivision. Thomas follows the text verse after verse, but
may give at the beginning of a lesson or a passage a short summary of its
contents.
The commentary is both philological and doctrinal; it presents what
in Thomas’s time was known about the historical details and often gives
a fine doctrinal analysis by Thomas himself. We mention in particular the
refutations of the numerous heresies about the human and/or divine nature
of Christ9. It was also his concern to explain the minor discrepancies in the
descriptions of certain events by the evangelists10.
Many fathers of the Western Church are repeatedly quoted: Augustine,
Jerome, Gregory the Great, Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose. Quotations
from St. John Chrysostom occur in every chapter but the other Greek
Fathers are almost absent, except St. John Damascene. Yet there are
numerous references to Origen. Apparently the writings of St. Basil,
Gregory of Nazianze, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem and Cyril of
Alexandria on the gospel text were not available in Latin at the time of
composition of the commentary. Besides referring to.the Latin Fathers of
the Church, such as Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose and Hilary, Thomas also
brings quotations from St. Anselm, St. Bernard, Pseudo- Dionysius, the
different Glosses, Peter Lombard, Rabanus Maurus, Remigius and of non-
Christian authors as Aristotle, Plato and Cicero.
lacuna in chapters 5 and 6 using the Basel manuscript of Peter d’Andria, see Thomas
Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, trans. by P. KIMBALL, Dolorosa
Press, Bristol 2012.
8
The commentary on Mt. 5:13-16 has been published by H.-V. SCHOONER,
«La “Lectura in Matthaeum” de S. Thomas», Angelicum, 33 (1956) 121-142; the
commentary on 5:20-48 has been published by J.-P. RENARD, «La “Lectura super
Matthaeum” V, 20-48 de Thomas d’Aquin», Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et
Médiévale, 50 (1983) 145-190.
9
Cf. In Matt., ch.1, lect. 1, nr. 21 where he mentions Paul of Samosata, Photius
and Sabellius.
10
See for instance In Matt., ch. 1, lect. 2, nrs. 27-33 on the differences regarding
the genealogies between Matthew and Luke.
A typical trait of the commentary is that quite often the explanations

of several Fathers are quoted concerning the meaning of a difficult text,
while Thomas lets the reader judge himself, or manifests at the end his
own preference, for instance by saying : Origen comes close to the solution
(tangit), but Augustine gives the answer (solvit)11. On doctrinal questions,
however, Thomas often presents himself the solution. For instance, on sins
against the Holy Spirit which are never forgiven (Mt. 12: 31), he first quotes
Chrysostom, Augustine and Peter Lombard and concludes by giving his
own clear answer12.
We find an interesting example of resorting to the authority and
knowledge of the Fathers in the commentary of the text where Jesus forbids
divorce and the marrying another women, except in the case of fornication
(Mt. 5:31). Thomas starts by giving an analysis of the different meanings
of giving permission and then mentions the opinions of Augustine and
Jerome regarding the reason for permission to send one’s wife away. He
concludes by giving his own answer, namely that the sending away of a wife
guilty of fornication was prescribed in order that the wife’s crime might be
corrected13. Christ’s comparison of the kingdom of heaven to a grain of
mustard seed, the least of all seeds, sowed into a field but which grows to
become greater than all herbs (Mt. 13, 31-32) contains another interesting
example. According to Thomas, anyone who obeys the faith, given by
Christ, sows in the field, that is in the heart of Christ. He continues: «In this
field there are various seeds, which are the various doctrines (dogmata).
Those of Augustine and Jerome appear to be great, and are confirmed by
powerful arguments (magnis argumentis)».14 Regarding the parable of the
yeast («The kingdom of heaven is like to yeast, which a woman took and
hid in three measures of flour, until the whole was leavened»: Mt. 13:33),
Aquinas quotes the explanations of four different Fathers. According to
Chrysostom the yeast signifies the apostles, the woman divine wisdom and
the meal the tribulations, oppressing the apostles. For Augustine the yeast
signifies the fervor of charity and the woman stands for reason or the soul.
According to Jerome the yeast signifies the faith and the woman wisdom,
who hides it in three measures of flour, that is the mind, soul and body or
11
See for instance In Matt., ch. 27, lect. 1, nr. 2321.
12
See In Matt., ch. 12, lect. 2, nrs.1028-1036.
13
The Marietti text nrs. 518-522 contains the commentary by Peter of Scala.
14
In Matt., ch. 13, lect. 3, nr. 1159.
262 LEO J. ELDERS
the three appetitive faculties. Hilary sees Christ as the yeast which by the
Father’s providence was hidden in the world in the three laws (the natural
law, the Mosaic law and the law of the Gospel)15. A final example can be
drawn from chapter 26. Following several Church Fathers, Aquinas raises
the question whether the woman who anointed Jesus in the house of Simon
the leper (Mt. 26:7) was the same as Mary, the sister of Lazarus? Thomas
successively quotes the different views of Jerome, Ambrose, Origen and
Augustine, agreeing with the latter that the same woman is concerned16.
After these general remarks, let us now proceed in discussing the most
important comments of individual Church Fathers in order to see how they
accompany Thomas throughout his Commentary. The different Glosses also
contain numerous texts of the Fathers, but these will.not be taken into account.
The presence of Jerome in the Commentary on Matthew
Jerome is a foremost authority as regards the establishment of the

text, historical details and straightforward explanations. Thomas uses
the prologue of Jerome to introduce his own preface to the gospel. In the
commentary Jerome appears as the well-informed critical reader, who
knows many details, but is somewhat suspicious of people’s intentions,
as, for instance, of the rich young man (Mt 19: 16) and of Herod. The
remarks of Jerome quoted by Thomas often witness to his common sense
approach. The accounts of the number of loaves and the remaining scraps
in the gospels show slight differences. Jerome says that people act and
speak according to the general impression they are under17. With regard to
Jesus’ prediction of his coming suffering and death Peter said: «This must
not happen to you» (Mt. 16:22), Jerome observes that Peter did not speak
driven by the devil, but moved by affection18. Nevertheless, allegorical
explanations also occur. For instance, the oil of the bridesmaids in Mt. 25:
3-5 signifies their good works.
Jerome is also the expert in matters of Jewish customs and religious
practices. When Jesus shows by a text from Holy Scripture (Ex. 3:6) that
15
Cf. In Matt., ch. 13, lect. 3, nr. 1166-1169.
16
Cf. In Matt., ch. 26, lect. 1, nr. 2129.
17
18
there will be the resurrection of the dead, one wonders why he did not use
more outspoken texts from Isaiah, Ezekiel or Daniel. Jerome answers that
the Sadducees did not accept the latter texts as part of Holy Scripture19. He
also notes that when the apostles or evangelists quote the Old Testament,
one should not seek a word by word identity, but just take the text as inspired
by the Holy Spirit20. Jerome and Aquinas do not follow the suggestion of
Augustine to insert «without reason» in Mt. 5: 22: «But I say to you, that
whosoever is angry [without reason] with his brother, will answer for it
before the court»21.
Aquinas uses Jerome to clarify several difficult verses. Regarding for
instance Mt. 7: 11 («If you then being evil, know how to give to your
children what is good…»), Aquinas mentions Jerome’s distinction between
being evil in one’s actions and being evil in one’s proneness to evil. After
the beheading of John the Baptist, Jesus left by boat to a lonely place (Mt.
14:13). Jerome gives four reasons why Jesus left by boat after having
received the news about John: a) to prevent his enemies to commit a second
murder; b) to postpone his own passion; c) to show how great the devotion
was of the crowds who listened to the word of God; d) to set an example:
we should not recklessly expose ourselves to danger.
The presence of Augustine in the Commentary on Matthew
Augustine is referred to more than 250 times in the Lectura of Thomas,

but only 19 of his works are mentioned by name. Everywhere, however,
throughout the commentary he is consulted, as for instance in chapter 1 on
the question why Matthew places the genealogy of Christ at the beginning
of his gospel, whereas Luke does so after the account of the baptism of
Jesus. In the following section we shall quote some of the many telling
sentences of the Bishop of Hippo.
A text of Augustine attenuates a somewhat harsh saying of Jesus.
Regarding the sentence «if anyone orders you to go one mile with him,
19
20
Cf. In Matt., ch. 2, lect. 4, nr. 225: «Et notandum quod, sicut dicit Hieronymus,
ubicumque per apostolos et Evangelistas introducitur aliqua auctoritas veteris
testamenti, non oportet introducere verbum ex verbo semper, sed sicut dedit eis spiritus
sanctus, aliquando sensum ex sensu in usu nostro.»
21
264 LEO J. ELDERS
go two miles» (Mt. 5: 41) Augustine says that there is no record that it has
ever be done neither by Jesus himself nor by his disciples22.
Jesus tells us not to babble when we pray, as the pagans do, but
Augustine observes that he does not condemn the prayers which the saints
address to God23. In his explanation of the efficacy of prayer (Mt.7:7)
Thomas quotes Augustine’s famous words: «The Lord is good, who often
does not give what we ask, in order to give us what we want more»24. Does
God listen to the prayers of sinners? Yes, unless they choose to remain
in their sinful state25. At the end of the last chapter of the Evangelical
Discourse, Augustine is quoted: All what Jesus says in this sermon comes
down to the seven gifts of the Spirit and our beatitude26.
With regard to slight differences in the descriptions by the evangelists
of miraculous healings, Augustine says that their wording need not be
precisely the same, but that what they intend to say (intentio) is27. Why
do nowadays the missionaries not dispose of the same powers as the
apostles to work miracles? That is not necessary, says Augustine, since
the greatest miracle is evident for all, the conversion of the whole world to
Christ by twelve poor fishermen28. In the parable of the good seed and the
weeds (Mt.13: 24) the sower wondered where the darnel had come from,
Augustine comments: No society is so good that there is no bad person in
it29.
On the question of whether some sorts of food are clean or unclean,
Augustine says that nothing is unclean by its nature, but that it can become
so by its signification. Before Christ, the Jewish people lived in a period
in which many things were given figurative meanings, since the truth had
not yet become evident30. Jesus says to a young man in Mt 19:22: «If you
want to be perfect, go sell what you have» and Aquinas comments with
Augustine: When charity increases, cupidity diminishes; the perfection of
love is when there is no cupidity. In the same chapter 19 he says that the
22
In Matt., ch. 5, lect. 9, nr. 546 (Peter of Scala).
23
24
In Matt., ch. 7, lect. 1, nr. 644.
25
26
27
28
In Matt., ch. 10, lect.1, nr. 811.
29
In Matt., ch. 13, lect. 2, nr. 1140
30
In Matt., ch. 15, lect. 1, nr. 1300.
state of being a bishop can decently be exercised, but that it is not decent to
attempt to reach it31. On the question of whether there is eternal punishment,
Augustine answers: Yes, while the blessed have eternal happiness32.
The presence of John Chrysostom in the Commentary on Matthew
Thomas appreciates the observations of Chrysostom on the text of the

gospel, and quotes the Greek Church Father over 200 times. Often the
comments are characterized by common sense wisdom and knowledge of
the daily life of the Christians. Some examples: No one can stay in a valley
and speak about heaven; God’s name is blasphemed by those who do not
do what they say33. In his Sermon on the Mount Jesus warns not to commit
adultery (Mt. 5:27). Chrysostom asks why Jesus does not first stress the
importance of love ; he answers that Jesus begins with the most frequent
passions. On swearing he observes: No one swears repeatedly, without
sometimes committing perjury34.
Regarding Jesus’ saying that if a man takes you to law to get your tunic,
let him have your cloak as well, Chrysostom comments as follows: Once you
are before the judge, you don’t have to deliberate that the real truth of the
situation may become clear, but, whatever happens to you, you will always
be the winner. Usury is like the bite of a snake: you go to sleep doped by the
poison, but then, while the poison spreads through the whole body, you will
die. When you do good to an enemy, you yourself are the first beneficiary35.
Alms are disagreeable to God when they are given so as to seen by others.
On addressing God as our Father (Mt. 6:9), Chrysostom writes that by
saying ‘Father’ we ask pardon for our sins, the acquitment of punishment,
justification, sanctification, liberation and adoption as God’s children, so as
to be entitled to our heritage and joined in friendship with the only-born Son
of God who brings us the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is also more agreeable
to pray in fraternal love than in need and for this reason, according to
Chrysostom, we don’t say ‘my Father’ but ‘our Father’36.
31
In Matt., ch. 19, lect. unic., nrs.1593 & 1595.
32
In Matt., ch. 25, lect. 3, nr. 2114.
33
In Matt., ch. 5, lect. 1, nr. 399; lect.5, nr. 463 (Peter of Scala).
34
In Matt., ch. 5, lect. 8, nr. 503; nr. 534 (Peter of Scala).
35
In Matt., ch. 5, lect. 9, nr. 544; nr. 550; nr. 553 (Peter of Scala).
36
In Matt., ch. 6, lect. 2, nr. 581; lect. 3, nr. 584.
266 LEO J. ELDERS
When the bystanders told Jesus, who apparently was inside a house,
that his mother and brothers had come, Jesus said: «Who is my mother?»
(Mt. 12:48). Chrysostom gives two explanations of this reply, which at
first sight seems rude. One of these is correct, says Thomas : a) Mary and
his brothers wanted to share in Jesus’ fame; but says Thomas, this does
not apply to Mary who is above this sort of ambition; b) Jesus meant to
say that what he was doing he had received from his Father, not from his
mother. Thomas quotes Augustine’s words: «When we speak about sin, I
do not want to see Mary mentioned in any way». Jerome suggests that the
man who made this remark to Jesus had the intention to provoke him to
see whether Jesus was so concerned with spiritual things that he did not
care about family relations37. As for Peter’s proposal, on the occasion of the
transfiguration on Mount Tabor, to make three tents, Chrysostom proposes
a very down to earth explanation: Peter wanted to keep Jesus away from
the perils threatening him in case.he would go back to Judea. Regarding
the comparison of the difficulty for the wealthy to be saved, with that of a
camel to go through the eye of a needle (Mt. 19:24), Chrysostom explains
the mystical sense of the passage: the camel signifies the nations of the
earth, the needle Christ and the eye of the needle is a sign of the passion
of Christ38.
The presence of Origen in the Commentary on Matthew
Origen is quite repeatedly referred to by Thomas. The quotations often

consider details of the customs mentioned in the text. On certain points,
Thomas corrects Origen who thinks for instance that there is no eternal
punishment39. In his comments on the parable of the king and the pitiless
servant, Origen suggests that sins, once forgiven, may come back, a view
rejected by Thomas40. Considering that before the confession of Peter,
the apostle did not yet understand that Jesus is a divine person, Origen
wonders how they could be sent on a mission by Jesus and suggests that
37
In Matt., ch. 12, lect.4, nrs. 1072-1074.
38
In Matt., ch. 17, lect. 1, nr. 1430; ch. 19, lect. 1, nr. 1602.
39
40
they preached penance, not Christ himself41. In line with the dominant
moral theory of his time Origen says that when one has one virtue, one has
them all42.
The presence of Gregory the Great in the Commentary on Matthew
In his Commentary on Matthew Thomas refers some fifty times to

Pope Gregory the Great, and mentions many wise observations of one of
the last Latin Church Fathers on the moral life of Christians. So we come
across sayings as «fraud is the daughter of avarice» and «if we think of our
past difficulties, our present worries are not so great»43. When Jesus says
that «one who does not carry his cross cannot be his disciple» or «what
has a man to offer in exchange for his soul?» (Mt. 16: 24-26), Gregory
remarks, not much to the point, that the time of the church is twofold, that
is a time of prosperity and of adversity, and that in a prosperous period we
may enjoy good things, in a time of adversity we must support difficulties44.
The presence of Ambrose in the Commentary on Matthew
The texts of Ambrose quoted in the commentary are few, but witness to
a great wisdom in matters of our moral life. On the temptation of Jesus in the
desert, where the devil held out the prospect of power and wealth, Ambrose
comments that ambition implies a danger for the person in question : he
crawls in obsequiousness so that he may be honored, but while he wants to
be on top, he is actually despised. It is proper to the virtue of prudence do
moderate anger. It is no greater sin to take away something from its owner
than to refuse to help people in need. Why did the disciples of Jesus not
fast as often as the Pharisees? (Mt. 9:14): Those who have recently been
converted should not be burdened by difficult practices45.
41
In Matt., ch. 16, lect. 2, nr.1378.
42
In Matt., ch. 25, lect. 1, nr.2015.
43
44
45
In Matt., ch. 4, lect. 1, nr. 339; ch. 5, lect.2, nr. 419; lect.9, n. 549 (Peter of
Scala); ch. 9, lect. 3, nr. 769.
268 LEO J. ELDERS
The presence of Hilary of Poitiers in the Commentary on Matthew
The references to texts of Hilary of Poitiers are more numerous than

the quotations from the works of Ambrose, but contain few important
suggestions. When Thomas lists the different opinions of two or three
Fathers on a particular question, he often adds the view of Hilary. Here
are some direct references to Hilary’s understanding of the text. When
a scribe came up to Jesus and said that he would follow him wherever
he would go, Jesus pointed out the harsh conditions of his apostolic life.
Hilary says that the man knew what he was asking and what he should do,
and his fault was that he had doubts on what was to be his vocation46. When
Jesus instructs his apostles and warns about difficulties and hardships, he
says that they will not have gone the round of the towns of Israel, before
the Son of Man comes, Hilary understands this as applying to the second
mission of the apostles to the pagan nations. Thomas notes that Hilary’s
explanation is different from that of Augustine47. When Jesus says that,
although one can buy two sparrows for a penny, God watches over them
(Mt. 10:29), Hilary suggests that the two sparrows signify the soul and
the body48. He stresses the importance of Peter’s profession of Jesus as
the Son of God49. Regarding the parable of the vineyard laborers, Hilary
sees in those who complained a reference to the Jewish converts who were
dissatisfied because the newcomers from the pagan nations will receive the
same wage, whereas they are told that they will receive the wage they had
agreed upon, - sitting at his right hand on the final day50. At the end of the
parable of the talents in Mt. 25, Jesus says that to everyone who has will
be given more, but from the man who has not, even what he has will be
taken away. Hilary applies it to the Jews, who lost what they had, while
Jerome and Chrysostom apply the saying to the person who has talents, but
does no use them. Thomas himself gives no further explanation51. Hilary
understands Jesus’ prayer to the Father in Mt 26:39 («Let this cup pass me
by») to refer to his disciples so that they would not suffer.
46
47
48
49
In Matt., ch. 16, lect. 2, nr. 1370.
50
In Matt., ch. 20, lect. 1, nr. 1641.
51
In Matt., ch. 25, lect. 2, nr. 2074.
2. The commentary on the Gospel of John
The Commentary on the Gospel of John most likely was written

during Aquinas’ second period as magister at the University of Paris and
more particularly between 1270 and 1272. Thomas himself characterizes
the fourth gospel as having been written to place the divinity of Christ in
the center52. The commentary is considered by many scholars to be one
of the most accomplished biblical works of Thomas53. One has only to
read the text of the first chapter and what he writes on the Holy Spirit in
chapters 14 - 16 to admire his profound theological explanations. In fact,
certain sections of the lectura are short lessons in theology, such as the
explanations on the two natures of Christ, the Trinity, the sacraments, and
questions about moral life. Obviously in introducing many references to
the Fathers, Thomas could use the research he had done about the text of
the Fourth Gospel while writing the Catena aurea.
As he had done at the beginning of the lectura of the Gospel of Matthew,
he places the prologue of Jerome before his own preface, and so acknowledges
the authority of this great biblical scholar. Nevertheless references to Jerome’s
writings are rare: a remark on the sense of the Hosanna54 and on the brothers
of Jesus55. Furthermore, in chapter 18 his authority, together with that of
Augustine et alios doctores Latinos56 is invoked to determine the precise date
of the pascha celebration of Jesus and the Apostles. Jerome also suggests
that John the Baptist knew that Christ was the Son of God, but not that he
would save the world by baptism57. On the debated question whether Mary,
who anointed Jesus in Bethany, was the same as the Mary mentioned in Luke
7: 37, Jerome and Origen think that the two Mary’s are different persons58.
52
Cf. In Ioh., Prol., nr. 10.
53
Cf. J.-P. TORRELL, Initiation à saint Thomas d’Aquin. Sa personne et son œuvre.
2e édition 2002 revue et augmentée, Éditions universitaires de Fribourg - Cerf, Fribourg
– Paris 2002, p. 292.
54
Cf. In Ioh., ch.12, lect.3, nr. 1624. In ch.7, lect.2, nr.1030 Thomas says that
Jerome, in making «murmur» masculine in gender (John 7:12 reads: «murmur erat
multus in turba»), used the ancient grammar or that the translation of biblical texts was
not bound by the rules of Priscian.
55
Cf. In Ioh., ch.2, lect.2, nr. 370.
56
Cf. In Ioh., ch. 18, lect. 5, nr. 2334.
57
58
Cf. In Ioh., ch. 11, lect.1, nr. 1474.
270 LEO J. ELDERS
In explaining the emotions shown by Jesus such as sadness, indignation, joy,

Thomas mentions Jerome’s description of these emotions as a propassio,
movements which remain within the limits of reason59.
On the first pages of the lectura the reader finds a very great number
of quotations from several Fathers, obviously meant by Thomas to show
that his commentary is a prolongation of what earlier doctors had written
about the Fourth Gospel. The commentary is destined for use in the
main course of theology at the University. The division of the text of the
different chapters into a number of lessons points to this scholarly nature
of the lectura as do the frequent sciendum est autem, sed notandum, sed
dicendum, videtur quod, respondeo dicendum and similar sentences which
are used to solve difficulties and counter arguments. Furthermore, on
particular questions the views of different fathers are very often confronted,
in particular those of Augustine and John Chrysostom, with an occasional
qualification by Thomas telling us which solution is preferable. Thomas
obviously proceeds in this way for pedagogical reasons. In doing so he
suggests that certain passages of the text are open to different explanations.
Some examples of texts where Thomas manifests his preference for the
view of a particular author are John 15:15: «I have made known to you
everything I heard from my Father». This verse seems to say that the
disciples knew as much as the Son. According to Aquinas, Gregory gives
a better explanation than Augustine, namely that of the same thing one can
have a more or a less perfect knowledge. One who teaches the principles
of a science can be said to teach whatever is contained in that science. In
this way there is an imperfect knowledge of God in faith, which is a kind of
foretaste of the more perfect knowledge in heaven and it is the former kind
of knowledge Jesus has made known to his disciples60. On the question of
whether the miracle of Christ walking on the waters as described in John
6 is the same miracle as that told in Matthew 14, Augustine answers that it
is. This is closer to truth (verius), Thomas says61. We find another example
of Thomas manifesting his preference in John 10: 36, where Jesus says to
the Jews: «Yet you say to someone the Father has consecrated and sent into
the world: you are blaspheming». Hilary says that the word consecrated
concerns the human nature of Christ, while Augustine thinks that his
59
60
61
In Ioh., ch. 6, lect. 2, nr. 884.
divinity is meant. According to Thomas it is better to refer the words to

Christ as a man (melius exponitur)62.
The authority of the Fathers is not absolute as Thomas argues in the
Summa theologiae63. Mistaken explanations occur. In chapter 1, lesson 7,
n. 174 we read that sometimes the Fathers, when rejecting errors, went too
far in the opposite direction. When Augustine was attacking the heresy of
the Manicheans, who rejected free will, he went so far toward the contrary
position that he seemed to fall into the heresy of the Pelagians. Despite
the frequent quotations from the writings of the Fathers, in particular
of Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory and Hilary, the main doctrinal
explanations are mostly of Thomas himself, such as those on the Divine
Word in chapter 1, the nightly conversation with Nicodemus, the passage
on the Bread of Life and the Farewell Discourses.
Especially in the first lessons of his Lectura several Fathers are quoted.
In the lesson on the verses 1 and 2 the reader finds the names of Augustine,
Origen, Chrysostom, Basil, Hilary. One could say that especially at the
beginning of his commentary Thomas wants to show that his explanations
are entirely in line with the tradition. So he writes in n. 74 that the words
through him all things came to be show that the Word is equal to the Father
according to Chrysostom, co-eternal with the Father according to Hilary
and consubstantial with him according to Augustine. Commenting on John
1:4b («that life was the light of men») Thomas quotes several authors:
Augustine says that light is especially said of spiritual things, while
Ambrose thinks that splendor can only be said of God in a metaphorical
sense. Another example of this great number of Church Fathers referred
to is.found in his commentary of the question why the testimony of John
was required in order to introduce Jesus? Origen gives 3 reasons: a) God
wanted some people to become involved just to honor them and to bring
the knowledge about God to mankind through the mediation of a few
men; b) God wanted us to come to the knowledge of the truth through the
testimony of prophets; c) People come to the knowledge of truth along
different paths, some by miracles but others through the testimony of wise
men. Chrysostom adds a fourth reason: to help those who by themselves
could not discover the truth64.
62
In Ioh., ch. 10, lect. 6, nr. 1461.
63
Cf. ST I, q. 1, a. 8, ad 2.
64
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 4, nr. 119.
272 LEO J. ELDERS
After these more general remarks, let us now discuss the most
important comments by individual Church Fathers in order to see how they
accompany Thomas throughout his Commentary.
The presence of Augustine in the Commentary on John
St. Augustine is the Church Father most frequently quoted, almost

twice as often as Chrysostom. This is easily understood because of the
dominant place he holds in the Western Church due to his profound
theological knowledge, his very numerous publications and his exemplary
life as a bishop. In the following, we will mention only the more important
and telling references in the lectura. The importance attached by Thomas
to Augustine is evident since he is referred to three times in Thomas´
Prologue, in which he outlines the general characteristics of the Gospel of
John. The depth of John’s meditation has its explanation, Augustine said,
in the fact that John went beyond all creatures, mountains, heavens as well
as the angels to arrive at the Creator of all things65. Augustine also warns
that our comprehension of God is limited, as John shows in his gospel66.
As is well known, Augustine is often inclined to give a figurative or
mystical sense to a passage. When some disciples of John the Baptist went
to visit the house where Jesus was staying, it was about the tenth hour (John
1: 39). The number recalls the Ten Commandments of the Law, Augustine
says, because Christ would teach them the meaning of the Law and of its
observation67. When Jesus tells Nathanael that he will see the heaven laid
open, and, above the Son of Man the angels ascending and descending,
Augustine sees in these words an affirmation of the divinity of Christ68,
as Jacob saw in a dream angels going up and down a ladder and yahweb
standing there (Gen. 28: 12).
Jesus’ assistance at a wedding in Cana is for Augustine a sign of
his humility69. As to the cleansing of the temple, placed by John at the
beginning of Jesus’ public life, he observes that Matthew, who put the
65
In Ioh., Prol., nr. 2.
66
In Ioh., Prol., nr. 6.
67
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 15, nr. 297.
68
In Ioh., ch.1, lect. 16, n.332.
69
In Ioh., ch.2, lect. 1, n. 341.
event at the end of the public life, did not keep the chronological order of
the events. In chapter 4 of his gospel John tells that Jesus and his disciples
went baptizing people in the area where John the Baptist was preaching. So
the question came up of the difference between the baptism spent by John
and that of Jesus and his disciples. The latter, says Augustine, baptized
with water and the Holy Spirit, and this interpretation is closer to the truth
(verius) says Thomas than that of Chrysostom who thought it was just with
water alone that they baptized.
In chapter 4, v. 43 we read that Jesus went back to Galilee, although he
had declared that a prophet is not respected in his own country. The reason
why he did so was, Augustine says, to witness for the truth70. As Thomas
looked for an allegorical interpretation of the cure of the nobleman’s son
described in chapter 4, he also presents Augustine’s figurative remarks on
the cure of a sick man at the Pool of Bethesda in chapter 5. The angel which
stirs the water of the pool is Christ, says Augustine, who also discovers a
symbolic sense in the 38 years the man had been sick71.
To defend his working a miracle on a Sabbath, Jesus says that his
Father goes on working, and so does he (John 5:17). Augustine comments
that God is the cause which keeps his creatures in existence (causa
subsistendi). Thomas adds that God does not create things with the help
of secondary agents72. When Jesus says that he does nothing by himself
(John 5:19) Thomas advances some explanations but prefers Augustine’s
solution, i.e. Jesus’ statement refers to the eternal birth of the Son from the
Father. Although the Son is equal to the Father in everything, he receives
it from the Father through his eternal generation73. In John 5:20 Jesus says
that the Father will show him even greater things than these. Augustine
explains these words as referring to the human nature of Christ74. In his
divine nature Christ gives life to the souls, in his human nature to the bodies
70
In Ioh., ch. 4, lect. 6, nr. 668.
71
Cf. In Ioh., ch. 5, lect. 1, nr. 711: «Quia ergo denarius per quatuor multiplicatus
pervenit ad quadragenarium, recte perfecta iustitia designatur: subtractis ergo duobus
a quadragenario numero efficiuntur triginta octo. Haec autem duo sunt duo praecepta
caritatis, quibus impletur omnis perfecta iustitia. Et ideo homo iste languebat, quia de
quadraginta, duo minus habebat, idest imperfectam iustitiam: quia, ut dicitur Matth.
XXII, 40: in his duobus pendent lex et prophetae.»
72
In Ioh., ch. 5, lect. 2, nr. 740.
73
In Ioh., ch. 5, lect. 3, nr. 747.
74
In Ioh., ch. 5, lect. 3, nr. 759.
274 LEO J. ELDERS
of human beings. Jesus continues by saying that the Father judges no one.
Augustine explains that the Father and the Son do all things together,
although certain tasks are executed by the Son.
When Jesus says that the hour will come and in fact is there already
(et nunc est) when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, Thomas
comments that for Lazarus, for the young man of Naim and for the daughter
of Jairus the hour was there already, while Augustine says that the words
«it is there already» refer to the resurrection of the souls from unbelief to
faith, from injustice to justice. As often Augustine is inclined to see the
immaterial side of things75.
Chapter 6 describes the miracle of Christ walking on the waters, since
he had fled the turmoil of the crowds, in order to pray76. Meanwhile, the
apostles in their boat ran into heavy weather, strong winds and a rough sea.
Augustine comments: when love becomes tepid, the waves get higher77.
Thomas agrees with Augustine that the dropping of the wind is the same
miracle as that recounted by Matthew 1478. The next day a numerous crowd
comes to Capernaum. Jesus voices a reproach: people come because they
were fed and had eaten well. Augustine and Gregory the Great comment
that these people were like those who come to prelates and the clergy to
obtain favors79. But Jesus continues instructing the crowd: Do not work
for food that does not last: the Son of Man is offering food that endures to
eternal life.(v. 27). At this point Thomas quotes a beautiful text from the
Confessions of Augustine: «I am the food of the great; grow and you will
eat me. But you will not change me into yourself, as you do with bodily
food, but you will be changed into me»80. Augustine adds that there were
some monks who found a pretext in these words to excuse themselves
from the duty to work. Aquinas notes, however, that the true understanding
(verus intellectus) of vs. 27 entails that one is to seek the spiritual goods
75
In Ioh., ch. 5, lect. 4, nr. 779.
76
Cf. In Ioh., ch. 6, lect. 2, nr. 872: «Sed huic videtur contrarium quod dicitur Mt.
XIV, 23, scilicet quod ascendit solus in montem orare. Sed, secundum Augustinum,
haec non sunt contraria, quia causa fugiendi coniuncta est causae orandi. Tunc enim
docet nos dominus magnam causam esse orandi, cum imminet causa fugiendi.»
77
In Ioh., ch. 6, lect. 2, nr. 879.
78
Cf. In Ioh., ch. 6, lect. 2, nr. 884: «Secundum Augustinum autem dicitur, et
verius, idem miraculum fuisse quod hic Ioannes narrat, et ibi Matthaeus.»
79
In Ioh., ch. 6, lect. 3, nr. 893.
80
In Ioh., ch. 6, lect. 3, nr. 895.
that lead to eternal life and to use the temporal goods in a subordinate way,
as long as one’s mortal body is to be nourished in this life81.
The people asked Jesus: What sign do you give us to show that we
must believe in you? Chrysostom sees this question as a provocation but
Augustine says that with this promise Jesus seemed to make himself greater
than Moses, but that the Jews preferred to stay with Moses. Regarding v.
27: «Whoever comes to me I shall not turn him down», Augustine says that
the spiritual goods promised by Jesus give inner joy, penetrate deeper into
us and are without bitterness82.
In chapter 7, v. 1 we read that Jesus could not stay in Judea because
the Jews were out to kill him. Augustine comments that the text shows that
Christians who avoid to be caught and killed by the enemies of the faith are
not to be blamed83. The brothers of Jesus, driven by ambition, urged him
to go to Jerusalem for the feast of the tabernacles. Apparently they hoped
to become famous through Jesus, but, as Augustine says, their familiarity
with Jesus impeded them to believe in him84. Nevertheless, although Jesus
at first declined to go to Jerusalem, he went somewhat later. Augustine
reaffirms that these brothers were relatives: the womb of Mary conceived
no other mortal person either before or after Christ85.
Chapter 8 presents the episode of the adulterous woman brought
before Jesus, who at first did not say a word but instead kept writing on
the ground. Augustine says that the names of sinful men are written on
the earth, but those of good people in heaven86. Referring to Augustine
and Gregory, Thomas suggests that Abraham had an inkling of the person
of the Son of God and of the mystery of the Trinity, for Jesus said (John
8:56): «Your Father Abraham rejoiced at the thought that he would see
my day». In chapter 9 the cure of the man born blind is recounted. Jesus’
disciples asked him if the man himself or else his parents had sinned for
him to be born blind. Jesus answered that neither he nor his parents had
sinned. Augustine observes that a son is never punished because of his
father’s sins87 and Thomas quotes the well-known text of the Enchiridion
81
In Ioh., ch. 6, lect. 3, nr. 896.
82
In Ioh., ch. 6, lect. 4, nr. 921.
83
In Ioh., ch. 7, lect. 1, nr. 1012.
84
In Ioh., ch. 7, lect. 1, nr. 1017.
85
In Ioh., ch. 7, lect. 1, nr. 1015.
86
In Ioh., ch. 8, lect. 1, nr. 1131.
87
In Ioh., ch. 9, lect. 1, nr. 1296.
276 LEO J. ELDERS
to explain why God allows evil to happen: God is so good that he would
never allow some evil to happen if he were not so powerful that from
whatever evil he can draw some good88.
In chapter 10 Aquinas uses Augustine to explain the way in which
Christ is the gate and the gatekeeper of the sheepfold. He enters the fold by
himself, and no one can enter the heavenly beatitude unless through Christ,
since our beatitude is nothing else but joy in the truth and Christ as the Son
of God is the truth89. Martha warns Jesus at the grave of Lazarus that it is
already the fourth day since he has been buried. Augustine explains that
the four days signify a fourfold death: the first day death through original
sin; the next three days signify death by actual sins, since each mortal sin
is a certain death, sc. of the natural law which is scorned; of the written
laws of the community and finally of the evangelical law and the order of
grace.90 As to the meaning of Martha’s complaint: «if you had been here
my brother would not have died» (John 11: 21) Augustine explains: While
you were with us, neither illness nor any infirmity dared to appear among
us who had life as their host. What an unbelievable concourse: while you
were still in the world, your friend Lazarus died. «If a friend dies, what will
happen to an enemy?»91.
In chapter 12 the question is raised why Jesus tolerated the presence
of Judas among the apostles. Augustine suggests that we learn from this
to tolerate patiently the presence of some thieves92. As to the piece of
bread Jesus gave to Judas during the Last Supper he notes that it was not
consecrated93. Thomas explains Jesus’s words «I am the Way, the Truth
and Life» (John 14:16) with the help of Augustine (n.1872) and Hilary
(n.1879). With regard to the words «what everyone asks in my name I will
do» Augustine explains that in my name means what is related to salvation.
God often refuses what we ask, in order to give us something better94. In
John 14: 26 Jesus promises that he and the Father will come to whom who
keeps his words. Augustine explains that there are three ways by which
God comes to us and we go to God: by causing his effects in us, and we
88
In Ioh., ch. 9, lect. 1, nr. 1301.
89
In Ioh., ch. 10, lect. 1, nr. 1370.
90
In Ioh., ch. 11, lect. 4, nr. 1507.
91
In Ioh., ch. 11, lect. 5, nr. 1530.
92
In Ioh., ch. 12, lect. 1, nr. 1605.
93
In Ioh., ch. 13, lect. 4, nr. 1809.
94
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 2, nr. 1905.
go to him by receiving them; by enlightening us, while we meditate; by

helping us, while we obey95.
In chapter 17, v. 3 Jesus says that «eternal life is to know you, Father,
the only true God». The text was misused by Arius, but Thomas quotes the
refutations by Hilary and Augustine96. In v.19 Jesus says that for their sake
he sanctifies himself. Augustine explains that this grace and sanctity will also
come to his disciples97. During the interrogation by the high priest (John 18:22)
one of the guards gave Jesus a slap in the face. Contrary to what we read in
the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did not turn the other cheek to the man, but
addressed a reproach to him. Augustine says that what the Holy Spirit says and
prescribes in Holy Scripture may be interpreted according to what the saints
did, for the same Spirit who inspired the text, inspired their behavior98.
When after the resurrection Mary of Magdala recognized Christ and
embraced his feet, Jesus said: «Do not cling to me» (John 20:17). Thomas
indicates a mystical meaning of this warning: Mary represented the Church from
the pagans, which could not touch Christ by faith except, after his ascension. A
second explanation is from Augustine, De Trinitate, I, ch. 9 : touching something
crowns, seals the knowledge we have of it; now Mary had not yet reached a full
knowledge of Jesus as the Son of God99. When Jesus says in John 20:17: «I am
ascending to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God», he is
speaking both in regard of his divine and of his human nature.100
In his apparition to the apostles a week after the resurrection Jesus
said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit. But was not the Spirit to be given on
Pentecost? Chrysostom restricts the first gift of the Spirit to the power of
forgiving sins and working miracles, while Augustin and Gregory suggest
that first the Spirit is given to make us love our neighbor, and later to make
us love God101. Another question is whether the wounds had to remain in
Jesus’ body risen from the dead? Augustine says that Jesus could make
them disappear, but kept them to strengthen the faith of Thomas the apostle
and in view of the last judgment102.
95
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 6, nr. 1945.
96
In Ioh., ch. 17, lect. 1, nrs. 2186-2187.
97
In Ioh., ch. 17, lect. 4, nr. 2231.
98
In Ioh., ch. 18, lect. 4, nr. 2321.
99
In Ioh., ch. 20, lect. 3, nr. 2517.
100
In Ioh., ch. 20, lect. 3, nr. 2521.
101
In Ioh., ch. 20, lect. 4, nr. 2540.
102
In Ioh., ch. 20, lect. 6, nr. 2557.
278 LEO J. ELDERS
The presence of John Chrysostom in the Commentary on John
John Chrysostom is the second-most quoted Church Father, after

Augustine. At the very beginning of his commentary Thomas says that
in the Eastern Church Chrysostom enjoys such a great authority in his
commentaries on Holy Scripture that when he has said something no other
explanation is admitted103. The comments he makes often have the character
of instructions about our moral life. It is also noticeable that he frequently
points out human weaknesses. To give just one example: Origen thinks that
the priests and Levites sent to interrogate John the Baptist came in good
conscience to the Jordan but Chrysostom says that they were dishonest and
wanted John to declare that he himself was the Christ instead of Jesus104.
John preceded Christ in a twofold way. He was slightly older and began his
preaching before Jesus and secondly, his doctrine held the middle between
the Old Law and the Prophets on the one hand and the teachings of Jesus
on the other hand. Chrysostom understands John 1: 27: «he ranks before
me because he existed before me» (ante me factus est) as meaning: I am
older but he has greater dignity105.
We read in the prologue of the gospel that from Christ’s fullness all of
us received grace in return for grace. Chrysostom says that the first grace
mankind received was the Old Testament106, while Augustine applies the
words to us: we received justification, prevenient grace and later we shall be
given eternal life107. Several disciples of John followed Jesus. Chrysostom
comments: they had understood that Jesus was the main prophet, but they
did not make their own the words “I am not fit to undo his sandal strap”.
The words of John are like grains of seed: in some hearts they grow well108.
Chrysostom is somewhat critical of Mary during the wedding at Cana:
glowing with zeal for the honor of her Son she wanted him to perform
a miracle right away109. He also calls Nicodemus naive for not having
103
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 2, nr. 94.
104
In Ioh., ch.1, lect. 12, nr. 227.
105
In Ioh., ch.1, lect. 9, nr.198.
106
In Ioh., ch.1, lect. 9, nr. 204.
107
In Ioh., ch.1, lect. 9, nr. 206.
108
In Ioh., ch.1, lect. 15, n. 285.
109
For a similar critical remark of Thomas, see ST III, q. 27, a. 4, ad 3, where he
says that Chrysostom went too far (excessit) in alleging that Mary wanted to see Jesus
(Mt 12: 47) out of ambition.
grasped that Jesus was speaking about a spiritual birth110. Jesus compares
the coming of the Holy Spirit to the wind: we do not know from where it
comes. Augustine said that Jesus is not really talking about the wind, since
we do know from where it comes, but Chrysostom, followed by almost all
Greek Fathers, explains that we know about the wind in general but that in
detail (in speciali) we may not know111.
John the Baptist says that he who is earthly speaks of earthly things
(John 3:31). Chrysostom says that compared to Jesus John spoke of earthly
things, but Thomas prefers what Augustine says: we must distinguish
between what a man has of himself and what he learned from another. From
himself he speaks of earthly things. If he speaks of heavenly things, he
has it from a divine illumination112. When Jesus says to the Jewish leaders
that they have never heard the voice of the Father (John 5:37) Chrysostom
observes that God speaks in two ways to us, namely sensibiliter, that is by a
human voice on the Sinai, and intelligibiliter by enlightening our minds113.
In John 14:8 Philip said: «Lord, let us see the Father». Chrysostom thinks
he was blamed by Jesus since he wanted to see the Father with his bodily
eyes, while according to Augustine Jesus made the observation because
Philip added «and we shall be satisfied», as if being with Jesus was not
enough114. Somewhat further (John 14:16) Jesus promises the Holy Spirit,
who will remain with the disciples forever. According to Chrysostom Jesus
says this so that his disciples would not think that the Spirit might go away,
as Jesus himself would leave them115.
When Jesus speaks of the coming of the advocate he says that the
Holy Spirit will show the world how wrong it was (John 16:8). Thomas
says that Chrysostom has a different explanation of this passage from
the one he proposes himself: The Holy Spirit will show the world how
wrong it was not to have believed in me. Furthermore that I have led an
110
In Ioh., ch.3, lect.1, n.437.
111
In Ioh., ch. 3, lect. 2, n. 451: «Et cum Chrysostomo ad hanc expositionem
conveniunt omnes fere Graeci doctores.»
112
In Ioh., ch. 3, lect. 5, n. 532: «Vel dicendum, secundum Augustinum, et melius,
quod considerandum est in quolibet homine quid habeat ex se, et quid ex alio.»
113
In Ioh., ch. 5, lect. 6, n. 532.
114
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 3, nr. 1889.
115
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 4, nr. 1914. On a few occasions Thomas notes that
Chrysostom reads a text with a slightly different punctuation, for example in ch. 5, v.
27, nr. 786 and in ch. 14, v.31, nr.1977.
280 LEO J. ELDERS
irreproachable life and that my opponents were totally wrong in saying that
I was possessed by a demon and finally that the prince of the world will
be expelled from the hearts of the believers116. In v. 23 Jesus says «In that
day you will not ask me any question». Chrysostom thinks that Jesus is
speaking of the day of the resurrection of the dead, whereas in Augustine’s
view Jesus does not mean the last day, since the apostles still ask him if
then he is going to restore the kingdom of Israel. But Thomas upholds the
explanation of Chrysostom over and against the meaning of Augustine117.
In chapter 18 the Jews have taken Jesus to Pilate, saying that they were
not allowed to put a criminal to death. Chrysostom notes that the Romans
appeared to have allowed them to stone a person for blasphemy118. He also
thinks that the soldiers mocking Jesus did so without approval of Pilate119.
According to Chrysostom, John describes the events around the tomb in
such details in order to refute the false rumor, spread by the Jews120. As
for the encounter with the risen Christ on the shore of the lake of Tiberias
and the difference in reaction between John and Peter, Chrysostom has the
catching phrase: Johannes altior intellectu, Petrus ferventior affectu121.
The presence of Ambrose, Gregory the Great and Hilary of Poitiers in

the Commentary on John
Aquinas refers to these Church Fathers on relatively few occasions.

For example in chapter 5 Ambrose is invited to explain why Jesus began to
work miracles on the Sabbath. Jesus wanted to repair the deformed human
creatures, made by God on the seventh day and to show that he could
do what the Law could not (Rom. 8:3)122. As elsewhere in his works123,
Aquinas approvingly quotes Ambrose’s definition of glory (clara cum
116
In Ioh., ch. 16, lect. 3, nr. 2098.
117
In Ioh., ch. 16, lect. 6, nr. 2137: «Sed sustinendo expositionem Chrysostomi
dicendum...».
118
In Ioh., ch. 18, lect. 5, nr. 2341.
119
In Ioh., ch. 19, lect. 1, nr. 2375.
120
In Ioh., ch. 20, lect. 1, nr. 2485.
121
In Ioh., ch. 21, lect. 2, nr. 2594.
122
In Ioh., ch. 5, lect. 2, nr. 721.
123
Cf. ST I-II, q. 2, a. 3, arg. 2; I-II, q. 2, a. 3 co; I-II, q. 103, a. 1, ad 3; II-II, q.
132, a. 1, arg. 3 ; De malo, q. 9, a. 1 co.
laude notitia) on three occasions124. Regarding the apostle Thomas who

came to believe in the resurrection of Christ when he touched his wounds,
Gregory says that the unbelief of Thomas was more profitable for the faith
than the simple faith of the other apostles, while Ambrose used the episode
to admonish the emperor Theodosius: «You followed the wrong path, try
to follow the penitent» (Thomas)125.
Commenting on John 8:33 («We are of the seed of Abraham, and we
have never been the slaves of anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will be
free’?»), Aquinas refers to the view of Gregory who says that the more
unhampered people are when committing perverse actions the more they
get trapped in the slavery of sin126. Aquinas also connects John 14: 23 («if
anyone loves me, he will keep my word») to the well-known saying of
Gregory: «The proof of love are one’s actions (Probatio dilectionis est
exhibitio operis)»127. Another example concerns John 14:24 where Jesus
says that those who do not love him, do not keep his words. Aquinas
approvingly quotes from Gregory who says that in order to love God we
must engage our tongue, our mind and our life128.
Aquinas uses Hilary of Poitiers mainly in a Christological context.
For instance, when Christ says that He can only do what He sees the Father
doing (John 5:19), Aquinas mentions the remark by Hilary that this sentence
excludes all imperfections from the Son (n. 750)129. Or regarding John 7:
28 («You do indeed know me and know from where I come»), Aquinas
mentions Hilary’s comment that «the Son is from God in a different way
than others: for he is from God in such a way that he also is.God; and so God
is his consubstantial principle»130. Aquinas praises Hilary for commenting
on John 10:28 («The Father is in me and I am in the Father») by pointing
out that, whereas man is not his own nature, God, being entirely simple,
is his own existence (esse) and nature (natura). Therefore, in whoever the
nature of God is, there is God. And so, since the Father is God and the Son
is God, where the nature of the Father is, there is the Father, and where the
124
Cf. In Ioh., ch. 8, lect. 8, nr. 1278; ch. 13, lect. 6, nr. 1826 and ch. 17, lect. 1,
nr. 2183.
125
In Ioh., ch. 20, lect. 5, nr. 2547.
126
In Ioh., ch. 8, lect. 4, nr. 1204.
127
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 6, nr. 1942.
128
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 6, nr. 1949.
129
In Ioh., ch. 5, lect. 3, nr. 750.
130
In Ioh., ch. 7, lect. 3, nr. 1060.
282 LEO J. ELDERS
nature of the Son is, there is the Son131. The difficult verse in John 14:28
(«The Father is greater than I»), used by Arius to defend his position, is
explained by Hilary in the following way: one could say that even in the
Trinity the Father is greater in so far as he is the principle of the Son132.
The Presence of Origen in the Commentary on John
The few references to Ambrose, Gregory the Great and Hilary

of Poitiers are by far exceeded by the references to Origen. What is
remarkable is that, despite a severe criticism of his mistaken views of
the Second Person of the Trinity, Thomas nevertheless appreciates his
knowledge of biblical history and geography133. He considers him a
valuable source of information about the life of the Jews during the time
of Jesus. Aquinas mentions Origen’s explanation of John 1:9 («The Word
was the true light that enlightens every man who comes into the world»)
who says that it refers to every man coming, by faith, into this world,
i.e., this spiritual world, that is, the Church, which has been enlightened
by the light of grace. Chrysostom however reads in the text that every
child born receives this light, but Augustine restricts the meaning to each
person who is de facto illuminated. Thomas leaves the interpretation
open134. Regarding John 1:10 («He was in the world that had its being
through him»), Aquinas praises Origen’s example of the relation between
the human voice and thought in order to explain the relation between
creatures and the divine Word135.
Aquinas approves the opinions of Origen on a number of occasions,
for instance the view that the priests and scribes who had come to John had
131
In Ioh., ch. 10, lect. 6, nr. 1466.
132
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 8, nr. 1971.
133
Cf. In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 1, nr. 58: «blasphemavit Origenes quod Verbum non
esset Deus per essentiam» and ch. 1, lect. 2, nr. 74: «error Origenis qui dicit Spiritum
Sanctum inter omnia factum esse per Verbum, ex quo sequitur ipsum esse creaturam.
Hoc autem est haereticum et blasphemum». Thomas can also be critical of other
authors. For instance in ch. 1, lect. 1, nr. 26 a remark of saint Anselm is said to be
improper.
134
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 5, nr. 130.
135
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 5, nr. 135.
come in good conscience136; that the temple prefigures the mystical body of
Christ137; or that the cleansing of the temple was a miracle138. He explains
John 4: 21 («Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship
the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem») by using Origen’s
idea of three types of worship as being three types of participation in
wisdom. There are those who participate while praying with many mistakes
and errors (mountain); there are those who participate without error but in
an imperfect way (Jerusalem) and finally there are those who, like the saints
in heaven, participate without error and in a perfect way139.
In John 8: 37-39 Jesus makes a seemingly contradictory statement: «I
know that you are descended from Abraham, […] but if you were Abraham’s
children, you would do as Abraham did». Aquinas mentions both the
opinions of Augustine and Origen. For Augustine this verse means that the
Jews were Abraham’s children according to the flesh but not in faith. Origen
explains that spiritually speaking the Jews were of the seed of Abraham, but
that they were not his children, that is, they had not developed up to the state
of his children and had not reached the fully grown kinship with Abraham140.
Somewhat further on in this discussion the Jews said: «We were not born of
fornication, we have one Father, God». (John 8:41) Origin considers this a
mean remark because it suggested that Jesus was born out of wedlock141.
Commenting on John 11:54, where it is said that Jesus left the region,
Origen writes that no one should place himself in danger but when
dangers are immediately threatening, it is very praiseworthy not to run
from professing Christ or not to refuse to suffer death for the sake of the
truth. Aquinas not only approves but comments by giving two reasons why
one should not place oneself in danger. First it would be presumptuous
because it would show a lack of experience and second it would give one’s
persecutors even more reason to be wicked and culpable142. Regarding the
136
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect.12, nr. 227.
137
In Ioh., ch. 2, lect. 3, nr. 404.
138
In Ioh., ch. 2, lect. 3, nr. 419.
139
In Ioh., ch. 4, lect. 2, nr. 601.
140
In Ioh., ch. 8, lect. 5, nr. 1222.
141
In Ioh., ch. 8, lect. 5, nr. 1232: «Negant se ex fornicatione natos: quod quidem,
secundum Origenem, quasi improperando, Christo proponunt, latenter designantes,
ipsum ex adulterio productum fore; quasi dicant nos ex fornicatione non sumus nati,
sicut tu.»
142
In Ioh., ch. 11, lect. 8, nr. 1584.
284 LEO J. ELDERS
difficult question whether Mary in Bethany who anointed Jesus is the same
as the woman mentioned in Luke 7: 36 Origen argues that she is not143.
Aquinas also mentions that, according to Origen, Peter first refused to have
his feet washed because of his fervent love144. When at the Last Supper
Jesus said that now the Son of Man has been glorified, Origen observes that
in Holy Scripture glory has a slightly different meaning from that it has in
ordinary speech. In the latter it means the praise given by people or the clear
knowledge of someone accompanied by praise, whereas in Holy Scripture
glory refers to the fact that someone has a divine sign or mark upon him145.
In the context of John 15:16 («I have chosen you and appointed you that
you should go and bear fruit») Thomas recalls the error of Origen who
believed that our human souls were created together at the very beginning
of creation and that some sinned before being joined to a body. Thomas
connects this idea with the erroneous view that our preceding merits are
the cause of our election146.
Conclusion
When one reviews the numerous quotations from the Fathers in the
two Gospel Commentaries of Thomas one is surprised at the treasures
of information these texts contain. Especially at the beginning of the
commentary on the Gospel of John, the great number of references to the
Fathers are apparently also meant to show that for the correct understanding
of the text we need the Fathers to direct us, and, secondly, that Thomas
places his own explanations under the guidance of the Fathers.
Jerome is a treasure house of information about Palestine, Jewish
customs and religious practice. His common sense approach is also
noticeable. Origen is very a valuable source of information, appreciated
by Thomas, who, however, severely condemns his doctrinal deviations in
respect of the divinity of the divine Word.
St. Augustine is the Father most frequently quoted, but in some cases
Thomas prefers the comments on certain gospel passages made by other
Fathers.
143
In Ioh., ch. 12, lect. 1, nr. 1597.
144
In Ioh., ch. 13, lect. 2, nr. 1753.
145
In Ioh., ch. 13, lect. 6, nr. 1830.
146
In Ioh., ch. 15, lect. 3, 2022.
The quotations from the texts of John Chrysostom on the gospel

according to St. Matthew are very numerous. They are characterized by
his knowledge of the daily life of Christians. But despite his admiration of
this great theologian, Thomas nevertheless corrects a somewhat slighting
remark about Mary, the mother of Jesus, who would at one moment have
been ambitious.
. Ambrose and Gregory the Great provide numerous fine sentences
about the moral life of Christians. Especially in the commentary on
the Gospel according to John, Augustine is a major source, not only in
explaining the underlying theology of the mystery of the Incarnation, but
also in commenting on the nightly discussion with Nicodemus, on the
Eucharistic discourses.as well as on the farewell teachings of Jesus at
the Last Supper. For Thomas, Augustine is the undisputed master in the
theological interpretation of the New Testament, but he is also the wise and
good shepherd who guides us in discovering and applying the instructions
for our moral life. Through the commentaries of Thomas and his use of
the Fathers, the contemporary reader can discover the theological goal of
reading Scripture: sanctification in this life and preparation for a life with
Christ in heaven.
JÖRGEN VIJGEN*
ARISTOTLE IN AQUINAS’S BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES
Introduction
In a survey of contemporary scholarship on Thomas Aquinas, Jean-

Pierre Torrell correctly noted that the current renewal of the study of
Thomas Aquinas is characterized by viewing Aquinas first and foremost
as a theologian who finds the essence of his «working material» in
Sacred Scripture and for whom the theological praxis does not lead to
the separation between systematic theology, Scriptural exegesis and
spirituality, characteristic of modern theology1. Since the publication of
this survey in 2003 a large number of studies have attested to this view
either in presenting an overview of Aquinas’s theology2 or in analyzing
aspects of his biblical commentaries3. Equally important in this respect
are also the many, often extensively annotated, translations of Aquinas’s
*
Philosophical-Theological Institute St. Willibrord, Zilkerduinweg 375, 2114
AM Vogelenzang, The Netherlands, email: jvijgen@tiltenberg.org
1
J.-P. TORRELL, «Situation actuelle des études thomistes», Recherches de Science
religieuse, 91 (2003) 343-371. This article was republished with an appendix dated
2007 in: J.-P. TORRELL, Nouvelles Recherches Thomasiennes, Vrin, Paris 2008,
pp. 177-202.
2
See for instance F.C. BAUERSCHMIDT, Thomas Aquinas: Faith, Reason, and
Following Christ, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013; The Theology of Thomas
Aquinas, R. VAN NIEUWENHOVE – J. WAWRYKOW (edd.), University of Notre Dame Press,
Notre Dame IN 2005.
3
See for instance P. KLIMCZAK, Christus Magister: le Christ Maître dans les
commentaires évangéliques de saint Thomas d’Aquin, Academic Press, Fribourg 2013;
M. HAMMELE, Das Bild der Juden im Johannes-Kommentar des Thomas von Aquin:
ein Beitrag zu Bibelhermeneutik und Wissenschaftsgeschichte im 13. Jahrhundert,
Katholisches Bibelwerk, Stuttgart 2012; M. SABATHÉ, La Trinité rédemptrice dans
le Commentaire de l’Évangile de saint Jean par Thomas d’Aquin, Vrin, Paris 2011;
Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas, M. DAUPHINAIS – M. LEVERING (edd.),
Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2012; D.-D. LE PIVAIN,
L’action du Saint-Esprit dans le commentaire de l’Évangile de saint Jean par
saint Thomas d’Aquin, Téqui, Paris 2006; Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas:
Theological Exegesis and Speculative Theology, M. DAUPHINAIS – M. LEVERING (edd.),
Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2005; Aquinas on Scripture:
288 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
commentaries on Sacred Scripture that have appeared in print in the last

few years4.
Almost entirely absent in this search for a more «biblical» Thomism5
is the attention of scholars to the presence of Aristotle in Aquinas’s
commentaries on Scripture. This absence is remarkable because the
nature and scope of Aristotle’s philosophy within Aquinas’s theology
has been a matter of debate both in Aquinas’s lifetime and immediately
afterward as well as in recent times6. It is well known, for instance,
that the reception of Aristotle’s writings sparked a lively debate on the
orthodoxy of Aristotle’s positions and on the possibility of harmonizing
them with the Christian faith. Robert Grosseteste (ca. 1168-1253), himself
an influential translator of Aristotle’s writings, warned against those who
tried to make a Catholic of the heretical Aristotle (de Aristotile heretico
facere Catholicum) because «by such a useless employment of their time
and talents, they may rather, instead of making Aristotle a Catholic, make
themselves heretics»7. Some Arts masters, such as Siger of Brabant and
Boethius of Dacia juxtaposed Aristotle’s claims with what believers were
to hold secundum fidem et veritatem8 while others tried to argue that in
An Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries, Th. G. WEINANDY – D. A. KEATING –

J. P. YOCUM (edd.), T&T Clark International, London – New York 2005.
4
Of particular importance are the French translations by J.-É Stroobant de Saint-
Éloy that have been published by Cerf, Paris, containing a large number of annotations.
5
One of the first, and still extremely useful introductions to Aquinas’s exegetical
method is C. SPICQ, «Saint Thomas d’Aquin Exégète», in Dictionnaire de Théologie
Catholique, vol. 15/1, ed. A. VACANT – E. MANGENOT – E. AMANN, Libraire Letouzey
et Ané, Paris 1946, col. 694-738. From a Roman-Catholic perspective the speech
by Pius XII on January 14, 1958 to the professors and students of the Angelicum
is of crucial importance. Pius XII underlines, for the first time in a long series of
magisterial pronouncements on the importance of the study of Aquinas, the importance
of Aquinas’s commentaries on Sacred Scripture.
6
For a general impression see C. H. LOHR, «The Medieval Reception of Aristotle.
The Arts and Sciences in the 12th and 13th Centuries», in U. KÖPF – D. R. BAUER (edd.),
Kulturkontakte und Rezeptionsvorgänge in der theologie des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts,
Aschendorff Verlag, Münster 2011, pp. 157-171 (Archa Verbi. Subsidia, 8).
7
Robert Grosseteste, Hexaemeron, l. 8, n. 2. Ed. by R.C. DALES and S. GIEBEN,
London 1982, 61 (Auctores Brittannici Medii Aevi, 6).
8
Cf. R. HISSETTE, Enquête sur les 219 articles condamnés à Paris le 7 mars 1277,
Publications Universitaires de Louvain, Louvain-Paris 1977, pp. 13-14 (Philosophes
médiévaux, 22). Cf. F. VAN STEENBERGHEN: Maître Siger de Brabant, Publications
Universitaires de Louvain, Louvain – Paris 1977, p. 38 (Philosophes médiévaux, 21): «C’est
ARISTOTLE IN AQUINAS’S BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES 289
some respects Aristotle was a «good Christian»9. These different positions

are reflected in the 20th century historiographical analysis of the nature
of the Parisian condemnation of 1277, associated with the introduction
of newly translated philosophical sources in the Latin West, in particular
Aristotle and his Arabic commentators10. A similar debate, advanced by
the critical edition of many of Aquinas’s commentaries on Aristotle by the
Leonine Commission in the 20th century, regards the nature and scope of
these commentaries. Some view them as merely exegetical works with
little systematic importance for Aquinas’s thought, others emphasize the
misreading of Aristotle by Aquinas and the intrusion of foreign, Christian
elements within Aristotle’s text whereas still others argue that Aquinas
deepened Aristotle’s thought by applying it to the Christian faith11.
exactement ce que l’histoire de l’aristotélisme latin nous apprend: conquis par la philosophie
d’Aristote, certains maîtres de la faculté des arts ont perdu de vue le rôle et la place qui
reviennent à la philosophie dans l’ensemble du savoir chrétien: ils ont conçu la philosophie
comme un savoir indépendant et l’ont cultivée sans aucun souci de l’orthodoxie chrétienne».
9
An anonymous Arts master writes that, because Aristotle taught in his
Meteorology, that the world would be destroyed by fire, Aristotle was in agreement
with the theologians and therefore a «good Christian». Anonymi magistri Artium (ca.
1245-1250), Lectura in librum de anima a quodam discipulo reportata. Ed. by R.-A.
GAUTHIER, Ed. Collegii S. Bonaventurae Ad Claras Aquas, Grottaferrata 1985, p. 240:
«Et propter hoc dixit Aristotiles IV Metheororum quod in fine omnia fient ignis: unde
ibi fuit bonus Christianus».
10
For instance Luca Bianchi describes the condemnation of 219 theological
and philosophical propositions by Stephen Tempier, Bishop of Paris, as «the most
dramatic manifestation of a constant, subtle, and pervasive ideological pressure
exerted by the guardians of orthodoxy». Cf. L. BIANCHI, «1277: A Turning Point in
Medieval Philosophy?», in J. A. AERTSEN – A. SPEER (edd.), Was ist Philosophie im
Mittelalter?, De Gruyter, Berlin – New York 1998, pp. 90-110, here p. 99 (Miscellanea
Mediaevalia, 26). Kent Emery and Andreas Speer remark that such a position views
the condemnation «through the lens of modern categories, as a conflict between a free,
autonomous philosophy, on one side, and authoritarian, extrinsically imposed religious
dogma that repress the dynamic thrust of the immanent principles of thought, on the
other». Cf. K. Emery – A. Speer, «After the Condemnation of 1277: New evidence,
new perspectives and grounds for new interpretations», in J. A. AERTSEN – A. SPEER
(edd.), Nach der Verurteilung von 1277: Philosophie und Theologie an der Universität
von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts, De Gruyter, Berlin – New York
2001, pp. 1-19, here pp. 9-10 (Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 28).
11
On this debate see for instance M. D. JORDAN, «Thomas Aquinas’s Disclaimers
in the Aristotelian Commentaries», in R. J. LONG (ed.), Philosophy and the God of
Abraham: Essays in Memory of James A. Weisheipl, O.P., Pontifical Institute of
290 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
The absence of scholarly interest in Aquinas’s use of Aristotle in his

biblical commentaries is understandable to the extent that, as Thomas Prügl
observed, Aquinas refers to Aristotle «quite sparingly»12. This is partly due to
the method of Aquinas’s biblical exegesis, which Gilbert Dahan has defined
as an «internal exegesis» or «exegesis by way of concordance»: «La Bible
s’explique par elle-même; une exégèse interne, différente sans doute de la
sola Scriptura luthérienne, considère les textes canoniques comme un tout
dont les différentes parties s’éclairent réciproquement. […] Il s’agit d’une
démarche à la fois philologique et herméneutique, qui exploite tous les cas
d’intertextualité et fait constamment appel à la mémoire»13. And apart from
these parallel sources, the vast majority of extra-Scriptural references are to
different types of glossae and texts from the Church Fathers.
It is against this background that I will explore Aquinas’s use of
Aristotle in his biblical commentaries. And I will do so by analyzing the
context of the explicit references14 to Aristotle in these commentaries. By
my count, Aquinas explicitly refers to Aristotle 164 times. Among the
pagan authors, this number exceeds by far the references to Plato or the
platonici (31 times), Cicero (13 times), the stoici (12 times) or Avicenna (6
times). With 62 references the Nicomachean Ethics is Aquinas’s preferred
work but he also makes extensive use of Aristotle’s Politica (21 times),
Physica (10 times) and Rhetorica (9 times) and refers to other works
such as Metaphysica, De Caelo, Topica and others. Given the absence of
a critical edition for many of his biblical commentaries and the fact that
Mediaeval Studies, Toronto 1991, pp. 99-112; J. JENKINS, «Expositions of the Text:
Aquinas’s Aristotelian Commentaries», Medieval Philosophy and Theology, 5
(1996) 39-62; C. KACZOR, «Thomas Aquinas’s Commentary on the Ethics: Merely
an Interpretation of Aristotle?», American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 78
(2004) 353-376; L. ELDERS, «The Aristotelian Commentaries of St. Thomas Aquinas»,
The Review of Metaphysics 63/1 (2009) 29-53. For an overview of these positions,
without however advancing the debate, see M. HAUSMANN, «Wesen und Ziel der
Thomaskommentare zu Aristoteles. Status quaestionis der Interpretationen», Euntes
Docete 65 (2012) 149-180.
12
Th. PRÜGL, «Thomas Aquinas as Interpreter of Scripture», in R. VAN
NIEUWENHOVE – J. WAWRYKOW (edd.) The Theology of Thomas Aquinas, Notre Dame
University Press, Notre Dame 2005, pp. 386-415, here p. 399.
13
G. DAHAN, L’exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident médiéval, XIIe-XIVe
siècle, Cerf, Paris 1999, p. 43.
14
An explicit reference is either a reference to «the Philospher», to «Aristotle» or
to the title of one of Aristotle’s works.
many of these commentaries are student’s notes, left unrevised by Aquinas,

the results of this study must remain very preliminary. Nevertheless, I hope
to show the importance of Aristotle’s thought for Aquinas as reader and
commentator of Sacred Scripture.
This chapter is divided into three parts. In part one I will systematically
investigate the references in Aquinas’s Old Testament commentaries (Job,
Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations). In part two an identical
investigation will be carried out on his commentary on the Gospel of
John, the Letter to the Romans and the First Letter to the Corinthians.
In part three I give a selection of his references in his remaining biblical
commentaries (Gospel of Matthew and the Pauline Letters).
1. The Old Testament Commentaries
The Commentary on Job
In the prologue of his commentary on Job, which dates from 1261-

1265, Aquinas writes that the whole intentio of the Book of Job is to
show, by way of probable arguments, that human affairs are ruled by
divine providence15. It is therefore fitting that Aquinas starts his prologue
by giving a concise history of providence. Noting that the truth is only
gradually attained throughout history, he notes that the ancient natural
philosophers (antiquorum naturalium) excluded divine providence
because they only admitted natural causes. However, due to what Aquinas
calls «a more profound diligence in the contemplation of the truth»
(diligentia perspicacius intuens veritatem), «later philosophers» were able
«by evident indications and arguments» (evidentibus indiciis et rationibus)
to show that natural things are being moved by providence. As I have
argued elsewhere, Aristotle holds a prominent place among these «later
philosophers» to the extent that Aquinas is convinced that Aristotle held
a theory of divine providence16. As the remainder of the prologue makes
15
Unless otherwise noted, I will follow the dates proposed by J.-P. TORRELL in
his Initiation à saint Thomas d’Aquin, 2e édition 2002 revue et augmentée, Cerf, Paris
2002.
16
Cf. J. VIJGEN, «Did St. Thomas attribute a Doctrine of Divine Providence to
Aristotle», Doctor Angelicus VII (2007) 53-76.
292 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
clear, the intentio of the Book of Job is to show that, in the light of good
and evil that seem indifferently to befall both the good and the wicked,
divine providence still holds true. It is noteworthy that, whereas he uses
the stronger notions of «evident indications and reasons» when referring
to divine providence as conceived by the philosophers, he uses the milder
notion of «probable arguments» (probabiles rationes) when describing
divine providence in relation to Job17.
On at least two occasions (Job 1:20 and 3:1) Aquinas opposes the
opinion of the Stoics and of the Peripatetics and states that the latter opinion
is the more true and is in accord with Scripture and the teaching of the
Church. Rather than displaying a Stoic indifference in the face of adversity,
Job rightfully shows sorrow but he is able to moderate that sorrow so that
his reason is not deflected (divertat) from its right course18.
Commenting on Job 3:25 («For the thing that I fear comes upon me.
And what I dread befalls me.»), Aquinas notes that bitterness in a person,
as the result of unhappiness, can be provoked by either damage to a
person’s goods or to himself or by dishonor. The verse «and what I dread
befalls me» refers to dishonor. In order to explain this dread Aquinas
quotes the Philosopher in EN IV, 17 (1128b11) saying that shame is «the
fear of dishonor». A similar case is Aquinas’s comment on 5, 2 («Wrath
kills the fool»). Aquinas notes that the haughtier a person is, the more
easily such a person is provoked to anger. Therefore the verse intends to
say that it is pride which makes a person exceed the boundaries of reason.
Humility, on the contrary, leads to wisdom according to Proverbs 11:2:
«Where there is humility, there is wisdom». Aquinas further explains
the foolishness of anger by way of introducing Aristotle’s remark in EN
III, 17 (1116b31) that an angry person, although using reason in order
to obtain revenge, is immoderate in the use of his reason and therefore
his use of his reason is wrong. The moderate use of anger or «zealous
anger», however, is an instance of the virtue of justice and an aid for
the virtue of courage, as Aristotle says in EN III, 17 (1116b31). In this
way Aquinas is also able to explain Job 17:9: «The just will preserve
his course and add courage to pure hands». These three cases display
the way Aquinas uses Aristotle in order to throw additional explanatory
light on a difficult verse.
17
Cf. In Iob, Prol.
18
On the virtousness of sorrow, see ST I-II, q. 39, a. 2.
Job 7:9 («As a cloud dissolves and is gone, so he who goes down
below will not ascend again.») represents for Aquinas part of a proof
against those who identify the manner of the resurrection with a return to
the same life and the same acts. The example of the dissolving cloud is
used by Job as a comparison in order to prove (probat per simile) that an
identical return to the earthly state is not possible for men. Aquinas finds
«sufficient proof» for this position and for the fittingness of the comparison
in Scripture in a passage in Aristotle’s De Generatione et corruptione 2
(338b11). There Aristotle argues that corruptible bodies like clouds,
contrary to incorruptible bodies, do not numerically return but only in
species. Aquinas refers to the same passage from Aristotle in commenting
on Job 19: 27 («whom I myself will see and my eyes will behold him and
not another»). The words «and not another» are added by Job in order
to distinguish the restoration of numerically the same man during the
resurrection from a return in species as put forward by Aristotle. In these
two usages of the same passage from Aristotle, Aquinas takes pain not to
put Aristotle in opposition to the Christian faith.
Job’s remark that God cannot be found in the East, nor in the West, nor in
the North, nor in the South (23:9) provides the occasion for Aquinas to mention
Aristotle’s view on the different positions in the heavens and their relation to
the cardinal directions in De Caelo II, 2 (284b21). Aquinas does not, however,
consider this view of much importance. In fact, «one can simply understand
that God is not contained in any part of the heavens as in a place»19.
Another difficult phrase that is clarified by way of Aristotle is chapter
27:3: «and the spirit of God is in.my nostrils». A remark in Aristotle’s
Historia Animalium I, 2 (492b10) that breathing through the mouth is not
fitting allows Aquinas to relate the «principal» kind of breathing through
the nostrils to the spirit of God. In fact, by expressing himself in this way,
Job recognizes that the gift of life comes from God because it is from God
that man receives the ability to live by breathing. In this same chapter there
is a reference to Aristotle that functions as a mere additional element of
information. Job 27:16: «If he heaps up silver like earth» occasions Aquinas
to identify this «silver like dust» with «artificial riches like money, which
was devised as the measure of the exchange of things, as Aristotle says»20.
19
In Iob, c. 23 (ed. Leonina XXVI/2, p. 134, ll. 106-108): «Potest ergo simpliciter
intelligi quod in nulla parte caeli Deus localiter concluditur».
20
In Iob, c. 27 (ed. Leonina XXVI/2, p. 149, ll. 188-190).
294 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
A further illustration of Aquinas’s use of Aristotle can be found in

chapter 36 where it is said that the life of a pretender will fail «among
effeminate men». Aquinas comments that effeminate men are those that
pretend out of meanness (parvitas) of soul. Aquinas adds, by way of a
clarifying remark, the opposite of meanness of soul, i.e. magnanimity
and quotes Aristotle’s EN IV, 10 (1124b26) saying «people who are
magnanimous do everything in the open».
Aquinas introduces chapters 38-41 by saying that, after the dispute
between Job and his friends about the nature of divine providence,
God himself will now respond and settle the question («quaestionis
determinator»). God questions Job about the effects of His creation in
order that Job might marvel about the nature of the divine works and
at the same time might understand that the power and wisdom of God
transcend all that is revealed in the cosmos. As such these chapters
contain a number of insights pertaining to cosmology, the philosophy
of nature and zoology. God’s question in verse 38:19 («in which
path does the light dwell?») gives Aquinas the occasion to explain
why human knowledge is limited. Given that motion and magnitude
are correlated in that both are mutually required for measurement, as
Aristotle has shown in Phys. IV, 19 (220b28), the question of the path
in which the light dwells refers to the motion of the luminous bodies.
The correlation, however, prevents the measurement of a body to take
place, given that the path of the luminous bodies is unknown. Aquinas
uses Aristotle to give an argumentative account of the human intellect’s
inability to know how luminous bodies move. Somewhat further in
verse 38:37 God asks: «Who told him [man] the reasoned order of the
heavens and who will make the harmony of heaven sleep?» Aquinas
mentions the position of the Pythagoreans who argued for a harmony
of sounds coming forth from the motions of the heavens. Despite the
fact that the literal sense of the biblical text is more easily reconcilable
with the Pythagorean position, Aquinas nevertheless explicitly refutes
it on the basis of Aristotle. Given that Aristotle has proven (probat)
in De Caelo II, 14 (290b12) the impossibility of sound coming forth
from the motion of heavenly bodies, the word «harmony» (concentus)
should not be taken literally. The word «harmony» has an objective
foundation in so far as it refers to the symmetry of the heavenly motions
but it refers foremost to what Aquinas calls the «inspired wisdom» or
«inspired intelligence»21. Here we have the case of a philosophical

truth, established by Aristotle, necessitating Aquinas to argue for the
non literal sense.
With the appearance of Behemoth and Leviathan in chapter 40:10, God’s
response, according to Aquinas, fittingly ends with a description of the devil
because it is the malice of Satan that stands at the beginning of Job’s adversity22.
Aquinas’s identification of «behemoth» and «leviathan» with respectively the
elephant and the whale in chapter 40 leads Aquinas to refer on no less than
six occasions in this chapter to Aristotle’s remarks on the characteristics of
the elephant in De historia animalium23. The intention is to shed light on the
devil, which is figuratively represented by these animals. For instance, when
it is said in 40:18 that behemoth can swallow rivers, Aquinas refers by way
of confirmation to Aristotle’s De historia animalium VIII, 9 (596a7) where
Aristotle describes the elephant’s ability to drink a large amount of water. As a
simile for the devil, this refers, Aquinas comments, to the devil’s presumption
«with which he confidently joins with him by consent all the unstable men, even
if they have some knowledge of God»24. Aquinas finds additional confirmation
for the identification of leviathan with a whale in Aristotle’s remark in De
historia animalium II, 13 (504b17). There Aquinas takes Aristotle to say that
no fish has a neck except those who generate animals like dolphins. Given
21
In Iob, c. 38 (ed. Leonina XXVI/2, p. 207, ll. 656-664): «…sed Aristotiles
probat in II de caelo quod ex motu caelestium corporum nullus sonitus procedit, et
ideo hic concentum accipere possumus metaphorice positum pro sola convenientia
caelestium motuum qui numquam requiescunt. Huiusmodi autem inspiratio sapientiae
vel intelligentiae aut etiam concentus caeli ab initio fundationis terrae fuit…».
22
Cf. In Iob, c. 40 (ed. Leonina XXVI/2, p. 216, ll. 269-281): «Et satis convenienter
in descriptione diaboli terminatur disputatio Iob, quae est de adversitate ipsius, quia
etiam supra commemoratur Satan fuisse principium adversitatis ipsius; et sic dum amici
Iob causam adversitatis eius ad ipsum Iob referre niterentur putantes eum propter sua
peccata fuisse punitum, dominus, postquam Iob redarguerat de inordinata locutione,
quasi finalem determinationem disputationi adhibens, agit de malitia Satan quae fuit
principium adversitatis Iob et est principium damnationis humanae, secundum illud
Sap. I ‘invidia Diaboli mors introivit in orbem terrarum’».
23
In Iob, c. 40, ll. 307 (Hist. an. IX, 46 (630b18), 331 (Hist. an. V, 2 (540a21),
344 (Hist. an. III, 1 (510a15), 425 (Hist. an. V, 2 (540a20), 452 (Hist. an. VIII, 9
(596a7) and 496 (Hist. an. IX, 1 (610a24).
24
In Iob, c. 40 (ed. Leonina 26/2, p. 218, ll. 463-468): «secundum autem quod
referuntur ad diabolum, in cuius figura haec dicuntur, significatur eius praesumptio qua
se confidit de facili sibi incorporare per consensum omnes homines instabiles, etiam si
habeant aliquam Dei cognitionem…».
296 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
that whales belong to this same genus as dolphins, Aquinas observes, it is

fitting that the biblical text (41:13 «Power will reside in his neck») begins the
description of the power of this animal with the power of the neck.
The Commentary on the Psalms
His unfinished commentary on Psalms 1-54, which dates from 1272-

1273, contains 24 explicit references to Aristotle, in all but one case simply
referred to as the «Philosopher». A first reference occurs in Psalm 8, a psalm in
which, according to Aquinas, God is thanked for the benefits He has conferred
on the human race. The psalmist expresses his marvel at God’s excellence and
mercy by which God takes special care for humans. Commenting on verse
2 («O Lord our Lord, how admirable is your name in the whole earth! For
your magnificence is elevated above the heavens»), Aquinas comments, in
language reminiscent of Met. I, 2 (983a12-22), on the causes of admiration
by saying: «The cause of admiration is therefore twofold: either because the
cause is totally unknown, or because the effect manifesting the cause does not
do so perfectly». Because of Rom 1:20, the locus classicus justifying natural
theology, only the latter applies to God. In fact, verse 4 («For I will behold
your heavens, the works of your fingers: the moon and the stars which thou
hast founded») clearly expresses God’s manifestation in the universe. Aquinas
attributes to Cicero’s De natura deorum (II, ii, 4) as well as to Aristotle an
argument from design for God’s existence: «Cicero says in the Book on the
Nature of the Gods, and it was said as well by Aristotle, even though we do not
find it in the books of his which we possess, that if someone entered a palace,
which seemed to be well established, no one is so insane that even though he
does not see by what fashion it was made he would still not perceive that it
was made by somebody»25.
Ps 12 [13]:2 («How long shall I take counsels in my soul, sorrow
in my heart all the day?») expresses the anxiety of a man in the face of
adversity and trial and consequently his search for how to withstand these
adversities. Aquinas finds both Aristotle in Rhet. II, 5 (1383a6) and Isa.
16:3 advising to take council in these cases26.
25
In Psalmos 8, n.3.
26
In Psalmos 12, n. 2: «Secundo dolorem consequentem; ibi, dolorem in corde
meo per diem. Quantum ad primum dicit philosophus in Rhetor. timor consiliativos
facit. Hoc idem habetur Isa. 16: ini consilium, coge consilium».
The vivid descriptions of the cosmological events following God’s

hearing the cry of the Psalmist in Psalm 17 [18] leads Aquinas to consult
Aristotle’s writings, and in particular his Meteorologica, on no less than
eleven occasions in this Psalm27. The verses 8-9 («the earth shook and
trembled: the foundations of the mountains were troubled and were moved,
because he was angry with them. There went up a smoke in his wrath: and
a fire flamed from his face: coals were kindled by it») occasion Aquinas
to write a lengthy digression, based on Meteor. I, 4 (341b1-342b25),
on the elements, the nature of fire and smoke and the origin of burning
flames, shootings stars, etc. At the beginning of this digression Aquinas
points to the fact that all these occurrences are secondary causes through
which the First Cause mediates His will, a central doctrine in Aquinas’s
metaphysics28. Apart from a passing remark that the psalmist elaborates
upon the physical effects of God’s will in order to demonstrate «the
excellence of the divine power», Aquinas does not enter into a theological
discussion but remains within the realm of meteorology. Similarly, in
commenting on 17 [18]:13 («At the brightness that was before him [God]
the clouds passed, hail and coals of fire»), Aquinas refers to Meteor. I, 9
(346b16-347a10) in order to corroborate the claim that clouds dissolve
when the brightness of the sun appears. Regarding the nature and origin
of hail and hailstones Aquinas draws on Meteor. I, 12 (348a1-35)29. Any
non-meteorological explanation is absent in Aquinas’s commentary on
this verse. He finds corroboration for God’s «thunder from heaven» (17
[18]:14) in the same chapter Meteor. I, 12: a humid vapor that freezes
into hail, and is pushed out by the warm vapor, can break a cloud apart
and produces a sound30. He also refers to a text in Meteor. II, 9 (370a6-
27
This could indicate that his commentary on the Psalms coincided with his
commentary on Aristotle’s Metereologica. See J.-P. TORRELL, Initiation, p. 17*.
28
Cf. In Psalmos 17, n. 6: «Prima causa est voluntas Dei sive virtus ejus volens in
eis agere: sed mediantibus causis secundis hoc agit; ita quod omnes causae secundae
comparantur ad terram sicut imaginatum malum commovens membra».
29
Cf. In Psalmos 17, n. 8: «Sed philosophus e contra dicit, quod grossiores essent
in montibus, et in hyeme: cujus contrarium videmus, quia grossiores sunt in valle, et
fiunt in vere et autumno, et generantur in loco propinquo». It seems to me that Aquinas
mistakenly attributes this position to Aristotle. Aristotle, in fact, holds the opposite
view in Meteor. I, 12.
30
Cf. In Psalmos 17, n. 9: «Et ideo Psalmista dicit, intonuit de caelo dominus.
Item aliquando nubes grossae ex quibus grandines generantur quandoque cum sonitu:
unde philosophus dicit, quod aliquando ante grandinem est fragor nubium, aliquando
298 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
10): if a warm and dry vapor is extinguished by cold, it makes a hissing

sound31. The last explicit reference to Aristotle occurs in commenting on
verse 16 («Then the fountains of waters appeared, and the foundations
of the world were discovered»). Aquinas attributes the appearance of
water to earthquakes and, as a further explanation, he mentions Aristotle’s
position in Meteor. II, 8 (366a1-3) that wind is, ultimately, the cause
of earthquakes. In order to understand the importance for Aquinas of a
scientific corroboration of theses verses, we need to recall the following:
At the beginning of his commentary on Psalm 17 Aquinas writes that the
effects of God’s acts occur both in physical things and in the redemption.
Although the words of the psalmist refer to both effects, God’s power is
most manifest in physical things, «because spiritual things are less known
to us; and this is chiefly in things at which men wonder; these are the
shaking of elements, that is, of the earth, air, water and fire»32.
The opening verses of Psalm 32 [33], referring to the use of instruments
and the human voice for praising God, provide the occasion for Aquinas to
refer to Pol. VIII, 5 (1342a30-b17)33, where Aristotle describes the Greek
musical modes, and to Pol. VIII, 6 where Aristotle criticizes the use of
instruments for education. It seems to me that, contrary to what the phrase
“ex verbis philosophi” might indicate, Aquinas does not have a specific
text of Aristotle in mind but is referring to a general idea which can be
formulated from reading Pol. VIII, 6. Moreover, a direct quote from Pol.
VIII, 6 can be found in ST II-II, q. 91, a. 2, ad 4 where Aquinas responds
to the same text from Ps 32 [33]:2 quoted in the objection: «Give praise to
the Lord on the harp, sing to Him with the psaltery, the instrument of ten
strings. Sing to Him a new canticle». The response is as follows:
non: sicut enim vapor calidus et siccus expulsus a frigido, scindes nubem facit sonum,
ut patet in fulgure, sic vapor humidus congelatus in grandinem, et expulsus a calido,
scindit aliqualiter et facit sonum. Et ideo dicit, altissimus dedit vocem suam, idest
manifestavit potentiam suam et sequitur, grando et carbones ignis, quae ex his nubibus
generantur, ut dictum est».
31
Cf. Ibid.: «Aliquando etiam non valens exire extinguitur; et sonat ad modum
ferri candentis in aqua extincti; quem sonum vocat philosophus sisinum, vel stridorem».
32
In Psalmos 17, n. 1: «Effectus autem divinae potentiae maxime manifestatur
in rebus corporalibus, quia spiritualia minus sunt nobis nota; et praecipue in illis quas
homines admirantur; et haec sunt commotiones elementorum, scilicet terrae, aeris,
aquae et ignis».
33
In Psalmos 17, n. 2.
Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in VIII Polit.,

“neque fistulas ad disciplinam est adducendum, neque aliquod aliud
artificiale organum, puta citharam et si quid tale alterum est, sed
quaecumque faciunt auditores bonos.” Huiusmodi enim musica
instrumenta magis animum movent ad delectationem quam per ea
formetur interius bona dispositio. In veteri autem testamento usus
erat talium instrumentorum, tum quia populus erat magis durus et
carnalis, unde erat per huiusmodi instrumenta provocandus, sicut et
per promissiones terrenas. Tum etiam quia huiusmodi instrumenta
corporalia aliquid figurabant.
In the commentary on the Psalms, the Aristotelian argument is presented

in a neutral way («alia ratio habetur»)34, whereas in the Summa theologiae
the rejection of the literal sense of Psalm 32:2 rests entirely on Aristotle.
This does not exclude, however, as Joseph Ratzinger has shown, a patristic
influence on Aquinas’s preference35 for vocal music within the liturgy. From a
historical-theological viewpoint, Ratzinger is correct to observe that Aquinas,
as an Aristoteles christianus, has not developed the potential in book 8 of the
Politica for the purpose of a theological foundation of Church music36.
34
Cf. In Psalmos 32, n. 3: «Et ideo dicit, bene psallite ei in jubilatione, quia cantu
exprimi non valent. Sed dices. In veteri testamento erant musica instrumenta, et cantica
vocis. Quare ergo Ecclesia illa dimisit, haec vero assumpsit? Ratio duplex mystice
assignatur: quia erant figuralia. Secunda ratio est, quod Deus laudatur mente et voce, non
instrumentis. Alia ratio habetur ex verbis philosophi, qui dicit quod contra sapientiam est
quod homines instruantur in lyris et musicis, quia occupant animum in sui operatione;
sed simplex debet esse musica, ut a corporalibus retrahantur divinis laudibus mancipati».
35
U. ECO, The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge 1988, p. 135: «Aquinas’s rejection of instrumental music in inspired, not by
a disdain of aesthetic experience, but by an acknowledgment of it. He has no thought
of forbidding its use on other occasions. He accepts a strictly aesthetic role for music,
in addition to its power to stimulate immediate emotion. And he does not exclude the
possibility that music may have an educative function which is effected precisely in
the course of aesthetic contemplation; the idea here is that an experience of proportion
in a beautiful object can induce within us a stage of order and harmony. This view is
implied in a number of passages in Aquinas».
36
Cf. J. RATZINGER, «Zur theologischen Grundlegung der Kirchenmusik», in
F. FLECKENSTEIN (ed.), Gloria Deo – Pax hominibus. Festschrift zum 100jährigen
Bestehen der Kirchenmusikschule Regensburg, Sekretariat d. ACV, Bonn 1974, pp.
29-62; later reprinted in Das Fest des Glaubens and now in J. RATZINGER, Theologie
der Liturgie. Die sakramentale Begründung christlicher Existenz, Herder, Freiburg
2008, pp. 201-526 (Gesammelte Schriften, 11).
300 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
The phrase “The unjust hath said within himself” from Ps 35

[36]:1 occasions Aquinas to discuss intention as the «root of evil»37. He
corroborates this position by referring to EN V,6 (1134a15) where Aristotle
begins his discussion on the voluntariness of a human act by distinguishing
between acting in a just manner and being just.
A definitional use of Aristotle can be found for instance in his comments
on Ps 36:1 where he uses Aristotle to define the passion of envy38 or in his
comments on Ps 43:16 («tota die verecundia mea contra me est») where
he quotes Aristotle’s EN III, 8 (1116a33) to define shame as fear of the
disgraceful39.
Regarding Ps 44 [45]:7 where the Psalmist writes about the throne of
God and his scepter as referring to the power of God, Aquinas consults
EN X, 9 where Aristotle argues for the need of a legislative, compulsive
power in order to stimulate men to virtue and to the avoidance of vice.
This is needed, so Aristotle argues, because of the impossibility to remove
character traits merely by argument as well as because laws enable the
formation of virtues by way of practice and habituation «for most people
obey necessity rather than argument, and punishments rather than what
is noble» (EN X,9 (1180a4-5). It is within this context of human nature’s
resistance to argumentation that Aristotle observes that nature’s part
in the formation of virtues does not depend on men but is the result of
«some divine cause (per aliquam divinam causam) present in those who
37
Cf. In Psalmos 35, n. 1: «Radix mali est propositum. Primo ergo proponitur
malum propositum. Secundo ponit causam, ibi, non est timor. Tertio probat, ibi,
quoniam dolose. Sicut dicit philosophus in 3 Ethic., hic aliquis facit injustum, et non
injustificat; aliquis facit et injustificat, sed non est injustus: aliquis facit et injustificat,
et est injustus. Primum facit ille qui retinet rem alterius quam credit suam. Secundum
facit ille qui non secundum habitum, sed ex passione facit injustum, qua passione
cessante reddit rem alienam. Tertium facit ille qui ex proposito facit injustum; et ideo
dicit, dixit injustus, idest ex proposito deliberavit, ut delinquat in semetipso: quia in
ejus potestate est ut proponat peccare, non in fato stellarum». See also ST II-II q. 59,
a. 2, s. c.; SLE V, l. 13, n. 1.
38
Cf. In Psalmos 36, n. 1: «Secundum philosophum, in 2 Ethicorum, quatuor ad
idem genus spectant: scilicet misericordia, invidia, zelus, et Nemesis: et haec omnia
important tristitiam de eventibus aliorum; sed misericordia et invidia de his quae
eveniunt bonis, alia vero duo de his quae eveniunt malis». For the sources, see NE II,
5 (1105b19), NE II, 7 (1108b1-10) and Rhet. II, 9-10.
39
Cf. In Psalmos 43, n. 8: «Verecundia, secundum philosophum, est timor de
turpi. Est autem turpitudo duplex». See also De malo, q. 10, a. 2, ad 8.
are truly fortunate» (EN X,9 (1179 b22-23). Earlier on in his commentary
on EN X, 8 (1179a25) Aquinas had argued that, if the God of Aristotle
exercises solicitude and providence over human affairs, as is shown by
Aristotle’s remark that the wise man is the most beloved by the gods40, «it
is reasonable for him to delight in that which is best in men and most akin
or similar to himself»41. Given this context, it is not surprising that Aquinas
comments on «per aliquam causam divinam» by saying that what pertains
to the intellectual nature comes «from God Himself –who alone governs
the intellect– in regard to the movement of man’s mind to good. In this men
are really very fortunate to be inclined to good by a divine cause»42. It is
from this context that one is able to understand that Aquinas is justified in
commenting on Ps 44 [45]:7 by attributing to Aristotle the idea that, if man
obeyed the paternal monitions of God, there would be no need for kings
and judges43.
Psalm 48 [49] has three explicit references to Aristotle. The second
part of this psalm, in which these references occur, is concerned with a
description of the evils that happen to sinners, both in the present and in
the future. The verses we are concerned with («Et homo cum in honore
esset, non intellexit; comparatus est iumentis insipientibus, et similis
factus est illis. Haec via illorum scandalum ipsis: et postea in ore suo
40
Cf. VIJGEN, «Did St. Thomas attribute a doctrine of divine providence to
Aristotle», pp. 53-76.
41
SLE X, l. 13 (ed. Leonina XXXXVII/2, p. 595, ll. 16-20, nr. 2133): «Supposito
enim, sicut rei veritas habet, quod Deus habeat curam et providentiam de rebus
humanis, rationabile est, quod delectetur circa homines de eo quod est optimum in eis,
et quod est cognatissimum, idest simillimum Deo».
42
SLE X, l. 14 (ed. Leonina XXXXVII/2, p. 599, ll. 111-120, nr. 2145): «Sed
illud, quod ad naturam pertinet, manifestum est, quod non existit in potestate nostra,
sed provenit hominibus ex aliqua divina causa; puta ex impressione caelestium
corporum quantum ad corporis humani dispositionem, et ab ipso Deo, qui solus est
supra intellectum quantum ad hoc quod mens hominis moveatur ad bonum. Et ex hoc
homines vere sunt bene fortunati, quod per divinam causam inclinantur ad bonum, ut
patet in capitulo de bona fortuna». See also M. FREDE, «La théorie aristotélicienne de
l’intellect agent», in C. VIANO (ed.), Corps et Âme. Sur le De anima d’Aristote, Vrin,
Paris 1996, pp. 376-390 and A. COTE, «Intellection and Divine Causation in Aristotle»,
Southern Journal of Philosophy, 43 (2005) 25-39.
43
Cf. In Psalmos 44, n. 5: «Necesse enim est quod rex cohibeat delicta: quia, ut
philosophus dicit, si animi hominum essent a Deo ordinati quod obedirent monitioni
paternae, non essent necessarii reges et judices».
302 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
complacebunt») deal with the corruption of interior goods as result of

sin. The honor that is bestowed on man due to his creation in the likeness
of God and the angels reminds Aquinas of EN I, 12 (1101b10-25) where
Aristotle discusses the difference between praise and honor and establishes
that honor, because it is concerned with something that is excellent in an
absolute sense, differs qualitatively from praise, which is concerned with
something that is excellent in relation to an end. Aristotle’s difference
between honor and praise justifies why the Psalmist writes about the honor
bestowed on man44. Aquinas goes on to explain the likeness between the
sinner and the beast. The likeness consists in the fact that both habitually
live according to their passions, which, in the case of man, leads to his
being habitually «weighed down by evil deeds». This is illustrated by a
quote from Jer 5:8: «They are become as amorous horses and stallions»,
which is immediately followed by a reference to EN VII, 6 (1150a8-9):
«a bad man will do ten thousand times as much evil as a brute». In his
comments on this phrase, Aquinas argues that an evil man is worse than
a brute because an evil man, contrary to a brute, possesses reason by
which he can devise all sorts of evil45. Aquinas uses this comment here as
well46. The reference to Aristotle functions at the same time as a bridge
to the next verse («Haec via illorum scandalum ipsis: et postea in ore suo
complacebunt»). A man who habitually performs evil deeds walks on a
path of life that is not without consequences both with respect to others as
well as with respect to himself. With regard to the latter, a life according
to the passions becomes a stumbling block because it throws the evil man
into confusion, both within himself as with regard to others because such
a man is punished and disgraced, Aquinas comments. He corroborates this
44
Cf. In Psalmos 48, n. 6: «Secundum philosophum, honor est excellentius quid
quam laus: quia laus ordinatur ad aliud; honor autem est per se et in se». See also SLE
I, lect 18, nrs. 213-223 and ST II-II, q. 103, a. 1, ad 3.
45
SLE VII, l. 6 (ed. Leonina XXXXVII/2, p. 407, ll. 242-243, nr. 1403): «quia
unus homo malus decies millies potest plura mala facere quam bestia, propter rationem
quam habet ad excogitanda diversa mala».
46
Cf. In Psalmos 48, n. 6: «Quantum ad tertium dicit, et similis factus est illis:
nam quando natura brutorum inclinatur ad aliquid, sic utitur passione, et consuetudo
vertitur in naturam. Quando homo ergo assuescat secundum passionem vivere, jam
vertitur in naturam: et ideo, similis factus est illis, per habitum ex malis operibus
aggravatum: Jer. 5: equi amatores in feminas, et emissarii facti sunt; et ideo dicit
philosophus, quod pejor est malus homo quam mala bestia; quia cum malitia habet
intellectum, ut diversa mala adinveniat.».
comment with a reference to EN IX, 4 (1166b24) where Aristotle writes

that a bad man is filled with remorse (μεταμελείας)47. In this case, such
a man is not even capable of friendship with himself for there remains
nothing worthy of friendship in himself48.
The last explicit reference is found in Psalm 54 where Aquinas makes
an oblique reference to Pol. II, 8 (1268a16)49. There Aristotle is criticizing
Hippodamus’s division of citizens into three parts (artisans, husbandmen
and warriors). Aquinas himself writes of the three kinds of rulers, laborers
and businessmen and connects them to the three parts of any city (walls,
central square, streets) in order to structure his remarks on the sins described
in verse 1150. The argumentative importance of this reference seems to be
negligible51.
47
Cf. In Psalmos 48, n. 7: «Item exterius etiam conturbantur, quia puniuntur et
infamantur. Philosophus, poenitudine replentur pravi. Quantum ad alios sequitur, quod
postea in ore suo complacebunt».
48
Cf. SLE IX, 4 (ed. Leonina XXXXVII/2, p. 516, ll. 275-280, nr. 1818): «Homines
enim pravi replentur paenitentia, quia videlicet, impetu malitiae vel passionis cessante,
quo mala faciunt, secundum rationem cognoscunt se mala egisse et dolent. Et sic patet
quod pravi non disponuntur amicabiliter ad seipsos, propter hoc quod non habent in
seipsis aliquid amicitia dignum».
49
Cf. In Psalmos 54, n. 11: «In qualibet civitate sunt tria, scilicet muri qui ambiunt
eam, media habitatio, et plateae. Et philosophus distinguit tria genera hominum. Per
muros intelliguntur principes et magnates civitatis qui tuentur populum sicut muri
tuentur civitatem».
50
Cf. Ibid.: «Die et nocte circumdabit eam super muros eius et iniquitas et labor
in medio eius et iniustitia, et non defecit de plateis eius usura et dolus».
51
This can be gathered from the fact that, although the expression «tria genera
hominum» occurs nine times in the Corpus Thomisticum, Aquinas never uses it in
an identical fashion. Moreover, the division most similar to Ps. 54 occurs in Ps. 47,
n. 6 («In civitate sunt tria magnifica: scilicet turris, muri et plateau») and does not
mention Aristotle. The triad is mostly used to describe the three orders of the Church,
as established by Augustine and Gregory the Great. Cf. e.g. Gregory the Great,
Moralia in Job 32.20.35, Ed. by M. ADRIAEN, Brepols, Turnhout 1985, p. 1656:4-
19 (CCSL, 143B). See O. G. OEXLE, «Tria genera hominum. Zur Geschichte eines
Deutungsschemas der sozialen Wirklichkeit in Antike und Mittelalter» in L. FENSKE
– W. RÖSNER – T. ZOTZ (edd.), Institutionen, Kultur und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter.
Festschrift für Josef Fleckenstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Thorbecke, Sigmaringen
1984), pp. 483-500.
304 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
The commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah and the Lamentations
Aquinas’s cursory expositio on Isaiah, one of his first theological writings

and going back to his time as a student in Cologne under the direction of
Albert the Great, contains eight explicit references to Aristotle, all occurring
in the first thirteen chapters of the commentary. In general, the minor role
played by extra-scriptural authorities is characteristic for this early work.
Among these references, the following three are significant for our purposes.
Isaiah’s remark that God will take away from Jerusalem the wise
among the architects («sapientem de architectis», Isa 3:3) is clarified by
employing Aristotle’s distinction in EN VI, 5 (1141a9) between particular
and universal wisdom. Particular wisdom is concerned with the ultimate in
a particular art and it is to this kind of wisdom that Isaiah refers. Universal
wisdom, however, concerns the ultimate in every art and science, which
Aquinas here identifies with knowledge of the noblest things, that is of
spiritual substances. «And this is metaphysics according to the Philosopher
and for us theology»52.
Another interesting reference occurs in Aquinas’s comments on Isa
4:1 («et apprehendent septem mulieres virum unum in die illa»), which,
according to Thomas, seems to imply the licitness of having multiple wives.
Aquinas basis his rejection of polygyny on Aristotle’s remark in EN VIII, 12
(1162a20) that the union between male and female in human beings is not
merely for reproduction, as is the case with animals, but also «ad commodum
vitae» with the view of sharing life and labor. In so far as the sexual union
is directed towards this end, it is in conformity with nature. This “shared
life” ultimately consists in perfect friendship, which would be impeded in
the case of polygyny. This idea that the marriage bond is a kind of sharing
in friendship is more amply developed in his Scriptum and Summa contra
Gentiles, but in these brief remarks on Isaiah his essential reason comes to
the fore. This passage confirms the opinion of Theo Belmans that Thomas’s
fundamental argument against polygamy and polygyny derives not from
Saint Paul or from the Gospels, but from the philosophical requirements of
friendship, found in Book VIII of the Nicomachean Ethics53.
52
In Is. 3, 3, (ed. Leonina XXVIII, p. 26, ll. 85-87): «Et haec secundum
Philosophum est metaphysica, et secundum nos theologia».
53
Cf. T. G. BELMANS, Der objektive Sinn menschlichen Handelns: zur Ehemoral
des hl. Thomas, Patris Verlag, Vallendar-Schönstatt 1984, p. 167.
In his comments on Isa 11:2, which is traditionally the source for the
doctrine of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Aquinas uses two insights from
Aristotle to define the result and the fruits of these Gifts. Given that the
Gifts of the Holy Spirit perfect the virtues, the act that follows upon these
Gifts can rightly be called «beatitude» for Aristotle defines happiness in EN
I, 19 (1102a5) as that operation which is in accordance with perfect virtue.
And this is in agreement, Aquinas continues, with Matthew 5:8: «Blessed
are the clean of heart: they shall see God». Also the fruit of this operation
rightfully consist in «delectation», given that Aristotle states in EN VII,
12-13 (1153a14 and b9-12) that pleasure is the unimpeded operation of the
proper habit.
Regarding the commentaries on Jeremiah and the Lamentations, there
are no explicit references to Aristotle in the former whereas in the latter he
refers to the Stagirite on two occasions. Starting from Lam 4:6 and a remark
in the Gloss that the iniquity, greater than the sin of Sodom, mentioned in
Lam 4:6, refers to simulation in spiritual matters, Aquinas uses Aristotle’s
remark that deception is more culpable than counterfitting currency (EN
IX, 3 (1165b11-12). The second occasion mentions Aristotle’s view on the
receptiveness of the color white in De An. II, 7 (418b27-29) in order to
explain the use of the term «nitidiores» in Lam 4:7. The argumentative
importance of these references, however, is fairly minimal.
2. The New Testament Commentaries
The Commentary on the Gospel of John
The first paragraphs of the commentary on the Gospel of John, which

date from 1270-1271, immediately introduce the reader into the intellectual
framework in which Thomas operates. In order to understand the name
«Word» («In the beginning was the Word»), Thomas introduces Aristotle’s
insight from Peri Hermeneias 1 (16a3-4) that «vocal sounds are signs of the
affections that exist in our soul». With this distinction between the exterior
and the interior word in mind, Aquinas subsequently establishes that an
interior word is properly called that «which the one understanding forms
when understanding». Implicitly following Aristotle, Thomas continues by
distinguishing between two operations of the intellect: the formation of a
306 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
definition and the formation of an enunciation54. Hence, what is formed

and expressed by the intellect regards the definition or the concept, the
intelligible content (ratio)55, as well as the unification of multiple words
in an enunciation. Both cases are expressed in the soul and signified by
the exterior word. Expressed in the soul it is that in which an intellect
existing in act understands. Aristotle’s gnoseology offers Aquinas the basis
for establishing both the necessity of a word in all intellectual nature and
therefore also in God as well as the idea of the word as the relative object
of understanding. As such Aristotle enables Aquinas thereby to develop
his speculative doctrine of the Word56. Such a use of Aristotle is absent for
instance in the commentaries of Bonaventure and Albert the Great57.
Somewhat further in the commentary Aquinas discusses the four
propositions, contained in vs. 1-2 («In the beginning was the Word; and the
Word was with God; and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with
God»). The four propositions not only «destroy» the errors of the heretics
but also of the philosophers. In § 65 Aquinas explains how these four
propositions exclude the error of the materialist philosophers (Democritus)
who claimed that the world exists by chance; the error of Plato who claimed
that the Ideas of all things subsist and the error of «other Platonists» who,
while asserting that there existed a mind, having the ideas of all things,
claimed that this mind was inferior to God. At this point Aquinas turns to
the fourth and last proposition («He was in the beginning with God»). He
attributes to Aristotle the position that not only the ideas of all things are in
God but also that «in God, the intellect, the one understanding, and what is
understood, are the same». In his Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics
Aquinas extensively develops this attribution58. I concur with Leo Elders
that this attribution both develops philosophically the text of Aristotle but
also remains faithful to the context provided by Aristotle59. Despite this
54
Cf. De an. III, 6 (430a26-28).
55
Cf. Peri herm. 2 (16a20-16b5).
56
Cf. In Ioh. 1, lect. 1, nr. 25. See also G. EMERY, La théologie trinitaire de
saint Thomas d’Aquin, Cerf, Paris 2004, pp. 74-79; SABATHÉ, La Trinité rédemptrice,
pp. 244-255.
57
Cf. Bonaventure, Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis, c. 1, p. 1 (ed. Quaracchi,
t. VI, p. 246-249 etc.); Albertus Magnus, Super Iohannem, c. 1 (ed. Borgnet, t. 24,
p. 24-30).
58
Cf. esp. Meta XII, 9, nr. 2615 and Meta. XII, 7, nr. 2544.
59
Cf. ELDERS, «The Aristotelian Commentaries of St. Thomas Aquinas», p. 45.
positive review of Aristotle’s position, Aquinas does not fail to note the
limitations of Aristotle’s thought. «Nevertheless» (tamen), Aquinas says,
Aristotle claimed that world is coeternal with God60. Aquinas therefore
reads the fourth proposition as saying that the Word alone was coeternal
with God. There is at least a twofold significance of Aquinas’s philosophical
digression in § 65. Aquinas discerns a progress within the history of
philosophy, culminating in Aristotle’s position on the nature of God, a
position which partially overlaps that of the text of the Gospel of John,
ch. 1, vs. 2. This significance is furthermore underlined by the fact that
such a philosophical digression and a partial corroboration of Revelation
by Aristotle’s philosophy is entirely absent from the commentaries of his
contemporaries Bonaventure and Albert the Great.
The third reference to Aristotle also represents a different approach
than that of Bonaventure or Albert the Great. Regarding vs. 13 of the
Prologue («Qui non ex sanguinibus […] nati sunt»), Aquinas, contrary
to Albert and Bonaventure, inquires after the meaning of the use of the
plural «sanguinibus». For Albert and Bonaventure «sanguinibus» merely
refers to the mixture of the semen of man and woman61, whereas Aquinas
explicitly reflects on the use of the plural. Noting that, contrary to the
Greek equivalent, the Latin «sanguis» has no plural, Aquinas makes the
remarkable observation «the translator [from Greek into Latin] ignored a
rule of grammar in order to teach the truth more perfectly». At this point
Aquinas introduces Aristotle’s opinion that «semen is a residue derived
from useful nourishment in its final form» (Gen. anim. I, 18 (726a26-28)).
It seems to me that the truth more perfectly taught by the translator, as
Aquinas understands it here, regards the idea that the matter for carnal
generation comes both from the male and the female and for this reason the
plural is used. The use of the singular could have been interpreted as saying
that the matter is either from the male or the female62.
60
Cf. J. F. WIPPEL, «Did Thomas Aquinas Defend the Possibility of an Eternally
Created World? (The De aeternitate mundi Revisited)», Journal of the History of
Philosophy, 19 (1981) 21-37.
61
Cf. Bonaventure, Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis, c. 1, p. 1 (ed.
Quaracchi, t. VI, p. 252); Albertus Magnus, Super Iohannem, c. 1 (ed. Borgnet, t. 24,
p. 47)
62
Cf. In Ioh. 1, l. 6, nr. 160: «Et licet hoc nomen sanguis in Latino non habeat
plurale, quia tamen in Graeco habet, ideo translator regulam grammaticae servare non
curavit, ut veritatem perfecte doceret. Unde non dicit ex sanguine, secundum Latinos,
308 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
The next reference occurs in Aquinas’s comments on John 2:4 («My

time has not yet come»). Against a deterministic interpretation of these
words, Aquinas vigorously defends the spiritual and free nature of man.
He illustrates the superiority of the spiritual realm by attributing the saying
«the wise man is master of the stars» to the Philosopher63. Most likely
this attribution is a mistake by Aquinas or an error by the scribe because
in the other four places in which Aquinas mentions this saying he always
attributes it to Ptolomaeus or the astrologists64.
In his comments on John 4:22 («You people worship what you do not
understand») Aquinas tries to explain how having a false idea about God is
possible. Aristotle’s distinction between knowledge of complex things in
Met. 10 (1051b1-32) and knowledge of simple things offers him a point of
access. Knowledge about complex things can remain incomplete, whereas
a simple thing, if it is known, is known in its quiddity. God, being absolutely
simple, cannot be the object of false, i.e. incomplete knowledge65.
Some references to Aristotle merely illustrate a point that is already
being made. For instance in his comments on the passage of the Good
Shepherd (John 10:11-14), Aquinas distinguishes between the good
shepherd who is concerned with the benefit of the flock and the hireling
who mainly seeks his own advantage. At this point he mentions Aristotle’s
distinction between a king and a tyrant in EN VIII, 10 (1160b1-2) in order
to illustrate the truth of the distinction between a good shepherd and a
hireling from the perspective of a pagan philosopher66. In this case, as rarely
sed ex sanguinibus; per quod intelligitur quicquid ex sanguine generatur, concurrens ut

materia ad carnalem generationem. Semen autem, secundum philosophum, est ultimi
superfluitas cibi sanguinei. Unde sive semen viri, sive menstruum mulieris, intelligitur
per sanguinem».
63
Cf. In Ioh. 2, l. 1, nr. 351: «Sed hoc est falsum de quolibet homine. Cum
enim homo liberam electionem habeat, libera autem electio competat ei ex hoc
quod rationem et voluntatem habet, quae quidem sunt immaterialia: manifestum est
quod homo quantum ad electionem nulli corpori subiicitur, sed potius dominatur.
Immaterialia enim nobiliora sunt materialibus, et ideo dicit philosophus, quod sapiens
dominatur astris».
64
On the historical background of this saying, cf. Editio Leonina t. XXXXIII, § 22,
p. 223. The editors do not mention the use of this saying in the Commentary on John.
65
Cf. In Ioh. 4, l. 2, nr. 603.
66
Cf. In Ioh. 10, l. 3, nr. 1402: «Ut sic differant in hoc: quod bonus pastor quaerit
utilitatem gregis; mercenarius autem principalius commodum proprium. Haec etiam
differentia est inter regem et tyrannum, ut philosophus dicit, quia rex in suo regimine
happens in Thomas, his use of Aristotle has a very minimal argumentative

function67.
In Aquinas’s depiction of Pilate’s motivation in John 19 the
argumentative authority of Aristotle is invoked on two occasions. Aquinas
recognizes in Pilate’s order to scourge Jesus (John 19:1) an attempt
by Pilate to satisfy the demands of the Jews in order to appease them.
Pilate’s reasoning is a testament to his common sense because according
to Aristotle in Rhet. II, 3 (1380a5-b1) –and Aquinas agrees–, in seeing the
one we are angry with humiliated and punished, our own anger subsides.
This intention does not excuse Pilate because to harm an innocent person
is an evil in itself, as Aquinas explicitly states. Nevertheless, Aquinas does
seem to excuse Pilate to some extent. Aquinas distinguishes between anger
which seeks to inflict a limited amount of harm and hatred which seeks to
end the life of the one hated. Aristotle’s insight is only applicable to the
case of anger whereas Aquinas attributes hatred to the Jews. Pilate’s hope
to satisfy the Jews by scourging Jesus was unsuccessful because he failed
to notice the Jews’ hatred68. Somewhat further on, however, Aquinas seems
to place the Jews and Pilate on the same line. Both are eager to receive the
praise of men and to be included among the friends of Caesar. By invoking
a variant of the well-known phrase ‘Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas’
–itself based on EN I, 6 (1096a11-16)– Aquinas seems to suggest that both
the Jews and Pilate preferred the friendship of men to the truth69.
intendit utilitatem subditorum; tyrannus vero utilitatem propriam […]». For a similar
strategy, cf. Cf. In Ioh. 12, l. 5, nr. 1656, where he comments on John 12:27 («And
what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour»).
67
Cf. In Ioh. 15, l. 4, nr. 2036: «Sed videmus quod aliqui homines convenientes
in aliquo peccato, se invicem odio habent, sicut superbi; Prov. XIII, 10: inter superbos
semper iurgia sunt: et avarus odit avarum. Unde, secundum philosophum, figuli
conrixantur adinvicem». This saying, quoted several times by Aristotle, seems to go
back to Hesiod.
68
Cf. In Ioh. 19, l. 1, nr. 2372: «Dicit ergo tunc ergo, idest post clamorem omnium,
apprehendit Pilatus Iesum et flagellavit, non quidem propriis manibus, sed per milites:
et hoc ideo ut Iudaei satiati eius iniuriis, mitigarentur et usque ad eius mortem saevire
desisterent. Naturale est enim ut ira quiescat, si videat eum contra quem irascitur,
humiliatum et punitum, ut dicit philosophus in rhetorica. Quod quidem verum est in
ira quae quaerit nocumentum proximi cum mensura, sed non in odio, quod totaliter
quaerit exitium eius qui habetur odio».
69
Cf. In Ioh. 19, l. 3, nr. 2399: «Dicit ergo, quod postquam Pilatus quaerebat
dimittere Christum, Iudaei clamabant dicentes: si hunc dimittis, qui se regem facit,
310 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
In the same chapter 19 Aquinas uses the authority of Aristotle even

as part of a spiritual reading of John 19:18. The fact that Jesus was placed
in the middle between two criminals is intended by the Jews to imply
that the cause of Jesus’ death was similar to that of the criminals. But a
contemplation of this mystery, so Aquinas continues, shows its relation to
the glory of Christ. Christ’s placement between two criminals shows that
His suffering merited the power to judge. But if one asks what argument
Aquinas gives to justify a connection between Christ’s placement and his
power to judge, one notices that it is solely on the basis of Aristotle’s idea
of a judge as being someone who mediates between two parties (see Pol.
III, 16 (1287b4); EE III, 7 (1243a19-23)) that Aquinas develops the idea
of Christ as Judge70.
The final references to Aristotle occur in the final two chapters. In
chapter 20 it is told that after His resurrection Christ entered in the midst
of the apostles through closed doors. In the Scriptum the young Thomas
considered the view of his predecessor Praepositinus of Cremona as more
probable: Christ was able to enter through closed doors because of his
glorified body, possessing the endowment of subtilitas71. The ability to be
simultaneously present in the same place as another body would therefore
be an inherent property of Christ’s glorified body and hence no miracle
would be required. In the Summa theologiae he again raises the question as
to whether the ability to enter through closed doors is an inherent property
of Christ’s glorified body. For an answer, Aquinas seems to refer to the
subsequent treatise on the general resurrection, a treatise, however, which
non es amicus Caesaris, idest, amicitiam eius amittes. Saepe namque contingit quod
homines de aliis ea existimant quae ipsi patiuntur. Et quia de eis dicitur supra XII, 43,
quod dilexerunt magis gloriam hominum quam Dei; ideo et de Pilato existimabant
quod amicitiam Caesaris praeponeret amicitiae iustitiae; quamvis contrarium sit
faciendum. Ps. CXVII, v. 9: bonum est sperare in domino quam in principibus. Unde
et philosophus veritatem censet praehonorari amicitiis».
70
Cf. In Ioh. 19, l. 3, nr. 2417: «Sed si ad mysterium attendatur, hoc ad claritatem
Christi pertinet: nam per hoc ostenditur quod Christus per passionem merebatur
iudiciariam potestatem. Iob XXXVI, v. 17: causa tua quasi impii iudicata est; sed
iudicium causamque recipies. Medium autem tenere proprium est iudicis: unde, et
secundum philosophum, ire ad iudicem est ire ad medium. Et ideo medius ponitur,
et unus a dextris, et alius a sinistris, quia in iudicio statuet quidem oves a dextris,
haedos autem a sinistris. Unde latro a dextris qui credidit liberatur, et alter a sinistris
qui insultat est condemnatus».
71
Cf. In Sent. III, d. 21, q. 2, a. 4, qc. 1, ad 2.
Aquinas never wrote72. In is therefore in his Commentary on John that one

finds his final solution to this question. His reasoning can be summed up
as follows:
Step 1: It is due to the nature of a non-glorified human body that it
cannot be simultaneously in the same place as another body.
Step 2: A glorified body with the inherent ability to be simultaneously
in the same place as another body must lack the property of a non-glorified
body, which prevents this from being the case.
Step 3: The separation or destruction of such a property would mean
the separation or destruction of the very dimensions of a quantified body.
Step 4: Even in a vacuum it is impossible for a sense-perceptible
body to simultaneously exist with another body, due to their quantitative
dimensions73.
Step 5: The removal of the quantitative dimensions of a body, even in
the case of a glorified body, would mean that that body would stop being
a true body.
Aquinas concludes that Christ entered through the closed doors
«miraculously, by the power of his divinity»74. In other words, it belongs
to the nature of a true body to have quantitative dimensions. If Christ’s
glorified body is to remain a glorified, but true body, a miracle is needed to
account for the possibility of a glorified but true body being simultaneously
in the same place with another body. The role of Aristotle in this passage
is remarkable. On the basis of Aristotle’s philosophical insights regarding
the relation between a body and its dimensive quantity, Aquinas is able to
safeguard the true nature of Christ’s glorified body. In the end his position
in the Commentary on John does not seem to differ significantly from his
position in the Summa. In both texts Aquinas establishes the position that
it is «not from any property within the body» (ST III, 54, 1, ad 1) that
Christ can enter through closed doors but «ex virtute divinitatis unitae»
72
Cf. ST III, 54, 1, ad 1: «Sed utrum hoc facere possit corpus gloriosum ex
aliqua proprietate sibi indita, ut simul cum alio corpore in eodem loco existat, inferius
discutietur, ubi agetur de resurrectione communi. Nunc autem, quantum ad propositum
sufficit, dicendum est quod non ex natura corporis, sed potius ex virtute divinitatis
unitae, illud corpus ad discipulos, licet verum esset, ianuis clausis introivit».
73
The reference to Aristotle is not easily identifiable. See also Phys. IV, l. 13,
nr. 541.
74
Cf. In Ioh. 20, l. 4, nr. 2527.
312 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
(ST III, 54, 1, ad 1) or «virtute suae divinitatis» (In Ioh. 20, l. 4, nr. 2527)75.
However, what distinguishes the Commentary from the Summa is the fact
that it is in the Commentary that Aquinas presents an entirely Aristotelian
argument in order to safeguard a theological position and to corroborate
the need for a supernatural intervention by way of a miracle76.
In chapter 21 Christ asks Peter if he loves Him «more than these».
Aquinas finds a philosophical foundation for this demand for preferential
love in Aristotle’s insight in Pol. I, 12 that it is «the natural order of
things that the one who cares for and governs others should be better»77.
And again with regard to the apostle Peter, Aquinas comments on the
presumptuousness and self-will implied by John 21:18 («When you were
young, you walked where you would») by way Aristotle’s description of
the temperament of the young in Rhet. II, 12 (1389a1-b10).
The Commentary on Romans
The first reference to Aristotle occurs at the very beginning of the

commentary78. Paul’s description of himself as «servant of Jesus Christ»
75
This position leaves no room for Aquinas’s own suggestion in ST III, q. 54, a.
1, ad 1 that some hidden property of the glorified body might be able to cause Christ’s
entering through closed doors. Here I differ from the position held by P. Valkenberg.
See P. VALKENBERG, «Aquinas and Christ’s Resurrection: the Influence of the Lectura
super Ioannem 20-21 on the Summa theologiae», in M. DAUPHINAIS – M. LEVERING
(eds.), Reading John with Thomas Aquinas. Theological Exegesis and Speculative
Theology, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2005, pp. 277-
89, esp. pp. 284-285.
76
The Thomist tradition will distinguish between the primary formal effect of
quantity (ordo partium in toto) and its secondary formal effect (ordo partium in loco)
in order to argue for the possibility of what is ontologically distinct to subsist by way
of divine intervention. In the case of the resurrected body of Christ, this means that it
is possible that the secondary formal effect is suppressed. Cf. J. VIJGEN, The status of
Eucharistic accidents “sine subiecto”: An Historical Survey up to Thomas Aquinas
and selected reactions, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 2013, p. 255, n. 301; L. ELDERS, The
Philosphy of Nature of St. Thomas Aquinas, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 1997,
p. 87; R. HÜTTER, Dust bound for Heaven. Explorations in the Theology of Thomas
Aquinas, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 2012, pp. 452-456.
77
Cf. In Ioh. 21, l. 3, nr. 2619.
78
The leading hypothesis that Aquinas commented on the Pauline epistles twice
in his career (either from 1259-1265 or 1265-1268 and than in Paris 1271-1272 or
in Rom 1:1 seems to conflict with Christ’s own saying in John 15:15 («No
longer do I call you servants, but friends»). Aquinas begins his response
by distinguishing between two kinds of servitude: the servitude of fear and
the servitude of humility and love. Only the latter is befitting for a saint. In
what follows, Aquinas develops a line of argumentation for this distinction
that is heavily indebted to Aristotle. He starts out by defining what it is to
be a free man and to be a servant, drawing implicitly on Met. I, 2 (982b25-
27). A free man exists for his own sake whereas a servant exists for the
sake of another. He goes on by explaining that a person can act for the
sake of another in two ways. A person can act for the sake of another by
being moved by that other to such an extent that the person moved acts in
opposition to his own will. In such a case there exists the servitude of fear.
If however a person acts for the sake of another because he wills to do good
to the other for the sake of the other, than there exists a servitude of love.
Aristotle’s description of friendship as benevolence and the readiness for
doing good to another in EN IX, 4 (1166a1-29) enables Aquinas to resolve
the apparent contradiction between Rom 1:1 and John 15: 1579.
Paul’s statement in Rom 1:20, dealing with the knowledge that
pagans can have of God derived from creation, presents a case of culpable
ignorance because Paul adds that, in this regard, «they are inexcusable».
After having explained the difference between inculpable and culpable
ignorance, Aquinas refers by way of confirmation to Aristotle’s EN III,
5 (1113b30): a person is not only punished for the crime he committed
but also for the ignorance which moved him to commit that crime if that
person is responsible for the ignorance80. Somewhat further Paul states that,
because of the idolatry of the pagans, «God gave them up to the desires
in Naples 1272-1273) has been most recently criticized by Robert Wielockx. He

also concludes that the material at hand is not conclusive for fixing the date of these
commentaries. Cf. R. WIELOCKX, «Au sujet du commentaire de saint Thomas sur le
‘Corpus Paulinum’: critique littéraire», Doctor Communis, Nova Series 13 (2009)
150-184.
79
Cf. In Rom. 1, l. 1, nr. 21: «Cum enim liber est qui est causa sui, servus autem
qui est causa alterius, sicut ab alio movente motus: si quis sic agat causa alterius,
sicut ab alio motus, sic est servitus timoris, quae cogit hominem operari contra suam
voluntatem; si vero aliquis agat causa alterius, sicut propter finem, sic est servitus
amoris, quia amicorum est bene facere et obsequi amico propter ipsum, ut philosophus
dicit in IX Ethic.».
80
Cf. In Rom. 1, l. 7, nr. 124.
314 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among

themselves» (Rom 1:24). Aquinas identifies the «desires of the heart»
with «lustful affections» (sensualis affectus) and, in particular, following
Aristotle’s suggestion, with the pleasures of touch (delectationes tactus). In
EN III, 10 (1118b1-5) Aristotle argues that intemperance is predominantly
connected to the sense of touch, a sense which is shared by all animals.
To take pleasure therefore in things related to the sense of touch in such a
way as to love these things above others is brutish, says Aristotle. Aquinas
takes over Aristotle’s suggestion regarding the relation between the sense
of touch and the animal-like nature of the act of delight in such things81.
Regarding the same pagans, Paul states in Rom 2:14 that, although they did
not receive the divine law, they «do by nature those things that are of the
law» and «are a law to themselves». Aquinas explains that the pagans, with
regard to the moral precepts that are dictated by natural reason, instruct
and induce themselves to the good «because the Philosopher says: Law is
a statement laying down an obligation and proceeding from prudence and
understanding»82. Towards the end of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle
argues for the insuffiency of arguments and counseling as motivations
for leading a moral life. For this reason, it is necessary that there is some
sort of intellect with coercive power. Now the law is both: it is the result
of practical wisdom and intellect and it has coercive power (EN X, 9
(1180a20-22). Paul’s statement that the pagans «are a law to themselves»
exemplifies the requirements put forward by Aristotle.
Rom 3:4: «But God is true and every man is a liar» provides Aquinas
with the occasion to briefly present the definition of truth as the equation
of the intellect and the thing whereby the truth of the human intellect is
measured by the things, whereas the divine intellect is the measure of
things. The reference to Aristotle’s Categories 5 (4b9-11) corroborates
some elements of this position. It is however a more Augustinian argument
that is used to support the possibility of actually acquiring the truth. Unless
the human intellect participates in the divine truth, that is, unless it is
illuminated by the «first truth» it cannot by itself acquire the truth but «in
mendacio remanet»83.
81
Cf. In Rom. 1, l. 7, nr. 138. See also SLE III, l. 19 (ed. Leonina XXXXVII/1, p. 184,
ll. 40-54, nr. 166).
82
In Rom. 2, l. 3, nr. 217.
83
Cf. In Rom. 3 l. 1, nr. 255.
Paul’s conditional statement in Rom 4:3 («For if Abraham was

justified by works of law, he has glory, but not before God») raises a
particularly interesting case. We have here a rare occasion in which
Aristotle is used in order to formulate an objection. Given that Abraham
has glory before God, he was not justified by exterior works of the
law because, contrary to man, who see the exterior works, God «sees
in secret» as is said in 1 Sam 16:7 («The Lord looks on the heart»).
Aquinas however raises an objection based on EN II, 1 (1103b5-25).
There Aristotle argues that by repeatingly doing virtuous deeds a person
becomes virtuou. Aquinas’s version goes beyond the text in EN II, 1
and is influenced by 1 Sam 16:7, but it nevertheless captures the central
argument of EN II, 1-4. The tenet of the objection seems to conflict with
the apparent impossibility of justification by works of the law. In his
answer Thomas recognizes the value of the objection but limits its extent.
The habit of the kind of justice that is concerned with the human good
can (potest) indeed be acquired by human works. However, the habit
that is concerned with the divine good and by which one obtains future
glory exceeds human ability. Thomas concludes: «a man’s works are not
proportioned to causing the habit of this justice; rather, a man’s heart
needs first to be justified inwardly by God, so that he can perform works
proportioned to divine glory»84. The distinction between the human good
and the divine good whereby Aristotle’s argument is valid in the sphere
of human affairs is a strategy often used by Aquinas in order to limit the
scope of Aristotle’s inquiry85. Such a limitation constitutes, however, not
84
Cf. In Rom. 4 l. 1, nr. 325: «Sed contra hoc potest obiici, quia ex consuetudine
operum exteriorum generatur interior habitus, secundum quem etiam cor hominis bene
disponitur, ut sit promptum ad bene operandum et in bonis operibus delectetur, sicut
philosophus docet in II Ethicorum. Sed dicendum est quod hoc habet locum in iustitia
humana, per quam scilicet homo ordinatur ad bonum humanum. Huius enim iustitiae
habitus per opera humana potest acquiri, sed iustitia quae habet gloriam apud Deum,
ordinatur ad bonum divinum, scilicet futurae gloriae, quae facultatem humanam
excedit, secundum illud I Cor. II, 9: in cor hominis non ascendit quae praeparavit
Deus diligentibus se. Et ideo opera hominis non sunt proportionata ad huius iustitiae
habitum causandum, sed oportet prius iustificari interius cor hominis a Deo, ut opera
faciat proportionata divinae gloriae».
85
See for instance his often-repeated remark that in the Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle is only concerned with the happiness of the present life (SLE I, l. 9, nr.
113; SLE III, l. 18, nr. 590; SLE X, l. 11, nr. 2103). See JORDAN, «Thomas Aquinas’
Disclaimers in the Aristotelian Commentaries», p. 109.
316 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
a negation of the possibility of Aristotelian virtues, e.g. justice. On the

contrary, in our text Aquinas explicitly affirms such a possibility86.
Commenting on Romans 5:12, the key text for the doctrine of the
transmission original sin, Aquinas uses Aristotle to set the parameters for
his own position. Original sin, being an accident of the soul, cannot be
transmitted by way of carnal origin (per originem carnis) because this
would constitute a denial of the specifically Christian position that the
rational soul is a subsistent reality and directly created by God. Aquinas
finds a partial confirmation for this position in Aristotle’s De generatione
animalium II, 3 (736b28-29) where it is said that the activity of the nous
requires something other than bodily causes and therefore comes «from
without» and «is alone divine»87. On the basis of the Neoplatonic axiom
«everything received by something exists in it according to a mode of the
recipient» (omne receptum est in recipiente per modum recipientis88) it is
reasonable to argue that the seed contains «a power disposing the body to
receive the soul which, when it is infused into the body, is also adapted to it
in its own way»89. This would explain, according to Thomas, why children
resemble their parents not only in bodily defects but also in defects of
the soul. But the idea of a defect of the soul being transmitted by the
86
For an opposite view, see E. STUMP, «The Non-Aristotelian Character of
Aquinas’s Ethics: Aquinas on the Passions», Faith & Philosophy, 28 (2011) 29-43. Her
position resembles that of Martin Luther, who writes in his commentary on Hebrews:
«Consequens est, quod omnium philosophorum virtutes, immo omnium hominum, sive
iuristarum, sive theologorum, specie quidem sunt virtutes, revera autem vitia». Cf. M.
Luther, Luthers Vorlesung über den Hebräerbrief nach der vatikanischen Handschrift,
Ed. by E. HIRSCH – H. RUCKERT, De Gruyter, Berlin 1929, p. 113.
87
Aristotle’s text from De generatione animalium II, 3 in the translation of
William of Moerbeke reads: «Relinquitur autem intellectum solum deforis advenire et
divinum esse solum: nichil enim ipsius operationi communicat corporalis operatio».
(Aristoteles Latinus XVII.2.V, p. 53) See De pot. q. 3, a. 9; ST I, q. 118, a. 2, ad 2 and
J. HAMESSE, Les Auctoritates Aristotelis: un florilège médiéval. Étude historique et
édition critique, Publications Universitaires de Louvain, Louvain 1974, p. 224, nr. 190:
«Solus intellectus est in nobis ab extrinseco».
88
See Liber de Causis, Ed. by A. PATTIN, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, Louvain,
1967, Prop. IX(X), p. 72. For an in-depth study of this principle, see J. TOMARCHIO,
«Four Indices for the Thomistic Principle ‘Quod recipitur in aliquo est in eo per
modum recipientis’», Mediaeval Studies, 60 (1998) 315-367. See also J. F. WIPPEL,
Metaphysical Themes in Thomas Aquinas II, The Catholic University of America
Press, Washington D.C. 2005, pp. 113-122.
89
In Rom. 5, l. 3, nr. 408.
parent raises the difficulty of explaining the moral character of sin and,
in particular, its character of guilt. Aquinas favorably quotes Aristotle’s
observation in EN III, 5 (1114a25-26) that no one reproaches a man who is
born blind but one rather pities him90. Given these parameters, Aquinas is
able to give his own account of the transmission of original sin, an account
which is not so much biological but based on the idea that all humans share
in one common nature, received from their first ancestor91.
Rom 5:20 («Now the law entered in secretly that sin might abound»)
raises another difficulty. If one takes «that» (ut) in a causal sense, the
phrase seems to say that the increase of sin is the purpose of the Law. On
the basis of the Gloss, Aquinas first investigates the suggestion that «ut» is
merely to be understood in the sense of a temporal sequence92. The law was
followed by an increase of sin in two ways, Aquinas explains. First, the
number of sins increased because, when something is forbidden, the desire
for it is also increased «as a torrent flows with greater force against an
obstacle erected against it and finally breaks it»93. Secondly, the weight of
guilt increased because once the written law is given, sin becomes not only
a transgression of the law of nature but also of the written law94. Aquinas
gives three reasons for the increase of the number of sins and, in so doing,
he shows himself to be an excellent observer of human psychology. First,
something that is forbidden increases the desirability of the forbidden object
because the prohibition places the desired object beyond man’s power.
Secondly, a prohibition and its connection to a penalty prevents a man
from not expressing his desire and thus the desire grows stronger. Thirdly,
what is not forbidden «is regarded as something possible to do any time it
pleases us; therefore, even when the opportunity is present, we often avoid
90
Cf. In Rom. 5, l. 3, nr. 409.
91
For an excellent first account of Aquinas’s position, see R. A. TE VELDE,
«Evil, Sin and Death: Thomas Aquinas on Original Sin», in R. VAN NIEUWENHOVE –
J. WAWRYKOW (eds.), The Theology of Thomas Aquinas, Notre Dame University Press,
Notre Dame 2005, pp. 143-166. For a more detailed treatment and discussion with
contemporary interpreters of Aquinas, see Die Deutsche Thomas-Ausgabe, volume 12
(ST I-II, qq. 71-89), translated and annotated by O. H. PESCH, Styria Verlag, Wien
2004), pp. 902-1008.
92
Later on in In Rom. 5, l. 6 nrs. 459 and 460, he investigates the causal sense of
«ut».
93
In Rom. 5, l. 6, nr. 453.
94
Cf. In Rom. 5, l. 6, nr. 458.
318 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
doing it. But when something is forbidden, it is measured as something

not capable of being ours at just any time; therefore, when the opportunity
arises to obtain it without fear of punishment, we are readier to seize it»95.
However, if a human law indeed increases the number of sins, this would
run counter to what Aristotle described in EN II, 1 (1103b2-3) as being the
intention of the lawgiver, namely to make the citizen good. Similar to his
distinction between the human good and the divine good in his comments
on Romans 4:3, Aquinas responds by differentiating between the intention
of the human law and the intention of the divine law. Whereas the human
law has as its object external actions, the divine law is concerned with
«interior movements of the heart» (interioribus motibus cordis). This
distinction entails that human law reaches its goal when it prevents external
sinful acts by way of prohibitions and threats of punishment although, as
has being said, the interior sinful desire simultaneously increases. The
divine law, however, imputes as sinful even the interior evil desire96. Thus
far this argument, based on a merely negative description of human law as
that which prohibits and punishes transgressions, seems to run counter to
the intention of the lawgiver as conceived of by Aristotle. For this reason,
so it seems, Aquinas adds an insight from EN X, 9 (1180a1-22)97. In
Aquinas’s reading of this passage, Aristotle is saying that for those who are
well disposed the law does not merely function as a negative prohibition
and threat of punishment but it also leads (inducit) them «per amorem
virtutis»98 towards the good. In his SLE Aquinas describes this positive
function of the law in more detail. The law can summon a man to virtue
(advocare ad virtutem) by showing the goodness (honestatem) of what is
proposed because the law results from reason and prudence and contains
95
In Rom. 5, l. 6, nr. 455.
96
Cf. In Rom. 5, l. 6, nr. 456.
97
Whereas Aristotle merely mentions this insight as an opinion without taking a
position, Aquinas, given the Latin translation, ascribes this insight to Aristotle himself.
See SLE, l. 14, nrs. 2151-2152 (ed. Leonina XXXXVII/2, p. 599, ll. 181-600, l.203).
98
Cf. In Rom. 5, l. 6, nr. 457: «Sciendum tamen, quod, sicut philosophus dicit in
X Ethic., prohibitio legis, licet illos qui sunt male dispositi cohibeat ab exterioribus
peccatis solo poenae timore; quosdam tamen bene dispositos inducit per amorem
virtutis. Sed ista bona dispositio quantum ad aliquid potest esse a natura, sed eius
perfectio non est nisi per gratiam; ex qua contingit, quod etiam lege veteri data, non
in omnibus peccatum abundat, sed in pluribus. Quidam vero, lege prohibente et gratia
ulterius adiuvante, ad perfectionem virtutum tandem pervenerunt, secundum illud
Eccli. XLIV, 1: laudemus viros gloriosos, etc., et infra: homines magnos virtute».
in itself the right order, characterstics which make a man susceptible for
guidance towards the good by that same law99. At this point it is good
to recall that Aquinas is arguing for the possibility of reading Rom 5:20
(«Now the law entered in secretly that sin might abound») as saying that
the law was followed by an increase in the number of sins. With the help
of Aristotle he has established that through love of virtue someone who is
well disposed can also be guided by the law. Hence the law does not lead
everyone to an increase of sin. At this point in his Commentary on Romans
he brings together the insights drawn from Aristotle and integrates them in
a theological synthesis, affirming both the factual existence and legitimacy
of philosophical ethics (although in a limited sense) and moral theology.
He writes:
[The] good disposition can be present to a certain extent by nature,

although its perfection is achieved only by grace. Consequently,
even after the Old Law had been given, sin did not increase in all
but in the majority. But some, guided by the law’s prohibitions and
further strengthened by grace, reached the heights of virtue: “Let us
now praise glorious men […] men great in virtue (Sir 44:1)100.
Further on in commenting on Romans 8:2 («For the law of the spirit

of life in Christ Jesus has delivered me from the law of sin and of death»),
Aquinas identifies the role of the divine law (see nr. 456) or grace (see nr.
457) with the Holy Spirit, again referring to Aristotle’s idea in EN II, 1
(1103b2-3) that the intention of the lawgiver is to make men good. Here
however it becomes apparent that the synthesis mentioned above is truly
a synthesis and not a construction whereby a theological layer is placed
above a philosophical layer. On the contrary, the synthesis consists of an
interpenetration of nature and grace. I recall that in his commentary on
Romans 5:20 (nr. 456) Aquinas had distinguished between the intention of
the human law and the intention of the divine law. Whereas the human law
has as its object external actions, the divine law is concerned with interior
movements of the heart (interioribus motibus cordis). This distinction
entailed that human law reaches its goal when it prevents external sinful
acts by way of prohibitions and threats of punishment whereas the divine
law imputes as sinful even the interior evil desire. I furthermore recall that
99
SLE, l. 14, nrs. 2151-2153 (ed. Leonina XXXXVII/2, p. 599, ll. 181-600, l.223).
100
In Rom. 5, l. 6, nr. 457. For the Latin text see footnote 98.
320 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
a good disposition or love of virtue makes a man susceptible to guidance

by the law and that this good disposition «can to a certain extent be
present by nature» (quantum ad aliquid potest esse a natura). Avoiding
any kind of Semi-Pelagianism, Aquinas further limits Aristotle’s saying
that the intention of the lawgiver is to make men good. Epistemologically,
human law merely indicates (solum notificando) what ought to be done,
whereas the Holy Spirit both teaches (docet) by illuminating the intellect
as well as by inclining the affection to act aright (affectum inclinat ad
recte agendum)101. If someone follows the Spirit and is led by the Spirit
in this way, he is «according to the Spirit» and «senses the things of the
Spirit» (Rom 8:5). Anthropologically this concurs with Aristotle’s saying
in EN III, 5 (1114a32): «qualis est unusquisque, talis finis videtur ei»102. A
goal appears to each man according to his character or disposition. Such
an affective knowledge or connaturality103 is, theologically speaking, the
result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit104.
In his comments on Rom 8:21 («creation itself will be set free from
its bondage to decay»), Aquinas observes that «creation» can refer to
101
In Rom. 8, l. 1, nr. 601: «Lex enim ad hoc datur, ut per eam homines inducantur
ad bonum; unde et philosophus in II Ethic. dicit quod intentio legislatoris est cives
facere bonos. Quod quidem lex humana facit, solum notificando quid fieri debeat; sed
spiritus sanctus, mentem inhabitans, non solum docet quid oporteat fieri, intellectum
illuminando de agendis, sed etiam affectum inclinat ad recte agendum. Io. XIV, 26:
Paracletus autem spiritus sanctus, quem mittet pater in nomine meo, ille vos docebit
omnia, quantum ad primum, et suggeret vobis omnia, quantum ad secundum,
quaecumque dixero vobis».
102
Aquinas quotes this axiom of Aristotle 14 times. See Sent. II, d. 7, q. 1, a. 2
co; ST I, q. 83, a. 1, arg. 5; ST I, q. 83, a. 1, ad 5; ST I-II, q. 9, a. 2 co; ST I-II, q. 10, a.
3, arg. 2; ST I-II, q. 58, a. 5 co; ST II-II, q. 24, a. 11 co; De Ver. q. 24, a. 1, arg. 19; De
malo, q. 6 co; De virtutibus, q. 1, a. 5 arg. 2; De virtutibus, q. 1, a. 9 arg. 21; SLE III, l.
13, n. 2; In I Cor. 2, l. 3; In Rom. 8, l. 1.
103
Cf. R. RYAN, «Revisiting affective knowing and connaturality in Aquinas»,
Theological Studies, 66 (2005) 49-68.
104
Cf. In Rom. 8, l. 1, nr. 606: «Secundo, ponit minorem secundi syllogismi,
dicens qui vero sunt secundum spiritum, id est, qui spiritum sanctum sequuntur, et
secundum eum ducuntur secundum illud Gal. V, 18: si spiritu ducimini, non estis sub
lege, sentiunt ea quae sunt spiritus, id est, habent rectum sensum in rebus spiritualibus,
secundum illud Sap. I, 1: sentite de domino in bonitate. Et horum ratio est, quia, sicut
philosophus dicit in III Ethic., qualis est unusquisque, talis finis videtur ei. Unde ille
cuius est animus informatus per habitum bonum vel malum, existimat de fine secundum
exigentiam illius habitus».
either the just man, human nature or sensible creatures. Regarding this last
possibility, he writes that the liberation from the bondage of corruption
(corruptio) refers to the mutability of sensible creatures. He finds support
for this reading in both Augustine105 and in Aristotle’s Phys VIII, 1
(252a1)106.
In Rom 9:15 Paul quotes from Ex 33:19 where God said to Moses,
according to the Septuagint version Aquinas is following: «I will have
mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom
I will have compassion» (miserebor cui misereor, et misericordiam
praestabo cui miserebor). This verse raises the question of how someone
can be worthy of mercy. Aquinas excludes the possibility of antecedent
works being the cause of mercy, inasmuch as meritorious works come
from God and are the effects of His predestination. It is possible, however,
that someone becomes worthy of mercy on the basis of subsequent merits.
In his case «God gives a person grace and He planned from eternity to
give him that grace which He foresaw would be used well»107. In this way
Aquinas interprets Rom 9:15 as saying: «by calling and bestowing grace,
I will have mercy on him to whom I know beforehand that I will show
mercy, knowing that he will be converted and abide with me»108. This
reading, which he identifies with the reading of the Gloss, however, raises
the following difficulties for Aquinas.
It does not seem logically possible that an effect of predestination can
function as a reason for predestination because the reason for predestination
is presupposed (praeintelligitur) to the predestination, whereas the
effect is included (includitur) in predestination. Furthermore, the divine
predestination encompasses everything and, as a result, every benefit from
God, directed towards salvation, is part of divine predestination. God’s
benefits, therefore, do not merely contain the infusion of grace but also
the use man makes of this infused grace. Aquinas draws a close parallel
105
Aquinas’s source is Augustine, Contra Maximinum II, XII, 2, P. L. vol. 42,
Paris 1865, col. 768.
106
Cf. In Rom. 8, l. 1, nr. 669: «Si vero intelligatur de creatura sensibili, sic
ipsa creatura liberabitur a servitute corruptionis, id est, mutabilitatis: quia in qualibet
mutatione est aliqua corruptio, ut Augustinus dicit et etiam philosophus in VIII
Physic». Aquinas uses the same equivocation in In Heb. 1 [rep. vulgata], l. 5, nr. 72
when commenting on Heb 1:11: «The heavens shall perish».
107
In Rom. 9, l. 3, nr. 772.
108
Ibid.
322 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
between the natural world in which God causes both the forms and all
their movements and the supernatural realm in which there cannot be any
infusion and activity of santificying grace and the virtues without God as the
continuing source of these activities109. At this point in the Commentary on
Romans Aquinas argues that Aristotle has proven (probat) this with regard
to the operations of the human will. Aquinas’s argument is as follows.
For since man is open to opposites, say to sitting or not sitting, it

must be resolved by something else. But this is done by deliberation,
which is followed by choosing one over the other. But again, since
man has the power to deliberate or not to deliberate, it will be
necessary that something move him to deliberate. But since this
does not proceed ad infinitum, there must be some external principal
superior to man which moves him to deliberate—and this principle
is none other than God110.
Aquinas combines two sources here. In Aristotle’s Met. IX, 8

(1050b1-5) it is argued by way of conclusion that «actuality always
precedes another in time right back to the actuality of the eternal prime
mover». The other source is the Liber de bona fortuna, a collection of
fragments from Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics (VII, 14) and the (pseudo-)
Aristotelian work Magna Moralia (II, 8), dealing with the nature of
chance and its relation to happiness111. In the course of this analysis the
109
Cf. Ibid.
110
In Rom. 9, l. 3, nr. 773: «Probat autem hoc speciali ratione Aristoteles de
operibus voluntatis humanae. Cum enim homo habeat potentiam ad opposita, puta
ad sedendum vel non sedendum, oportet quod reducatur in actum per aliquid aliud.
Reducitur autem in actum alterius horum per consilium, ex quo unum oppositorum
praeelegit alteri. Sed cum iterum homo habet potentiam consiliandi vel non consiliandi,
oportebit esse aliquid per quod reducatur in actum consilii. Et cum in hoc non sit
procedere in infinitum, oportet esse aliquod principium extrinsecum superius homine,
quod ipsum moveat ad consiliandum, et hoc non est aliud quam Deus. Sic igitur ipse
usus gratiae est a Deo, nec propter hoc superfluit habitus gratiae, sicut nec superfluunt
formae naturales, quamvis Deus in omnibus operetur, quia, sicut dicitur Sap. VIII,
1, ipse disponit omnia suaviter, quia scilicet per suas formas omnia inclinantur quasi
sponte in id ad quod ordinantur a Deo».
111
Cf. T. DEMAN, «Le Liber de Bona Fortuna dans la théologie de S. Thomas
d’Aquin», Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 17 (1928) 38-58;
M. Paluch, La prédestination dans l’œuvre de saint Thomas d’Aquin, Vrin, Paris 2004,
p. 181, n. 2.
question arises whether it is possible that human thoughts and activities

are a matter of chance. Aristotle specifically mentions the example used by
Aquinas of deliberations needing a starting-point. According to Aristotle,
«the answer is clear: as in the universe, so in the soul, it is god. For in
a sense the divine element in us moves everything. The starting-point of
reasoning is not reasoning, but something greater» (EE VII, 14 (1248a26-
29). In combining these two sources Aquinas is convinced to have given
a more fitting (convenienter) explanation than that of the Gloss as well as
one that is consistent with the thought of Aristotle. The use itself of grace
comes from God but this does not mean that the habit of grace has become
superfluous because even in nature things are inclined through their forms
«quasi sponte» towards that to which they are directed by God. What
does all this imply for the question at hand, namely whether it is possible
to say that because of subsequent merits God gives grace to someone?
If for God the reason for having mercy (Rom. 9:15) and giving grace to
someone would be that He planned from eternity to give him that grace
which He foresaw would be used well, one could compare God’s mercy to
distributive justice. God would give what is due. Such a view would limit
God’s mercy and constitute a form of Semi-Pelagianism. For Aquinas, on
the contrary, it is solely God’s will that causes His mercy112.
The four remaining references are of minor systematic importance.
They reveal, however, the creativeness with which Aquinas applies
Aristotle’s thought to the Letter to the Romans. Commenting on Rom 13:6
Aquinas affirms the legitimacy of paying taxes to a ruler who serves God.
Such a ruler, however, should not consider these taxes as a reward, for the
proper reward for such a ruler consists in praise and honor. If a ruler is
unsatisfied with this, he becomes a tyrant. Aquinas applies to the political
ruler what Aristotle said in EN V, 6 (1134b5-7) regarding the magistrate.
At the same time Aquinas shows the limits of this kind of praise and honor.
Aristotle’s idea that the proper reward for a ruler consists in praise and
honor should not be understood as referring only (solum) to human praise
and honor but to divine praise and honor113. Paul’s exhortation in Rom 13:8
112
Cf. In Rom. 9, l. 3, nr. 773. See also ST I-II, q. 109, a. 6 co and M. LEVERING,
Predestination: Biblical and Theological Paths, Oxford University Press, Oxford
2011, pp. 80-82 and M. LEVERING, «Aquinas on Romans 8: Predestination in Context»,
in M. LEVERING – M. DAUPHINAIS (edd.), Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas,
The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2012, pp. 196-215.
113
Cf. In Rom. 13, l. 1, nr. 1039.
324 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
that a Christian should «owe no one anything except to love on another»

provides Aquinas with the occasion to write about the debts «from which
a man can never absolve himself». Among these debts are the honor
owed to God and to our parents because one can never make an equal
payment for the benefit they have bestowed on us. This idea, expressed by
Aristotle in EN VIII, 14 (1163b12-17), is used by Aquinas not only as a
clarification of the debts that intrinsically belong to a human being but also
as an explication of Ps 115:2: «What shall I render to the Lord for all his
bounty to me?»114. Somewhat further in the same chapter, in Rom 13:13,
Pauls exhorts the Christians to «walk honestly» (honeste ambulemus) and
not to engage for instance in «impurities» (impudicitiis). These impurities
are, as Aquinas comments, instances of intemperance in regard to sexual
actions. In explaining the reason for avoiding these actions, Aquinas brings
together as a mutual confirmation Hosea 4:11 («Harlotry (fornicatio) and
drunkenness and wine take away the heart») with Aristotle’s remark in
EN VII, 5 (1152b16-18) that sexual pleasure absorbes a man to such an
extent to he can no longer think115. The final reference to Aristotle also
consists of a mutual confirmation of a biblical text and Aristotle’s thought.
In commenting on Paul’s statement in Rom 14:17 that the Kingdom of
God consists in justice, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, Aquinas sees
Aristotle’s claim in EN I, 8 (1099a16-17) that a good man should rejoice in
noble actions as a confirmation of Ps 99:2: «Serve the Lord with gladness
(laetitia)»116.
The Commentary on The First Letter to the Corinthians
At the beginning of his First Letter to the Corinthians Paul writes

that he has come to evangelize «not with eloquent wisdom (in sapientia
verbi), lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of
the cross is folly (stultitia) to those who are perishing, but to us who are
being saved it is the power of God» (1 Cor 1:17-18). Given that these
words of Paul seem to stand in conflict with the intellectual tradition of the
Church Fathers, Aquinas makes an important distinction, which serves as
114
Cf. In Rom. 13, l. 2, nr. 1046.
115
Cf. In Rom. 13, l. 3, nr. 1077.
116
Cf. In Rom. 14, l. 2, nr. 1128.
the guiding principle in his use of Aristotle in his biblical commentaries.

It is therefore worthwhile to quote from Aquinas’s commentary at length.
He writes:
[It] is one thing to teach in eloquent wisdom, however you take it,
and another to use it to teach eloquent wisdom in teaching. A person
teaches in eloquent wisdom, when he takes the eloquent wisdom
as the main source (pro principali radice) of his doctrine, so that
he admits only those things which contain eloquent wisdom and
rejects the others which do not have eloquent wisdom: and this is
destructive of the faith. But one uses eloquent wisdom, when he
builds on the foundations of the true faith, so that if he finds any
truths in the teachings of the philosophers, he employs them in the
service of the faith (obsequium fidei)117.
The distinction between eloquent wisdom (or «wisdom of the word»

following another translation, that is, human wisdom) on the one hand
and the true faith on the other as criterium for attaining the truth goes,
as Servais Pinckaers comments, «to the very roots of the act of teaching
and to the source of theology»118. Theology proceeds on the basis of faith
in the preaching of the Cross of Christ «as a mystery hidden from human
eyes». Such faith transcends reason «and summons us to abandon our
human reasoning in order to receive this higher wisdom as a sheer gift of
the Holy Spirit». Having received this gift of the Spirit (and the charge
of teaching from the Church), the theologian «may and indeed should
return to human wisdom and the teaching of the philosophers to discern
the truth and goodness they contain»119. One of the truths Aquinas discerns
in Aristotle concerns the method of teaching. In EN I, 2 (1094b23-25)
117
In I Cor., 1, l. 3, nr. 43: «Dicendum est ergo quod aliud est docere in sapientia
verbi quocumque modo intelligatur, et aliud uti sapientia verbi in docendo. Ille in
sapientia verbi docet qui sapientiam verbi accipit pro principali radice suae doctrinae,
ita scilicet quod ea solum approbet, quae verbi sapientiam continent: reprobet autem ea
quae sapientiam verbi non habent, et hoc fidei est corruptivum. Utitur autem sapientia
verbi, qui suppositis verae fidei fundamentis, si qua vera in doctrinis philosophorum
inveniat, in obsequium fidei assumit».
118
S. PINCKAERS, The Pinckaers Reader: Renewing Thomistic Moral Theology, ed.
by J. BERKMAN – C. S. TITUS, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington
D.C. 2005, p. 109.
119
Idem, 110.
326 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
Aristotle remarks that the method of speaking should be proportioned to

the subject matter. This means for Aristotle that the subject matter of ethics
limits the exactness that can be acquired in its accounts and that ethics will
indicate its truths only roughly and in outline. Aquinas reads this passage
as applicable to the teaching of the Christian faith. A teaching method
that destroys what is of fundamental importance (id quod est principale)
for the subject matter would be unsuited for teaching that same subject
matter. Now this is precisely what happens when someone teaches about
the heart of the Christian faith, namely «salvation effected by the Cross of
Christ» and in doing so chiefly depends (principaliter innititur) on human
wisdom. If so, the apostle is right in writing that the Cross of Christ would
be emptied of its power120.
In 1 Cor 2:14-15 the apostle contrasts the pneumatikos person, i.e.
one endowed with the Spirit to the one who is psychikos, i.e. one who
does not know the mind of God because he does not have the Spirit. In
Aquinas’s reading this contrast refers to those who cannot understand
what comes from the Spirit because it is by the Spirit that these things
are to be examined (psychikos) vs. those whose intellect is enlightened
and affections and will are enkindled (inflammatur) by the Spirit so that
they are subjected to the Spirit and know with certitude the spiritual things
(pneumatikos)121. The Vulgate renders this contrast as homo animalis vs.
homo spiritualis. Aquinas does not read «animalis» as referring merely to
the sensual nature man has in common with the animals because he writes
that «the things about which the Holy Spirit enlightens the mind transcend
sense and human reason»122. One of the questions Aquinas asks is how it
120
Cf. In I Cor., 1, l. 3, nr. 45: «Circa primum considerandum est, quod etiam
in philosophicis doctrinis non est idem modus conveniens cuilibet doctrinae. Unde
sermones secundum materiam sunt accipiendi, ut dicitur in primo Ethicorum.
Tunc autem maxime modus aliquis docendi est materiae incongruus, quando per
talem modum destruitur id quod est principale in materia illa, puta si quis in rebus
intellectualibus velit metaphoricis demonstrationibus uti, quae non transcendunt res
imaginatas, ad quas non oportet intelligentem adduci, ut Boetius ostendit in libro de
Trinitate. Principale autem in doctrina fidei Christianae est salus per crucem Christi
facta. Unde, cap. II, 2, dicit non iudicavi me scire aliquid inter vos, nisi Iesum
Christum et hunc crucifixum. Qui autem principaliter innititur in docendo sapientiam
verbi, quantum in se est, evacuat crucem Christi. Ergo docere in sapientia verbi non est
modus conveniens fidei Christianae».
121
Cf. In I Cor., 2, l. 3, nr. 117.
122
In I Cor., 2, l. 3, nr. 113.
it possibile that such a «homo animalis» is not able to receive what is of

the Spirit. Aquinas refers, explicitly as an explanation (quia), to Aristotle’s
saying in EN III, 5 (1114a32) that a goal appears to each man according to
his character or disposition123. Aquinas answers the contrasting question,
namely why the «homo spiritualis» is able to judge all things, as the apostle
says in 1 Cor 2:15, also with the help of Aristotle. Taking up a suggestion in
EN X, 5 (1176a17) regarding the virtuous man as the measure of all things,
Aquinas draws a parallel between the virtuous man and the spiritual man.
Just as the virtuous man is the standard of all human acts because particular
acts are such as a virtuous man judges them to be, so also the spiritual man
is the rule of all things pertaining to salvation because, enlightened by the
Spirit, he has a sound judgement (rectum iudicium) about particular things
pertaining to salvation124.
Commenting on Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 13:8 that love will never
end whereas knowledge (scientia) will pass away, Aquinas defends the
position he has ascribed to Aristotle in his Commentary on De anima III,
4 that the intellectual faculty is not the act of a bodily organ and therefore
remains after the corruption of the body. He takes issue with Avicenna for
whom the intelligible species of a thing ceases to be in the possible intellect
as soon as one ceases to understand a thing actually125. This would entail
that the acquired knowledge does not survive death in the disembodied
soul. According to Aquinas this position is both contrary to reason as
well as «contra auctoritatem Aristotelis»126. When the apostle therefore
writes about the disappearance of knowledge (scientia), he has in mind the
acquisition of new knowledge.
In his commentary on the Apostle’s admonition that women should be
silent (1 Cor 14:34), we can find a rare instance where Aquinas attributes
a mistaken view to Aristotle. In explaining the reason for women to be
123
Cf. In I Cor., 2, l. 3, nr. 113: «Spiritus etiam sanctus accendit affectum ad
diligendum spiritualia bona, sensibilibus bonis contemptis, et ideo ille qui est animalis
vitae, non potest capere huiusmodi spiritualia bona, quia philosophus dicit in IV Ethic.
quod qualis unusquisque est, talis finis videtur ei».
124
Cf. In I Cor., 2, l. 3, nr. 118.
125
Aquinas refers here in In I Cor., 13, l. 3, nr. 791 to «some» (quidam) but as
becomes clear from ST I, q. 89, a. 6, he has Avicenna in mind.
126
Ibid. See also In III De an. 2, l. 8 (ed. Leonina XXXXV/1, p. 209, ll. 32-50,
nr. 702). The editor refers to Avicenna, De Anima V, 6, Ed. by S. Van Riet, Peeters,
Louvain 1968, p. 148-148, ll. 16-39.
328 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
silent, he writes: «The reason they are subject and do not lead is that they
are deficient in reason, which is especially necessary for those who preside.
Therefore, the Philosopher says in his Politica that corruption of a regime
occurs when it passes to women»127. A different version in his commentary
on 1 Tim 2:11-12 reads: «And the Philosopher says that the lordship
of women is the corruption of the family, as a tyrant is in a kingdom»128.
Aquinas is referring to Aristotle’s discussion of the constitution of Sparta
in Politica II, 9. Aristotle notes that the constitution fails with regard to
women because it has «neglected» to take care of them and thus, they live in
«every sort of intemperance and luxury» (Pol. II, 9 (1269b13-23). Aristotle
does note that in such a state wealth was too highly valued and that this
was mostly manifested when «many things were managed by their women».
He concludes, however, that the result is the same «whether women rule or
whether the rulers are ruled by women» (Pol. II, 9 (1269b32)). The point
Aristotle wants to make, so it seems, is that a state should equally take care
of the virtues of the women as well of the virtues of the men. Hence he writes
that in a state that is about equally divided into men and women, the state
may be regarded as having no laws at all when the condition of the women
is bad (Pol. II, 9 (1269b13-15)). In other words, things are not bad in a state
because it is ruled by women but because it is ruled by bad women129.
The last two references occur in the context of the resurrection of the
body. Aquinas understands I Cor 15:44: «It is sown a natural body: it shall rise
a spiritual body (corpus spirituale)» as referring to subtilitas, one of the four
dotes (dowries or gifts) of the glorified body. He mentions the opinion that
127
Aquinas quotes St. John Chrysostom to similar effect in In I Cor., 14, l. 7,
nrs. 879-880: «Et rationem huius assignat Chrysostomus, dicens, quod semel est
locuta mulier et totum mundum subvertit […] Ratio autem quare subditae sunt et
non praesunt est quia deficiunt ratione, quae est maxime necessaria praesidenti. Et
ideo dicit philosophus, in politica sua, quod corruptio regiminis est quando regimen
pervenit ad mulieres».
128
In I Tim., 2, l. 3, nr. 80: «Et philosophus dicit, quod dominium mulierum est
corruptio familiae, sicut tyranni in regno».
129
As an exception to the absence of studies dealing with Aquinas’s use of
Aristotle in his biblical commentaries, there is a vast amount of literature dealing
with the question of the so-called “sexism” of Aquinas and whether he uses Aristotle
to substantiate the many claims by St. Paul regarding the “inferiority” of women.
A recent treatment can be found in F. J. ROMERO CARRASQUILLO – H. K. TROYER DE
ROMERO, «Aquinas on the Inferiority of Woman», American Catholic Philosophical
Quarterly, 87 (2013) 685-710.
this dowry of subtility is being given to a glorified body in order to be able to

exist in the same place as a non-glorified body. In the course of rejecting this
opinion Aquinas mentions approvingly the position of Aristotle in Met. III,
2 (998a13-15) to the effect that even a mathematical object cannot co-exist
with a sensible body in the same place. If this happens, therefore, it must
be due to a miracle coming from God and not from a quality of a glorified
body130. Somewhat further Aquinas raises an even more fundamental
question. How is it possible that the same numerical bodies will rise, given
that the corruptible and the incorruptible differ in genus? Moreover, he
attributes to Aristotle the position that «it is impossible that the corruptible
substance which is changed be restored to the same numerically»131. This
position can indeed be traced back to De anima II, 4 (415b3-6) and to the
(pseudo-)Aristotelian Problemata XVII, 2 (916a30) and seems to place
Catholic doctrine into direct opposition to philosophical reasoning. Aquinas,
however, recalls two basic principles of his anthropology, namely that the
soul is immortal and that it functions as the substantial form of the body.
As such the principle of corporeity belongs intrinsically to the rational soul.
Regarding the position of Aristotle, Aquinas concedes that it is true on the
supposition that (and this is according to Aquinas the context of Aristotle’s
position) the celestial bodies move in a cyclical order. In this case the effects
of these celestial bodies are merely identical regarding the species of the
effects, at least if these effects occur «according to the course of nature»
(secundum viam naturae). In this way Aquinas has “defused” the potential
threat to catholic doctrine and is able to respond as follows: «since the
renewal and the resurrection, as was said, will occur by divine power, we say
that bodies will be the same numerically, since the individual principles of
that man are nothing other than this soul and this body»132.
3. Selected passages from his other Biblical commentaries
The lectura or commentary on the Gospel of Matthew most probably

dates from Aquinas’s second Paris regency (1268-1272). The Marietti
text of the Lectura in Matthaeum is the result of a combination of the
130
Cf. In I Cor., 15, l. 6, nr. 983.
131
In I Cor., 15, l. 9, nr. 1015.
132
Ibid.
330 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
two known reportationes or student notes that have been preserved.

These reportationes by Peter d’Andria and Leodegar of Besançon have
lacunae from 5.11-6.8 and from 6.14-19. These gaps were filled by the 16th
century editor Bartholomew of Spina with material from a commentary by
another Dominican Peter of Scala. Only in 1955 was another manuscript
discovered, containing a text for the lacunae found in the reportationes by
Peter d’Andria and Leodegar of Besançon. Despite this difficult textual
history and the absence of a critical edition, it is possible to locate 27
references to Aristotle in this text. Among these references, I have selected
Aquinas’s commentary on the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-12 for further
analysis. Aquinas begins his commentary by noting, following Augustine,
that this sermon contains the whole perfection of a person’s life. Augustine’s
comment is, for Aquinas, equivalent to saying that, for those who observe
the doctrine of the Beatitudes, «in these words every complete beatitude
is included»133. Next, he lists four opinions about beatitude. Some believe
that perfect happiness consists only in exterior things (1), others believe
that it consists in satisfying one’s own will (2), still others believe that
it consists in the virtues of the active life (3) and finally, «others say that
it consists in the virtues of the contemplative life, namely of divine and
intelligible things, as Aristotle supposed»134. According to Aquinas, the
Beatitudes as expressed by Christ are a rebuttal of the falseness of all these
opinions, although not to the same degree. Christ rejects opinions (1) and
(2) as simply erroneous as such whereas those who hold opinion (3) «err
less» (errant, sed minus) because the virtues of the active life are means to
beatitude135. The virtues of the active life are, for instance, ordered towards
others and have peace as their end, but those who seek peace are, according
to Mt 5:9 («Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the
children of God»), aiming at something else. The fourth opinion receives
even less criticism from Christ. There is in fact a substantial agreement
between Aristotle’s position and the teaching of Christ: in both cases the
ultimate happiness consists in the contemplation of the divinity (Mt 5:8b:
133
In Mt. [rep. Petri de Andria], c. 5, l. 2, nr. 404: «in istis verbis includitur omnis
plena beatitude»; cf. ST I-II, q. 69, a. 3, ad 4: “necesse est beatitudines omnes quae in
sacra Scriptura ponuntur, ad has reduce».
134
Ibid.: «Alii quod in virtutibus contemplativae vitae, scilicet divinorum et
intelligibilium, sicut Aristoteles». For a possible source, see NE X, 8 (1178b7-22).
135
Ibid.: «Illi autem qui ponunt beatitudinem in actibus activae vitae, scilicet
moralibus, errant; sed minus, quia illud est via ad beatitudinem».
«They shall see God»)136. Even Aristotle’s position that perfect happiness
is always connected with pleasure or delight (delectatio) and that pleasure
perfects happiness as beauty perfects youth, as Aristotle says in EN X, 4
(1153b23-33), can easily be found in Christ’s teaching on the Beatitudes137.
The error of Aristotle, however, consists not in the nature of happiness but
in the time (quantum ad tempus): Christ explicity says «they shall see» and
not «they see» in order to point to the fact that perfect beatitude cannot be
reached in this life138.
There are five explicit references to Aristotle in his commentary on
Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians. As in his comments on Rom 9:15
Aquinas finds confirmation in EE VII, 14 (1248a26-29) for the position
that, in order to avoid an infinite regress any action a man undertakes
must ultimately be reduced to the divine motion within him. Aristotle is
therefore in perfect agreement with the Apostle in 2 Cor 3:5 («Not that
we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us;
our competence is from God»)139. Commenting on 2 Cor 5:8 Aquinas,
however, makes a clear distinction between Aristotle’s idea of fortitude
and the Christian idea of fortitude. According to Aquinas’s Vulgate text,
the Apostle says: «audemus autem et bonam voluntatem habemus.» For
Aquinas, this means that in the face of death it is not enough for a Christian
to show fortitude but also to have a good will, which Aquinas interprets as
«to will with joy» (cum gaudio velle). Whereas for Aristotle a brave man
faces death in the absence of sadness although this death is against his will,
«the fortitude of the saints is more perfect» because «they are not only not
136
In Mt. [rep. Petri de Andria], c. 5, l. 2, nr. 408: «Illorum autem opinio qui dicunt
quod beatitudo consistit in contemplatione divinorum, reprobat dominus quantum ad
tempus, quia alias vera est, quia ultima felicitas consistit in visione optimi intelligibilis,
scilicet Dei: unde dicit videbunt».
137
Ibid.: «Et notandum quod, secundum philosophum, ad hoc quod actus
contemplativi faciant beatum, duo requiruntur: unum substantialiter, scilicet quod sit
actus altissimi intelligibilis, quod est Deus; aliud formaliter, scilicet amor et delectatio:
delectatio enim perficit felicitatem, sicut pulchritudo iuventutem. Et ideo dominus duo
ponit Deum videbunt et filii Dei vocabuntur: hoc enim pertinet ad unionem amoris; I
Io. cap. III, v. 1: videte qualem caritatem dedit nobis pater, ut filii Dei nominemur et
simus».
138
Ibid. and also nr. 413: «Et notandum quod ista praemia, quae dominus hic
tangit, possunt dupliciter haberi, scilicet perfecte et consummate, et sic in patria
tantum: et secundum inchoationem et imperfecte, et sic in via.”
139
Cf. In II Cor. 3, l. 1, nr. 87.
332 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
sad at the dangers of death, but they rejoice: ‘My desire is to depart and be
with Christ’ (Phil 1:23)»140.
Among the four references in the Commentary on Ephesians, it is
interesting to note that Aquinas justifies Paul’s exhortation in Eph 6:5
(«Honour thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment
[…]») on the basis of Aristotle. In EN VIII, 12 (1162a4-7) Aristotle writes
that we have received from our parents «esse, vivere et disciplinam». This
places our parents on an almost equal footing with God in so far as both
are the principle of our being (esse) and, as such, it is fitting (conveniens)
that among the set of commandments dealing with our neighbours, the first
refers to our parents141.
Among the five references in the Commentary on Galatians, there is a
long section devoted to the explanation of the term «fascinatio» in Gal 3:1
(«o insensati Galatae quis vos fascinavit ante quorum oculos Iesus Christus
proscriptus est crucifixus»). After referring to the position of the Gloss,
for which «fascinatio» refers to a delusion of the senses, he mentions an
alternative view, namely, that «fascinatio» means the harm done by an evil
look from sorcerers, which is so strong that it causes bodily harm to a person.
Aquinas ascribes this view to Avicenna but rejects his explanation as being
«disproved by the Philosopher»142. In the same letter, Aquinas comments on
Gal 3:19 («The Law was set because of transgressions») by referring to 1
Tim 1:9: «The law is not made for the just man but for the unjust». Here, as
well as in his commentary on this passage from the First Letter to Timothy,
Aquinas finds a rational foundation for these words in Aristotle’s argument in
EN X, 9 (1180a1-22). In Aquinas’s reading of this passage, Aristotle argues
that for those with a good disposition the law is not necessary but merely
fatherly admonitions, whereas for those with a bad disposition the law and
its penalties are needed to prevent these from doing evil deeds. Given that
140
In II Cor. 5, l. 2, nr. 165: «Et ideo, non solum oportet audere, sed bonam
voluntatem habere, id est cum gaudio velle. Licet enim, secundum philosophum in actu
fortitudinis non requiratur gaudium ad perfectionem virtutis, sicut in aliis virtutibus, sed
solum non tristari, tamen quia fortitudo sanctorum perfectior est, non solum non tristantur
in periculis mortis, sed etiam gaudent. Phil I, 23: habens desiderium dissolvi, et cetera».
141
Cf. In Eph. 6, l. 1, nr. 339.
142
In Gal. 3, l. 1, nr. 117. For a detailed analysis of this passage, see Thomas
d’Aquin, Commentaire de l’Épitre aux Galates, Préf. J.-P. TORRELL, Intr. G. DAHAN,
Trad. J.-E. STROOBANT DE SAINT-ÉLOY, Annot. J. BORELLA – J.-E. STROOBANT DE SAINT-
ÉLOY, Cerf, Paris 2008, pp. 113-115.
Aquinas refers to the same text from Aristotle in his commentary on Rom
2:14, it is no surprise that he refers to this text here in Gal 3:19143. In Gal 5:22
the Apostle mentions the fruits of the Holy Spirit. This provides Aquinas
with the opportunity to discuss at length the difference between the gifts of
the Holy Spirit, the beatitudes, the virtues and the fruits of the Holy Spirit. As
elsewhere144 when discussing these differences, Aquinas refers to EN VII, 1
(1145a20) where Aristotle briefly mentions a virtue, which is heroic, divine
and somehow above us. In Aristotle’s acknowledgment of the existence of
such a heroic virtue, Aquinas sees a confirmation from a pagan philosopher
for the existence of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. For these gifts, in some way,
are virtues to the extent that they make somebody’s action good, but, given
that they are inspired by God, they are more than the intellectual and moral
virtues and perfect man in so far as he is moved by God to do well beyond
human measure (supra modum humanum)145.
Among the ten references in the Commentary on the First Letter to
Timothy, the references occasioned by 1 Tim 4:7 are of particular interest
because Aquinas introduces a topic which we have not encountered thus
far. Paul’s exhortation to be nourished by the words of faith and good
doctrine and to avoid «foolish and old wives’ fables» (ineptas et aniles
fabulas) provides Aquinas with the opportunity to consult Aristotle. He
attributes three claims to Aristotle: first, a fable is composed of wonders;
second, they were originally invented; and third, their goal is to lead men
to virtue and away from vice146. The first claim is a direct quote from Met.
143
Cf. In Gal. 3, l. 7, nr. 165.
144
See Sent. 3, d. 34, q. 1, a. 1 co; ST I-II, q. 54, a. 3 co.; ST I-II, q. 68, a. 1-2. On
one occasion, Aquinas also employs the term “virtus heroica” to refer to the perfection
of virtue in Jesus Christ: ST III, q. 7 a. 2. In his SLE, Aquinas refrains from making
these links because he limits himself to a rational exposition of Aristotle’s text.
145
In Gal. 5, l. 6, nr. 329: «Accipitur autem differentia donorum, beatitudinum,
virtutum et fructuum ad invicem hoc modo. In virtute enim est considerare habitum
et actum. Habitus autem virtutis perficit ad bene agendum. Et si quidem perficit ad
bene operandum humano modo, dicitur virtus. Si vero perficiat ad bene operandum
supra modum humanum, dicitur donum. Unde philosophus supra communes virtutes
ponit virtutes quasdam heroicas, puta cognoscere invisibilia Dei sub aenigmate est
per modum humanum: et haec cognitio pertinet ad virtutem fidei; sed cognoscere ea
perspicue et supra humanum modum, pertinet ad donum intellectus».
146
In I Tim. 4, l. 2, nr. 152: «Fabula enim secundum philosophum est composita
ex miris, et fuerunt in principio inventae ut dicit philosophus in poetria, quia intentio
hominum erat ut inducerent ad acquirendum virtutes, et vitandum vitia».
334 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
I,2 (982b19) and the second can be traced back to Poet. 4 (1448b5). The
third claim can be inferred from those passages where Aristotle writes
about the utility of fables in politics and especially, as these are utilized
by rhetoricians147. Accordingly, Aquinas distinguishes between a fable that
containes a true understanding and a useful representation of of the truth
and a fable that is unable to do so. The latter kind of fable is contained in
the Jewish Talmud148. In 1 Tim 6:1-2 Paul exhorts servants not to despise
their masters but to serve them. Aquinas explains the reason why servants
often despise their masters by way of a text from Pol. V, 1 (1301b35-
37). Aristotle discusses here the relation between forms of government
and equality. He thinks that democracy is the result of the idea that that
those who are equal in any respect are also equal in all respects, whereas
oligarchy arises from the opposite idea, namely that those who are unequal
in one respect are unequal in all respects. Such a mistaken idea should not,
according to Aristotle, function as the founding idea of a state. According to
Aquinas, this is also what happens between servants and masters: because
servants think themselves to be equal in one respect to their masters, they
consider themselves equal in all respects149. Aquinas refers to this same text
in trying to explain Christ’s words in Mt 13:57 («A prophet is not without
honour, save in his own country, and in his own house»). The people in
Christ’s own hometown see themselves as equal to Christ in some respect
and mistakenly infer from this that Christ cannot be greater than them in
other respects150.
147
See for instance Rhet. II, 20 (1393b-1394a), Pol. III, 13 (1284a15). For more
on this, see G.-J. VAN DIJK, Ainoi, Logoi, Mythoi: Fables in Archaic, Classical, and
Hellenistic Greek Literature, E.J. Brill, Leiden 1997, p. 180.
148
Aquinas explitly refers to the Talmud in only four cases: ScG I, 95; In I Tim. 1, l.
2, nr. 9; In I Tim. 4, l. 2, nr. 152 and In Tit. 1, l. 4, nr. 36. These references are a remnant
of the Talmud controversy of the 1240’s. See G. DAHAN (ed.), Le brûlement du Talmud
à Paris: 1242-1244, Cerf, Paris 1999 and S. C. BOGULAWSKI, Thomas Aquinas on the
Jews: Insights into his commentary on Romans 9-11, Paulist Press, New York 2008.
149
Cf. In I Tim. 6, l. 1, nr. 234: «Et huius ratio est, secundum philosophum, quia
homines in talibus paralogizant; quod si in uno vident se aequales, credunt quod
sint in omnibus aequales, et nolunt illis in aliquo subdi, sicut in civilibus bellis, quia
populus non est subiectus credunt quod sint totaliter aequales nobilibus. Et sic posset
contingere, quod servi videntes se in aliquo, scilicet fide, aequales dominis, reputent
se aequales simpliciter».
150
Cf. In Mt. [rep. Leodegarii Bissuntini] 13, l. 4, nr. 1213: «Alia potest assignari,
quia dicit philosophus quod populus multum paralogizatur, quia credunt quod in aliquo
The sole reference to Aristotle in the Second Letter to Timothy also

occurs in the Letter to Titus. On both occasions the reference concerns
the definition of the term «saeculum» used in 2 Tim 1:9 («gratiam quae
data est nobis in Christo Iesu ante tempora saecularia») and Titus 1: 2
(«spem vitae aeternae quam promisit qui non mentitur Deus ante tempora
saecularia»). Aquinas seems to refer not so much to Aristotle’s text but to
his own commentary on Phys. VIII, 1 (250b21-251a5) where he introduces
the following definition of «saeculum»: «the measure of the duration of a
thing»151. On both occasions, this definition is used to argue that the grace
and the hope of the biblical text exist before the coming into existence of
the world152.
An example of a reading of a biblical text that might surprise a
contemporary reader occurs in his comments on Tit 2:2 («That the aged
men be sober, chaste, prudent, sound in faith, in love, in patience»). Aquinas
sees in this list a division into three things to which old age disposes a man
(sobriety, chastity and prudence) and three things which are contrary to old
age (faith, love and patience). Regarding the absence of faith in elderly
persons, for instance, Aquinas writes: «The natural vice of old men is that
they are incredulous since they have experience that they have quite often
been deceived. And so they speak always by saying ‘perhaps’ or ‘almost,’
which are adverbs of a manner that is moderate and doubtful»153. Regarding
the presumed presence of sobriety in elderly persons, Aquinas asks why
Paul writes this admonishment if they are already disposed to this. Using
Aristotle’s claim in Rhet. II, 13 (1390a1), Aquinas responds by claiming
that, contrary to the young, elderly persons are sometimes without shame
pares, in omnibus pares sint. Unde quando aliquis est in patria sua, cum vident eum
parem sibi in aliquo vel in genere, vel aliis, credunt quod non possit esse maior».
151
In VIII Phys., l. 1, nr. 969.
152
Cf. In II Tim. 1, l. 3, nr. 22: «Primum ostendit, cum dicit quae data est nobis
in Christo Iesu, id est, praevisa est nobis dari ante tempora saecularia. Sicut dicit
philosophus, saeculum nihil aliud est quam mensura durationis aliquarum rerum; unde
diversa saecula, diversae sunt aetates hominum. Unde unum saeculum durat mille
annis, quia homo dicitur vivere quamdiu est in memoria hominum, quae non excedit
mille annos».
In Tit. 1, l. 1, nr. 7: «Secundo ex divino proposito dandi; unde dicit ante tempora
saecularia. Saeculum, secundum philosophum, est mensura durationis uniuscuiusque
rei. Tempora ergo saecularia sunt tempora distincta secundum diversas successiones
rerum; quasi dicat: antequam tempus successivum inciperet esse».
153
In Tit. 2, l. 1, nr. 52.
336 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
because they have experienced many things. Hence, it sometimes happens

that even elderly persons seek bodily pleasures.
Among the ten references to Aristotle in his commentary on the
Letter to the Hebrews, Aristotle is, for instance, used to solve an apparent
contradiction between Heb 4:12 («Let us hasten therefore to enter into that
[God’s] rest») and Prov 19:2 («And he that is hasty with his feet shall
stumble»). Aristotle’s remark in EN VI, 10 (1142b5), that one should
deliberate slowly but quickly carry out the result’s of one’s deliberation,
is used by Aquina to distinguish between two forms of hastening, namely,
precipitation, which is reprehensible, and refinement (tenuitas) and celerity
(celeritas), which is praised by the Apostle because it is the execution of
a decision154. In his discussion of the definition of faith in Heb 11:1, the
reportatio vulgata of Aquinas’s commentary mistakenly refers to Phys. II
as the source for the adagium «Finis et bonum idem sunt»155. The more
likely source is Met. III, 2 (996a23-24) and Aquinas’s own comments156.
Somewhat further, in his comments on Heb 11:2 («By faith we understand
that the world was framed by the Word of God; that from invisible things
visible things might be made»), Aquinas finds a way to use the adagium «ex
nihilo nihil fit» to his advantage. Referring to Aristotle’s remarks in Phys I,
4 (186a26-31)157, that the adagium is the common opinion of the physicists,
Aquinas mentions the views of Plato and Avicenna, for whom the visible
things were made by invisible things, either from the ideas (Plato) or from
the intelligences (Avicenna). In other words, if the adagium, commonly
accepted by the Greeks, holds true, then the coming into existence of things
might be accounted for by way of an invisible cause. The Greek adagium
does not contradict the Christian idea of creation but, on the contrary,
154
In Heb. [rep. vulgata], c. 4, l. 2, nr. 215 : «Duplex est festinantia, scilicet
praecipitationis: et haec est reprehensibilis; alia tenuitatis et celeritatis; et haec est
laudabilis. Nam, sicut dicit philosophus, omnes homines oportet consiliari diu, operari
autem consiliata festinanter; quando ergo festinantia tollit consilium, tunc praecipitat,
et est vitiosa, et secundum hanc verificatur obiectio, sed festinantia, quae est in
executione consiliatorum, est virtuosa, et laudatur, et ad hanc hortatur hic apostolus».
155
Cf. HAMESSE, Les Auctoritates Aristotelis, I, 73.
156
In III Met., l. 4, nr. 374: «omne quod est bonum secundum se et propter suam
naturam, est finis».
157
See also In I Phys. l. 9, nr. 59 and l. 12, nr. 107, where Aquinas refers to Book
VII of the Metaphysics. Cf. In VII Met., l. 6, nr. 1412: «Communis enim philosophorum
naturalium sententia erat, quod ex nihilo nihil fit».
points to a possible harmonization with the same, insofar as, for both, the
«nihilo» of the adagium does not refer to a material, visible thing. The
Christian difference lies in the idea that the invisible rationality of Plato
and Avicenna is located within the Word of God158.
Conclusion
Throughout his biblical commentaries Aquinas uses Aristotle in

a variety of ways. Very often Aquinas draws on Aristotle to define a
concept (e.g. Psalm 36:1). On other occasions Aristotle offers Aquinas
a philosophical truth, which enables Aquinas to argue for a non-literal
reading of Scripture (e.g. Job 38:37 and John 19:18). Aristotle, moreover,
functions as a guide in overcoming apparent contradictions between two
biblical texts (e.g. Heb. 4: 12 versus Prov. 19:2 and Rom. 1:1 versus John
15:15). Aquinas uses Aristotle as well to provide an argument, founded in
natural law (e.g. Isa. 4:1), and even an elaborate metaphysical argument,
corroborating the nature of Christ’s glorified but true body (e.g. John 20).
On other occasions Aquinas finds Aristotle corroborating a biblical text
(e.g. Rom. 13:13) or coming to the aid of interpreting a difficult verse (e.g.
1 Cor. 13:8). The importance of Aristotle for Aquinas as a biblical scholar
is highlighted by the fact that he sees substantial similarities between
Aristotle’s position on the nature of ultimate happiness as consisting in
the contemplation of the divinity and Matthew 5:8. Aquinas’s attempt
to integrate Aristotle into Christian theology does not prevent him to
distinguish between Aristotle and the Christian faith, albeit this happens
quite rarely (e.g. 2 Cor. 5:8). On at least one occasion Aristotle is used in
order to formulate an objection to a biblical text (Rom. 4:3).
158
In Heb., c. 11 l. 2, nr. 565: «Sed quia apud antiquos communis animi conceptus
erat, quod ex nihilo nihil fit, II physicorum, ideo quando videbant aliquod novum
opus, dicebant quod esset factum ex aliquibus invisibilibus. Unde vel ponebant
quodlibet esse in quolibet, sicut Empedocles et Anaxagoras: de quo nihil ad praesens;
alii vero latitationem formarum, sicut ipse Anaxagoras; alii ab ideis, sicut Plato; alii
ab intelligentia, sicut Avicenna. Unde secundum omnes istos visibilia facta sunt ex
invisibilibus rationibus idealibus. Nos autem dicimus secundum modum praedictum,
quod ex invisibilibus rationibus idealibus in verbo Dei, per quod omnia facta sunt, res
visibiles sunt productae».
338 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
Although Thomas Prügl is correct in observing that Aquinas refers to

Aristotle «quite sparingly»159, the Philosopher is, nevertheless, by far the pagan
author to whom Aquinas most frequently refers in his biblical commentaries.
In his essay for this present volume, Christopher Baglow concluded that,
at least in the case of Aquinas’s commentary on Ephesians, the claim that
Aquinas obscured the meaning of the Christian faith by employing Aristotelian
philosophical ideas cannot be maintained. For my part, I hope to have
demonstrated, moreover, that Aristotle is Aquinas’s primordial intellectual
collocutor whenever he, as a theologian, is seeking an understanding of the
difficulties of the biblical text. The wide range of theological topics in the
areas of dogmatic and moral theology and the references to a broad selection
of works from the Corpus Aristotelicum in order to shed light on these topics
show the ease with which Aquinas combines the natural level of Aristotle’s
philosophical insights with revealed Scripture.
Complete list of explicit references to Aristotle in Aquinas’s biblical

commentaries
Nr. Place Reference to Aristotle’s Additional notes.
work Unless otherwise
noted, all
references are to
the “Philosopher.”
“A” stands for
“Aristotle.”
1. In Is., pr. 2. De Caelo II, 5 (286b21)
2. In Is., cap. 3 l. 1. Top III, 1 (116b20)
3. In Is., cap. 3 l. 1. EN VI, 5 (1141a9)
4. In Is., cap. 3 l. 1. Meta VI, 1 (1026a16)
5. In Is., cap. 4 l. 1. EN VIII, 12 (1162a20)
6. In Is., cap. 11. EN I, 19 (1102a5)
7. In Is., cap. 11. EN VII, 12 (1153a14)
and EN VII, 13
(1153b9-12)
8. In Is., cap. 13. EN III, 17 (1117a5) or
Rhet I, 11 (1370b30-
32)
159
PRÜGL, «Thomas Aquinas as Interpreter of Scripture», p. 399.
9. In Threnos, cap. 4 l. 6. EN IX, 3 (1165b11-12

10. In Threnos, cap. 4 l. 7. De An. II, 7 (418b27-29)
11. In Iob, cap. 3. EN IV, 17 (1128b11)
12. In Iob, cap. 5. EN VII, 6 (1149a25)
13. In Iob, cap. 7. De Gen. et Corr. 2
(338b11)
14. In Iob, cap. 17. EN III, 17 (1116b31)
15. In Iob, cap. 19. De Gen 2 (338b16) A
16. In Iob, cap. 23. De Caelo II, 2 (284b21) A
17. In Iob, cap. 27. Hist. An. I, 2 (492b10)
18. In Iob, cap. 27. EN V, 9 (1133a20) & A
Pol. I, 7 (1257a35)
19. In Iob, cap. 36. EN IV, 10 (1124b26) ut dicitur in IV
Ethicorum.
20. In Iob, cap. 38. Phys IV, 19 (220b28)
21. In Iob, cap. 38. De Caelo II, 14 A
(290b12)
22. In Iob, cap. 40. De hist anim IX, 46
(630b18)
23. In Iob, cap. 40. De hist anim V, 2
(540a21)
24. In Iob, cap. 40. De hist anim III, 1
(510a15)
25. In Iob, cap. 40. De hist anim V, 2 A
(540a20)
26. In Iob, cap. 40. De hist anim VIII, 9 A
(596a7)
27. In Iob, cap. 40. De hist. animal. IX, 1 A
(610a24)
28. In Iob, cap. 41. De hist anim II, 13 A
(504b17)
29. In Psalmos 8, n. 3. Cicero, De natura A
deorum II, 2 (attributed
to Aristotle)
30. In Psalmos 9, n. 20. Pol VII, 17
(1336a29-b5)
31. In Psalmos 12, n. 2. Rhet. II, 5 (1383a6)
32. In Psalmos 17, n. 6. Meteo I, 4 (341b1-
342b25)
340 JÖRGEN VIJGEN

342b25)
342b25)
342b25)
342b25)
347a10)
38. In Psalmos 17, n. 8. Meteo I, 12 (348a1-35)
42. In Psalmos 17, n. 9. Meteo II, 9 (370a6-10)
43. In Psalmos 17, n. 11. Meteo II, 8 (366a1-3)
44. In Psalmos 32, n. 2. Pol. VIII, 5
(1342a30-b17) & Pol
VIII, 6
45. In Psalmos 35, n. 1. EN V,6 (1134a15)
46. In Psalmos 36, n. 1. EN II, 5 (1105b19), EN
II, 7 (1108b1-10) and
Rhet. II, 9-10.
47. In Psalmos 43, n. 8. EN III, 8 (1116a33)
48. In Psalmos 44, n. 5. EN X, 9 (1180a4)
49. In Psalmos 45, n. 8. ?
50. In Psalmos 48, n. 6. EN I, 12 (1101b10-25)
51. In Psalmos 48, n. 6. EN VII, 6 (1150a8-9)
52. In Psalmos 48, n. 7. EN IX, 4 (1166b24)
53. In Psalmos 54, n. 11. Pol. II, 8 (1268a16)
54. In Matt. [rep. Petri de EN X, 8 (1178b7-22) A
Andria], cap. 5 l. 2, nr. 404.
55. In Matt. [rep. Petri de EN X, 4 (1153b23-33)
56. In Matt. [rep. Petri de EN VII, 1 (1145a20)
57. In Matt. [rep. Petri de ?
58. In Matt. [rep. Petri de ?
59. In Matt. [rep. Petri de EN V, 1 (1129a6-11),

Andria], cap. 5 vs. 20. In V Eth. L. 1, nr.
888;.l. 2, nr. 908
60. In Matt. [rep. Petri de Pol I, 8 (1256b23-26)

Andria], cap. 5 vs. 21.
61. In Matt. [rep. Petri de EN IV, 12 (1125b26)
Andria], cap. 5 vs. 22.
62. In Matt. [rep. Pol I, 2 (1253a3-4,
Leodegarii Bissuntini], 27-29)
cap. 11 l. 2, nr. 931.
63. In Matt. [rep. Leodegarii EN III, 5 (1112b12-14)
Bissuntini], cap. 12 l. 2,
nr. 1011.
64. In Matt. [rep. Leodegarii Pol. V, 1 (1301b35-37)
nr. 1213.
65. In Matt. [rep. Leodegarii ?
nr. 1316.
66. In Matt. [rep. Leodegarii Meteor I, 3 (340a)
nr. 1356.
67. In Matt. [rep. Leodegarii De Caelo I, 9 (271b8- Cf. J. Hamesse,
Bissuntini], cap. 16 l. 1, 13); Auctoritates, p. 161,
nr. 1364. nr. 19.
nr. 1553.
69. In Matt. [rep. Leodegarii EN III, 4 (1113a29-33)
nr. 1614.
70. In Matt. [rep. Leodegarii Rhet II, 13 (1390a5-7)
nr. 1633.
nr. 2165.
72. In Ioh., cap. 1 l. 1, nr. 25. Peri herm I (16a3-4)
73. In Ioh., cap. 1 l. 1, nr. Peri herm 2 (16a20-
25. 16b5)
342 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
74. In Ioh., cap. 1 l. 2, nr. Phys VIII and meta A

65. Aristoteles vero
posuit in Deo rationes
omnium rerum (Meta
XII, 9, nr. 2615), et
quod idem est in Deo
intellectus et intelligens
et intellectum (Meta.
XII, 7 (1072b26-30)
Marietti 2544)
75. In Ioh., cap. 1 l. 6, nr. Gen anim I, 18
160. (726a26-28)
76. In Ioh., cap. 2 l. 1, nr. ??? Sent.2, d. 25, q. 1, a.
351. 2, ad 5. ascribes it to
Ptolemaeus and in
ST I, q. 115, a. 4, ad
3. to “astrologi”
77. In Ioh., cap. 4 l. 2, nr. Met. 10 (1051b1-32)
603.
78. In Ioh., cap. 10 l. 3, nr. EN VIII, 10 (1160b1-2)
1402.
79. In Ioh., cap. 12 l. 5, nr. Rhet. II, 5 (1381a6-7)
1656.
80. Super.Io., cap. 15 l. 4, EE VIII, 1 (1235a18);
nr. 2036. Rhet. II, 4 (1381b17)1;
II, 10 (1388a16)
81. In Ioh., cap. 19 l. 1, nr. Rhet II, 3 (1380a5-b1)
2372.
82. In Ioh., cap. 19 l. 3, nr. EN I, 6 (1096a11-16)
2399.
83. In Ioh., cap. 19 l. 3, Pol III, 16 (1287b4);
2417. Eud Eth III, 7
(1243a19-23)
84. In Ioh., cap. 20 l. 4, nr. Phys IV, 5-9
2527.
85. In Ioh., cap . 21 l. 3, nr. Pol. I, 12 (1259b1-15)
2619.
86. In Ioh., cap. 21 l. 4, nr. Rhet II, 12 (1389a1-
2629. b10)
87. In I Cor., cap. 1 l. 3, EN I, 2 (1094b23-25) ut dicitur in primo
nr. 45. Ethicorum.
88. In I Cor., cap 1 l. 3, nr. EN VI, 4 (1140b4 and

49. 20)
89. In I Cor., cap. 2 l. 3, nr. EN III, 5 (1114a32)
113.
90. In I Cor., cap. 2 l. 3, nr. EN X, 5 (1176a17) ut dicitur I Ethic.
118.
91. In I Cor., cap. 2 l. 3, nr. EN I, 3 (1094b28)
120.
92. In I Cor., cap. 6 l. 3, nr. Gen. An. I, 20 (729a29-
304. 32)
93. In I Cor., cap. 11 l. 1, nr. Gen. An. II, 3 (737a28-
588. 29)
94. In I Cor., cap. 11 l. 4, nr. ?
622.
95. In I Cor., cap. 12 l. 3, Meta V, 6 sicut in V
nr. 732. metaphysicae
96. In I Cor., cap. 13 l. 2, EN III, 4 (1112a15) ut dicitur in III Ethic.
nr. 781.
97. In I Cor., cap. 13 l. 3, De an III, 4 (429a25-
nr. 790. 29)
98. In I Cor., cap. 13 l. 3, De an III, 4 (429a25) A
nr. 791.
99. In I Cor., cap. 13 l. 4, EN VIII, 2 (1155b15-
nr. 806. 1156a5)
100. In I Cor., cap. 14 l. 2, Pol. I, 2 (1252a31-34) A
nr. 832.
101. In I Cor., cap. 14 l. 7, Cf. Pol. II, 9 (1269b) Pas littérale
nr. 880.
102. In I Cor., cap. 15 l. 6, Met III, 2 (998a13-15)
nr. 983.
103. In I Cor., cap. 15 l. 9, nr. Cf. Problemata XVII, 2
1015. (916a30). De anima II,
4 (415b3-6)
104. In II Cor. , cap. 2 l. 2, ? “Philosophus” does
nr. 58. not refer to Aristotle
105. In II Cor. , cap. 3 l. 1, Liber de Bona Fortuna
nr. 87. = Eth E VIII, 2
(1248a26-29)
106. In II Cor. , cap. 4 l. 5, EN IX, 8 (1168b)
nr. 146.
344 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
107. In II Cor. , cap. 5 l. 2, EN III, 9 (1117a29-

nr. 165. 1117b23)
108. In II Cor. , cap. 7 l. 2, EN XIV, 6 (1154b13)
nr. 254.
109. In Eph., cap. 5 l. 6, nr. Meta I, 29 (982a28)
305.
110. In Eph., cap. 5 l. 8, nr. Pol. I, 3 (1253b)
316.
111. In Eph., cap. 6 l. 1, nr. EN VIII, 12 (1162a4-7) ut dicitur VI Ethic.
339.
112. In Eph., cap. 6 l. 3, nr. Pol. I, 2 (1253a29)
358.
113. In Gal., cap. 3 l. 1, nr. Meta VII, 8 (1033b19-
117. 1023a8)
114. In Gal., cap. 3 l. 4, nr. De anim II, 2 (413b)
142.
115. In Gal., cap. 3 l. 7, nr. EN X, 9 (1180a1-22) a philosopho in IV
165. Ethicorum
116. In Gal., cap. 5 l. 3, nr. Meta I, 2 (982b25-27)
302.
117. In Gal., cap. 5 l. 6, 329. EN VII, 1 (1145a20)
118. In Col., cap. 3 l. 4, nr. Pol I, 3 (1257b7)
171.
119. In I Tim., cap. 1 l. 3, EN X, 9 (1180a1-22) ut patet in Ethicis.
nr. 23.
120. In I Tim., cap. 2 l. 3, nr. Pol. I, 5 (1254b)
79.
121. In I Tim., cap. 2 l. 3, nr. Cf. Pol. II, 9 (1269b)
80.
122. In I Tim., cap. 4 l. 1, nr. Cf. Pol I, 8 (1256b15)
142.
123. In I Tim., cap. 4 l. 2, nr. Meta I,2 (982b19)
152.
124. In I Tim., cap. 4 l. 2, nr. Poet 4 (1448b5)
152.
125. In I Tim., cap. 4 l. 2, nr. EN X, 8 (1178b33-
159. 1179a10)
126. In I Tim., cap. 4 l. 3, nr. Topica III, 2 (117a27)
168.
127. In I Tim., cap. 6 l. 1, nr. Pol. V, 1 (1301b35-37)

234.
128. In I Tim., cap. 6 l. 4, nr. Elen Soph 7 (169a36-
280. 169b2)
129. In II Tim., cap. 1 l. 3, ? See In Phys VIII, l.
nr. 22. 1, nr. 969.
130. In Tit., cap. 1 l. 1, nr. 7. ? See In Phys VIII, l.
1, nr. 969.
131. In Tit., cap. 1 l. 3, nr. 24. Soph. El. 1 (165a25)
132. In Tit., cap. 1 l. 3, nr. 31. Pol. I, 2 (1253a31)
133. In Tit., cap. 2 l. 1, nr. 50. Rhet. II, 13 (1390a1)
134. In Heb. [rep. vulgata], EN III, 2 (1111b28-29)
cap. 1 l. 2, nr. 39.
135. In Heb. [rep. vulgata], Phys VIII, 1 (252a1)
cap. 1 l. 5, nr. 72.
136. In Heb. [rep. vulgata], EN VI, 10 (1142b5)
cap. 4 l. 2, nr. 215.
137. In Heb. [rep. vulgata], EN III, 5 (1114a32)
cap. 5 l. 2, nr. 273.
138. In Heb. [rep. vulgata], ?
cap. 5 l. 2, nr. 274.
139. Case 116. Place 91. In Pol II, 8 (1269a1-30).
Heb. [rep. vulgata], cap.
7 l. 3, nr. 350.
140. In Heb. [rep. vulgata], EN III, 2 (1111b28-29)
cap. 9 l. 2, nr. 427.
141. In Heb. [rep. vulgata], Cf. Anon. Auct. Arist. ut habetur II
cap. 11 l. 1, nr. 554. (ed. J. Hamesse, I, 73): physicorum
«Finis et bonum idem
sunt«, cf. Meta III, 2
(996a23-24)
142. In Heb. [rep. vulgata], Phys I, 4 (186a26-31) II physicorum
cap. 11 l. 2, nr. 565.
143. In Heb. [rep. vulgata], EN III, 12 (1119b b1)
cap. 12 l. 2, nr. 674.
144. Ad Rom., cap. 1 l. 1, EN IX, 4 (1166a1-29)
nr. 21.
145. Ad Rom., cap. 1 l. 7, nr. EN III, 5 (1113b30)
124.
346 JÖRGEN VIJGEN
146. Ad Rom., cap. 1 l. 7, nr. EN III, 10 (1118b1-5)

138.
147. Ad Rom., cap. 2 l. 3, nr. EN X, 9 (1180a20-22)
217.
148. Ad Rom., cap. 3 l. 1, nr. Cat. 5 (4b9-11)
255.
149. Ad Rom., cap. 4 l. 1, nr. EN II, 1 (1103b5-25)
325.
150. Ad Rom., cap. 5 l. 3, nr. De gen anim II, 3
408. (736b28-29)
151. Ad Rom., cap. 5 l. 3, nr. EN III, 5 (1114a25-26)
409.
152. Ad Rom., cap. 5 l. 4, nr. EN V, 7 (1134b24-26)
428.
153. Ad Rom., cap. 5 l. 5, nr. EN V, 2 (1130a8-10) ut dicitur V
447. Ethicorum
456.
155. Ad Rom., cap. 5 l. 6, nr. EN X, 9 (1180a1-22)
457.
601
157. Ad Rom., cap. 8 l. 1, nr. EN III, 5 (1114a32)
616.
158. Ad Rom., cap. 8 l. 1, nr. EN VI, 4 (1140b4&20)
617.
159. Ad Rom., cap. 8 l. 4, nr. Phys VIII, 1 (252a1)
669.
160. Ad Rom., cap. 9 l. 3, nr. Met IX, 8 (1050b1-5) A
773. (Super Meta nr. 1795-
1814; Eth Eud VIII, 2
161. Ad Rom., cap. 13 l. 1, EN V, 6 (1134b5-7)
nr. 1039.
162. Ad Rom., cap. 13 l. 2, EN VIII, 14 (1163b12-
nr. 1046. 17)
163. Ad Rom., cap. 13 l. 3, EN VII, 5 (1152b16- A
nr. 1077. 18)
164. Ad Rom., cap. 14 l. 2, EN I, 8 (1099a16-17)
nr. 1127.
Part 2: Theological Questions and New Perspectives
MATTHEW LEVERING*
SUPPLEMENTING PINCKAERS: THE OLD TESTAMENT

IN AQUINAS’S ETHICS
Romanus Cessario has recently inquired into what role «the sacred
Scriptures enjoy in Thomist moral theology, both before and after the
Second Vatican Council»1. He begins by observing that Vatican II’s
Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, urges that «the
“study of the sacred page” should be the very soul of sacred theology»2.
As he notes, a similar exhortation had earlier been made by Pope Leo XIII
in his encyclical on Scripture, Providentissimus Deus (1893). Pope Leo
teaches, «Most desirable is it, and most essential, that the whole teaching
of Theology should be pervaded and animated [sit anima] by the use of the
divine Word of God»3. Cessario also draws attention to another significant
instruction from Vatican II that bears upon the relationship between moral
theology and Scripture. The Decree on Priestly Training, Optatam Totius,
observes, «Students should receive a most careful training in holy Scripture,
which should be the soul, as it were, of all theology»4. After urging that
dogmatic theology be rooted in Scripture and the Fathers and should be
illumined scientifically with the aid of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Decree
has this to say: «In like manner the other theological subjects should be
*
The James N. and Mary D. Perry, Jr. Chair of Theology, University of Saint
Mary of the Lake, Mundelein IL, email: mjlevering@yahoo.com
1
R. CESSARIO, O.P., «Scripture as the Soul of Moral Theology: Reflections on
Vatican II and Ressourcement Thomism», The Thomist, 76 (2012) 165-88, at p. 165.
2
Dei Verbum, § 24, in Vatican Council II, vol. 1: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar
Documents, rev. ed., Ed. by A. FLANNERY, O.P., Costello Publishing Company,
Northport, NY 1996, pp. 763-64 (pp. 750-65).
3
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, § 16, at www.vatican.va. In confirmation
of this point, Pope Leo cites Su. Theol. I, q. 1, a. 5, ad 2, where Thomas Aquinas states
that theology «accepts its principles not from other sciences; but immediately from
God, by revelation. Therefore it does not depend upon other sciences as upon the
higher, but makes use of them as of the lesser, and as handmaidens». Translations from
the Summa theologiae are taken from St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 5 vols.,
trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Christian Classics, Westminster,
MD 1981.
4
Optatam Totius, § 16, in Vatican Council II, pp. 707-24, at p. 719.
350 MATTHEW LEVERING
renewed through a more vivid contact with the Mystery of Christ and the
history of salvation. Special care should be given to the perfecting of moral
theology. Its scientific presentation should draw more fully on the teaching
of holy Scripture and should throw light upon the exalted vocation of the
faithful in Christ»5.
As Cessario says, «the use of the comparative adverb “more,” magis,
raises the question, more than what»6? Given that the general mode of
teaching theology prior to the Council was Thomistic, in accord with
Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Aeterni Patris, is Optatam Totius suggesting
that Thomistic moral theology fails to draw sufficiently upon Scripture?
In reply, Cessario points out that the moral manuals used in seminaries
during the first half of the twentieth century were not Thomistic, despite
the general fostering of Thomism during this period. Thus it can hardly
be said that the Council Fathers intended «for us to understand the magis
as more than one finds in the theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas and the
commentatorial tradition that follows him»7. Indeed, in Cessario’s view, it
should be uncontroversial that Aquinas sought to «illuminate moral theology
from a biblical perspective»8. At the same time, Cessario underscores that
philosophical reasoning is frequently central in moral theology, even when
this philosophical reasoning may be supported by biblical texts.
Cessario rightly considers Servais Pinckaers to be the master of
Aquinas’s use of Scripture in moral theology. In his Foreword to the 1995
English translation of Pinckaers’s The Sources of Christian Ethics, Cessario
notes that Pinckaers’s book «addresses the methodological question of
the proper relation between the Scriptures and moral theology», and that
Pinckaers’s approach «exemplifies the correct way to develop a moral
theology fully grounded in its biblical sources»9.
In what follows, I wish first to make a careful survey of how Pinckaers
construes Aquinas’s sources, and especially Aquinas’s biblical sources, in
The Sources of Christian Ethics. As a second step, I briefly summarize
John Cuddeback’s recent critique of Pinckaers’s book for not attending
5
Optatam Totius, § 16, in Vatican Council II, p. 720.
6
CESSARIO, «Scripture as the Soul of Moral Theology», p. 169.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid., p. 177.
9
R. CESSARIO, O.P., «Foreword to the English Edition», in S. PINCKAERS, O.P., The
Sources of Christian Ethics, trans. Mary Thomas Noble, O.P., Catholic University of
America Press, Washington D.C. 1995, pp. ix-xv, at pp. xi-xii.
SUPPLEMENTING PINCKAERS: THE OLD TESTAMENT 351
sufficiently to the value of law. Agreeing with this critique –and also
agreeing with Cuddeback’s overall highly positive judgment of Pinckaers’s
work– I turn in a third and final section to an introductory examination of
Aquinas’s use of the Old Testament in the secunda pars of the Summa
theologiae. My aim is to show that not least in his use of the Old Testament,
Aquinas’s moral theology serves as a model of what a fully biblical moral
theology should be.
1. Servais Pinckaers, O.P.’s The Sources of Christian Ethics
The Sources of Christian Ethics begins with the quotation from

Optatam Totius that, as noted above, requires moral theology to «draw
more fully on the teaching of holy Scripture». Strongly supporting this
goal, Pinckaers states, «In my opinion the chief task for today’s moral
theologians is to reopen the lines of communication between Christian
ethics and the Word of God»10. But as he points out repeatedly, simply to
quote Scripture frequently, let alone simply to read the work of biblical
scholars, will not suffice for the renewal of moral theology. Instead, the
theologian must penetrate to the heart of the moral life as revealed in
Scripture. What is this heart? Pinckaers identifies it as our transformation
through faith in Christ by the Holy Spirit. He defines Christian ethics along
these transformative lines: it «studies human acts so as to direct them to
a loving vision of God seen as our true, complete happiness and our final
end. This vision is attained by means of grace, the virtues, and the gifts, in
the light of revelation and reason»11.
In his central chapters, Pinckaers focuses on St. Paul, the Sermon on the
Mount (especially as interpreted by Augustine), and Aquinas’s theology of the
«New Law», the grace of the Holy Spirit. He notes that the New Testament
seeks to show that Christian moral teaching, while indebted in many ways to
the Old Testament and while certainly not rejecting the Old Testament, «not
only fulfilled but transcended the Old»12. Along these lines, the New Testament
and St. Paul also integrate Greek philosophy into Christian teaching, without
undermining the uniqueness of Christian ethics. But he rejects the view,
10
PINCKAERS, The Sources of Christian Ethics, p. xviii.
11
Ibid., p. 8.
12
Ibid.
which he attributes to some Protestant theology, that «evangelical teaching

cannot succeed until it is radically purified of the Old Law and philosophy»13.
Pinckaers turns especially to Paul in order to understand «Gospel
morality and its difference from Jewish and Greek systems»14. For Paul,
he states, «Jewish morality was dominated by the search for justice
in the eyes of God. It was determined by the Law of Moses with its
commandments and numerous prescriptions, customs, and observances,
such as circumcision»15. At the same time, it would be a mistake to think of
Jewish morality as legalistic in a narrow sense, although Jewish morality
is certainly focused upon law: «Animated by hope in the divine promises,
which the divine power will fulfill for those who observe the Law faithfully,
Jewish morality was based on the covenant established by God with his
chosen people and guaranteed by the divine fidelity»16. Christianity took
this emphasis on the law –especially the Decalogue–and combined it with
the Greek philosophical emphasis on wisdom, the virtues, and happiness
and with Roman law’s emphasis on justice and courage.
Yet, Pinckaers adds, Paul did not simply weave together existing
elements. Instead, as Romans 1-2 shows, Paul attacked both Jewish law
and Greek wisdom, arguing that neither has succeeded in producing
holiness. Paul proclaimed a gospel of reconciliation through faith in Jesus
Christ. Pinckaers explains that Paul «did not reject the desire for justice
and wisdom but gave them a new source: no longer human virtue, but
what might be called the virtue of God acting through Jesus Christ. He did
not hide the fact that the exchange was traumatic»17. For Paul, Christian
morality goes to the root of pride and replaces it with the humility of faith
in the humble, crucified Lord and with docility to the Holy Spirit. Rather
than centering morality upon the words of a lawgiver (Moses) or moral
exemplar (Socrates), furthermore, Christian morality centers upon the
person of Jesus in his suffering, death, and Resurrection. Christian morality
is about «[p]ersonal union with Christ through faith and love», and «[f]aith
delivers us from the secret despair born of the knowledge of our weakness
and faults» and «wins for us the gracious strength of the Spirit»18. Thus,
13
Ibid., p. 109.
14
Ibid., p. 110.
15
Ibid., p. 111.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid., p. 114.
18
Ibid., p. 116.
faith is not abstract but rather is «an active, operative, practical virtue»
that, in baptism, incorporates us into Christ and makes us a new creation.19
On this radical foundation, Paul is able to reintegrate (and transform) the
Greek virtues and address specific moral problems. His insistence upon the
centrality of humility and chastity flows from his understanding of union
with Christ, as does his emphasis on joy and peace. Paul’s moral thought,
Pinckaers shows, is deeply Christological and Trinitarian; there is indeed a
«specifically Christian ethics», one that unites the moral and spiritual life,
and that does not focus upon law and obligation.20
Pinckaers next turns to the Sermon on the Mount. He contrasts Albert
Schweitzer’s view that the Sermon was an impossible, eschatological
«interim legislation» (along with post-Tridentine Catholic neglect of the
Sermon and Luther’s view that Christ alone can fulfill the Sermon) with
Augustine’s placement of the Sermon –the Beatitudes– at the center of his
moral thought.21 Augustine connects the Sermon profoundly with Paul’s
view of life in the Spirit, and he identifies this new life as the «new song»
described in Psalm 149:1. Aquinas follows Augustine’s path, not only in
his understanding of the New Law, but also in his identification of beatitude
as the goal of Christian life and in his connection of the beatitudes with the
virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit enumerated in Isaiah 11, as well
as in his theology of prayer and his commentary on the Lord’s Prayer.
For Aquinas, as for Augustine, «the Beatitudes are Christ’s answer to the
question of happiness and thus, together with the whole Sermon on the
Mount, dominate Christian ethics»22. Yet Pinckaers laments that in late
scholasticism and post-Tridentine moral theology, the focus on obligation
and precepts overwhelmed the Augustinian and Thomistic insistence upon
the centrality of the Sermon on the Mount: «Moral teaching would once
more center around the Decalogue. No one seemed to realize that such a
conception carried with it a serious risk of regressing to the level of Old
Testament justice»23.
19
Ibid., p. 117.
20
Ibid., p. 133.
21
Ibid., p. 138.
22
Ibid., p. 150.
23
Ibid., pp. 159-60. Pinckaers notes that «Jesus had a far keener understanding
of human nature than did the legalistic Pharisees», seeking in each person the
purification of a precious image of God (PINCKAERS, The Sources of Christian Ethics,
p. 89).
In our time, renewal of moral theology in accord with the intention

of Vatican II means, for Pinckaers, returning to the perspective of
Augustine and Aquinas, precisely by «going back to the actual Word
of God, the Gospel text inspired by the Holy Spirit in faith»24. We must
imitate the Sermon’s starting point, happiness, as well as the Sermon’s
interior deepening of the precepts of the Decalogue and the way in which
the Sermon brings together catechesis and theology. From Paul, we need
to reclaim the practice of exhortation or paraclesis, which «puts us in a
relationship with God that has passed beyond legal justice to mercy»25.
Pinckaers also briefly mentions the value of the Letter of James, 1 Peter,
1 John, and «the riches of moral experience found in the Old Testament,
notably the sapiential books. These are frequently used by the authors of
the New Testament»26.
Pinckaers’s chapter on Aquinas is provocatively titled «Is St.
Thomas’s Moral Theology Christian?». From a modern, obligation-and-
precept-based standpoint, Pinckaers shows that the answer would seem to
be no: it is instead highly philosophical, with a bit of spirituality thrown
in. Surveying the reception history of Aquinas’s treatise on the New Law
(II-II, qq. 106-108), he notes that Cajetan made only two brief remarks on
question 106 and then recommended that his readers memorize questions
107-108, but did not comment on them. Later commentators, with the
exception of the Dominican Giovanni Patuzzi (1700-1769), ignored the
New Law or read it legalistically. Fortunately, says Pinckaers, theologians
today are returning to Aquinas’s treatise on the New Law. Its sources are
Augustine and Paul, with his emphasis on life in the Spirit and faith in
Christ; and it is also rooted prophetically in Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel
36:26. Through a diagram, Pinckaers shows how the entirety of secunda
pars describes a «new moral organism» based upon the New Law of the
grace of the Holy Spirit. The New Law, he notes, stands as the perfection
and culmination of all the natural and Mosaic laws, since the New Law
is the «law of liberty» (James 2:12). Pinckaers emphasizes that Aquinas,
while integrating Aristotle freely and broadly, was deeply aware of «the
irreducible newness of the Gospel»27.
24
Ibid., p. 162.
25
Ibid., p. 165.
26
Ibid., p. 167.
27
Ibid., p. 189.
Pinckaers then offers a lengthy and schematic history of moral

theology. He begins with the Fathers, whom he represents as grounded
intensely in Scripture, although «[t]here were certain books or portions
of Scripture […] that the Fathers recognized as pertaining more directly
to morality by reason of their content and intention. Among these were
the wisdom literature of the Old Testament, the Sermon on the Mount
in the Gospels, and the sections in St. Paul’s letters that today are called
paranetic»28. He reviews the high scholastic period along the lines that we
noted in his discussion of Aquinas. The late scholastic period and the post-
Tridentine period come in for strong and sustained critique, with William
of Ockham receiving blame for developing a morality of obligation based
upon freedom of indifference rather than freedom for excellence. Among
post-Tridentine theologians, the Jesuit Juan Azor (1536-1603) serves as a
representative of the new approach, which subordinated the virtues entirely
to commandments and obligations, and which reduced Aquinas’s moral
theology to a study of human acts, passions, habits, virtues in general,
sins in general (sins against law and rights), and law. Pinckaers notes that
«[l]ove and its movement, as described by spiritual writers and mystics,
was no longer primary in Azor’s moral theology. It was subordinated to
the commandments, and the study of it could be organized in relation to
them»29.
Within this post-Tridentine framework, cases of conscience –viewed
through the lens of «probabilism» (eventually settled by Alphonsus de
Liguori’s theory of equal probability)– became the primary focus of moral
theology as found in the manuals used up until the Second Vatican Council.
Pinckaers also includes a section on Protestant (especially Lutheran) ethics
and on Catholic responses to it, in light of «the rift that nominalism had
created between freedom and law» and the loss of the natural inclinations
as well as the theocentric perspective of the eternal law.30 He discusses
early twentieth-century manualists such as Dominic Prümmer, influenced
by the renewal of Thomism. In these works he finds «a return to making
the theological and moral virtues, in preference to the commandments,
the principle of the organization of moral material», but he notes that the
content of these manuals remained fundamentally «shaped by obligations
28
Ibid., p. 200.
29
Ibid., p. 263.
30
Ibid., p. 291.
and legal prohibitions» and failed to return beatitude to its central role.31 In
nineteenth-century Germany, however, Pinckaers finds a number of more
promising works by moralists who focused on the Kingdom of God and
on adoptive sonship in the Body of Christ. In the early twentieth century,
furthermore, German moral theologians such as J. Mausbach, O. Schilling,
and F. Tilmann emphasized such themes as the glory of God, charity, and
the Sermon on the Mount. But during this same time, the casuist tradition
continued even in Germany and remained dominant in priestly formation.
With respect to the contemporary situation (in the 1980s and 1990s),
Pinckaers laments that «“politics”» –in the wide sense of social and world
organization– «invades moral theology and tends to take over»32. He
urges once more that we retrieve the full dimensions of the gospel, which
include not only hope and longing for happiness and justice, but also the
testing of faith in the encounter with God, as opposed to idols of our own
making. Here Pinckaers refers to the testing of Abraham and of Israel,
«to see if their hearts sought God and loved him before all else»33. The
gospel challenges us to take up our cross and follow Jesus, even to the
point of being persecuted for our way of life. We mute the gospel if we
suppose that it can be reduced to the natural order, as though it required no
renunciations. Pinckaers insists, as well, that the gospel and the Scriptures
as a whole can speak to readers and be comprehensible even without the
help of exegetes, due above all to the Holy Spirit speaking through the
Scriptures. Such readers will be able to enter into the Christian experience
to which the New Testament bears witness.
The final part of Pinckaers’s book contrasts freedom of indifference
(Ockham) and freedom of excellence (Aquinas), with the goal of further
undermining moral theories that begin with obligation and precepts. In this
context, Pinckaers emphasizes the importance of the natural inclinations
toward the human good as the teleological basis of the natural law. In light
of these natural inclinations, he spells out certain basic principles of human
life together.
In short, in defense of the uniqueness of Christian ethics, and building
upon what he understands Paul and the Sermon on the Mount to require,
Pinckaers distances Christian ethics from Jewish ethics based upon the Old
31
Ibid., p. 299.
32
Ibid., p. 309.
33
Ibid., p. 312.
Testament. He recognizes that Jewish ethics is based not only upon law
but also upon a covenantal relationship with God, but he notes that Jews
conceive the fullness of this relationship to depend upon their fulfillment
of the precepts of the law. As Pinckaers observes, Paul deeply challenges
such dependence in his Letter to the Romans.
2. John Cuddeback’s Salutary Critique
From a perspective that is otherwise deeply appreciative of Pinckaers’s

work, John Cuddeback asks why law is not included in Pinckaers’s
definition of Christian ethics. As Cuddeback states, «the very virtues and
gifts that Pinckaers stresses are the end of law as Aquinas understands it. If
we follow Pinckaers’s lead in reading Aquinas in light of his scriptural and
patristic roots, we should conclude that the entire moral life can be seen as
a response to the law of God»34. Cuddeback points to Aquinas’s own view
that the Torah itself commands charity. Indeed, in Cuddeback’s words,
«The whole moral and spiritual life is the drama of seeking to fulfill, more
and more perfectly, this precept»35. In Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus
19:18, the Torah commands love of God and love of neighbor; and Jesus,
when asked to identify the greatest commandment, replies, «You shall love
the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all
your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like
it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments
depend all the law and the prophets» (Mt 22:36-40; cf. Mk 12:28-34). In
his discussion of Christian perfection in Summa theologiae II-II, q. 184, a.
3, therefore, Aquinas emphasizes that the highest perfection –beatitude–
comes under a precept. Thus as Cuddeback says, «while Aquinas would
affirm that the moral life is about more than simply not transgressing the
law, he would not affirm that the moral life is about more than fulfilling
the law»36.
Exploring the relationship of virtue, natural inclination, and law,
Cuddeback notes that for Aquinas virtuous acts are rational, reasonable
34
J. A. CUDDEBACK, «Law, Pinckaers, and the Definition of Christian Ethics»,
Nova et Vetera, 7 (2009) 301-325, at p. 303.
35
CUDDEBACK, «Law, Pinckaers, and the Definition of Christian Ethics», p. 317.
36
Ibid., p. 315.
acts. Human reason has authority not autonomously, but insofar as it

participates in the eternal law; this participation is natural law. Because we
bear the imprint of the eternal law, we have natural inclinations toward the
human good. Divine law, similarly, directs humans to a good that befits our
rational constitution, in this case to a supernatural good that we could not
attain without God’s help. This is why, for Aquinas, «virtue is the proper
effect of law, and thus also […] law is the proper cause of virtue»37.
None of this, of course, would be a surprise to Pinckaers. As Cuddeback
observes, Pinckaers’s extensive section on natural inclinations and natural
law shows his full recognition of this aspect of Aquinas’s thought. But
Cuddeback is right to note that some of Pinckaers’s statements against
obligation-based and legalistic morality tell unfavorably upon law itself.
This is a mistake, not least because for Aquinas law is «first of all how
God’s wisdom moves man to goodness itself… For Aquinas, the ultimate
law, eternal law, is the divine understanding as moving creatures, each in
accord with its own nature, to its own end»38. Furthermore, Cuddeback
draws attention to Aquinas’s Commentary on the Gospel of St. John,
where Aquinas draws upon Psalm 119, Matthew 5:19, and Romans 2:13
(among other biblical passages) in order to comment upon John 14:21,
«He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me;
and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and
manifest myself to him». In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ commandment is
«that you love one another as I have loved you» (Jn 15:12). Aquinas sees
no tension here between Jesus’ commandment in the Gospel of John and
the references to the Torah in Psalm 119 and Matthew 5:19. This positive
view of law needs to be brought out. Pinckaers’s Pauline emphasis on
the insufficiency of the Torah is shared by Aquinas, but at the same time,
Aquinas emphasizes that Christ (and faith and charity) fulfill the Torah,
properly understood.39
Cuddeback also explores the positive way in which Aquinas
appropriates such Old Testament texts as Leviticus 18:5, «You shall
therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, by doing which a man shall
live», and Psalm 1:1-2, «Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel
37
Ibid., p. 311.
38
Ibid., p. 313.
39
See my Christ’s Fulfillment of Torah and Temple: Salvation according to
Thomas Aquinas, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame 2002.
of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, but his delight is in the law
of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night»40. As Cuddeback
remarks, in Aquinas’s commentary on this passage from Psalm 1, Aquinas
cites Paul and John in support of his emphasis on the goodness of law, both
as found in the intellect’s contemplation of God’s law, and in the will’s
obedience of God’s precepts.
Recall that Pinckaers, when he urges a return of moral theology to
Scripture as the Word of God, specifically directs readers to the letters of
Paul, the Sermon on the Mount, some other New Testament texts, and the
wisdom literature of the Old Testament. Pinckaers brilliantly shows that
Aquinas sought to «illuminate moral theology from a biblical perspective»41.
Pinckaers’s whole book should be seen as a commentary on the teaching
of Optatam Totius that moral theology’s «scientific presentation should
draw more fully on the teaching of holy Scripture»42. Since this is so,
Cuddeback’s directing our attention to Aquinas’s deep appreciation of law
is profoundly apropos. If Aquinas in fact drew heavily and positively upon
the Old Testament in his moral theology, then Pinckaers’s approach would
need supplementing, just as Cuddeback suggests.
3. The Old Testament in Aquinas’s Ethics: An Introductory Sketch
In the secunda pars of the Summa theologiae –the part of the Summa
devoted to moral theology– does Aquinas, like Pinckaers, take as his biblical
sources the letters of St. Paul, the Sermon on the Mount, certain other New
Testament writings, and (in a secondary role) the wisdom literature of the
Old Testament? As I have argued in Paul in the Summa Theologiae and
elsewhere, Aquinas in his moral theology makes ample use of Paul and
indeed of the whole New Testament.43 But what about Aquinas’s use of the
Old Testament in his moral theology?
40
CUDDEBACK, «Law, Pinckaers, and the Definition of Christian Ethics», pp. 318,
324.
41
42
43
See my Paul in the Summa Theologiae, Catholic University of America
Press, Washington D.C. 2014; as well as my «Aquinas», in S. WESTERHOLM (ed.), The
Blackwell Companion to Paul, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford 2011, pp. 361-374; and my
«A Note on Scripture in the Summa Theologiae», New Blackfriars, 90 (2009) 652-658.
Seeking to answer this question, I have tracked by hand the Old

Testament references in the secunda pars. By my count, Aquinas cites the
Old Testament approximately 2070 times. These citations come from 43 of
the 46 books of the Old Testament; only Obadiah, Zephaniah, and Haggai
are missing. Indeed, 603 of the 1074 chapters of the Old Testament are
cited at least once in the secunda pars. Thus 56% of the chapters of the Old
Testament appear in Aquinas’s moral theology alone. Equally significantly,
the Torah, which the Jewish people consider to be the fundamental part
of the Old Testament, appears in the secunda pars at an even higher rate:
141 of the 187 chapters found in the first five books of the Bible are cited
(75%).
Where in the secunda pars do these citations appear? In the prima-
secundae, which has a number of questions devoted to technical aspects
of Aristotelian anthropology, Aquinas cites the Old Testament in 81 of
the 114 questions; and most of these questions have many citations of the
Old Testament. In the secunda-secundae, the percentage of questions that
include Old Testament references is even higher: 174 of the 189 questions
contain Old Testament references. Thus only 48 of the 303 questions in
the secunda pars lack Old Testament references. Eleven of these are found
between question seven and question 25 of the prima-secundae, questions
that treat the circumstances of human acts, the will, intention, choice, the
acts commanded by the will, and the passions –all topics with respect to
which Aquinas is expositing Aristotle and other philosophical sources.
Similarly, between questions 41 and 62 of the prima-secundae, questions
that treat the passions of fear, daring, and anger, and then turn to a highly
Aristotelian account of habits, virtues, and the moral and cardinal virtues,
we find only seventeen citations of the Old Testament. These questions
also constitute a dry spell in Aquinas’s reference to the Old Testament in
his moral theology. It is even more impressive, then, that he cites the Old
Testament in the prima-secundae as much as he does.
It will already be clear that Aquinas’s treatise on the Old Law (I-II,
qq. 98-105) does not contain the preponderance of Aquinas’s references
to the Old Testament in his moral theology, as might otherwise have been
imagined. Yet, it stands to reason that this treatise should contain a large
number of such references, and in fact this is the case. I count 403 citations
of the Old Testament in these eight questions of the prima-secundae. This
amounts to approximately twenty percent of Aquinas’s Old Testament
references in his moral theology, which still leaves the other eighty
percent to be accounted for. It should also be noted that Aquinas, like his
predecessors, is unafraid to draw heavily for moral wisdom upon what are
now known as the deuterocanonical or apocryphal books: he cites Wisdom
of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus 287 times, fourteen percent of all citations
in the secunda pars, and he also even cites 3 Ezra twice, a text that is not
included in the Catholic Scriptures. In the secunda pars, Aquinas cites the
wisdom literature most in terms of sheer number of citations: 912, or 44%
of the total citations. He cites the Torah, which of course includes fewer
books, approximately 665 times or 32%. He cites the prophets Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel 222 times in all, or 11%. But he does not ignore the
other books, as noted above. For example, he refers 122 times (six percent)
to the historical books from Joshua to Nehemiah, which one might have
supposed would have been neglected much more than they are.
I have mentioned that the secunda pars includes citations of 603 of
the 1074 Old Testament chapters, and 43 of the 46 Old Testament books.
But how does this break down in terms of specific books? With regard
to the Torah, for instance, does Aquinas refer to the legal texts without
paying much attention to the stories? In the case of Genesis, Aquinas
quotes 35 of the 50 chapters; the missing chapters are 6, 10, 11, 21, 31,
33-36, 43, and 45-50. Chapters 45-50 contain the end of the Joseph story.
Chapters 33-36 contain Jacob’s encounter with Esau, the story of the rape
of Dinah and the attack upon Shechem, Rachel’s death, and a genealogy
of Esau’s descendents. Genesis 6 belongs to the Noah cycle; Genesis 10
is a genealogy of Noah’s descendents; chapter 11 tells the story of Babel;
chapter 21 describes the birth of Isaac and the casting out of Hagar and
Ishmael; chapter 31 depicts Jacob’s flight from Laban. Certainly these are
all important stories, but it should be clear that the majority of the central
stories of Genesis are nonetheless covered in the 35 chapters that Aquinas
quotes.
Regarding Exodus, 31 of its 40 chapters can be found in the secunda
pars. The missing chapters are Exodus 5, 7, 9-10, 34, 36-37, and 39-40. As
is the case for Genesis, the final chapters of Exodus are essentially absent. In
Exodus 34, God gives Moses once more the two tablets of stone containing
the Decalogue, and God passes before Moses in a theophany. Exodus 36-
37 have to do with God’s directions for the building of the tabernacle,
and Exodus 39-40 involve God’s directions for the priest’s ephod, as well
as Moses’ accomplishment of the work that God gave him. Exodus 9-10
depict the contest between Moses and Pharaoh, and the plagues of hail and
locusts. Exodus 5 and 7 show Moses’ (and Aaron’s) first encounters with
Pharaoh. Again, it should be clear that the narrative portions of Exodus are
certainly among the chapters cited by Aquinas, even though some chapters
involving the conflict with Pharaoh and the instructions for the tabernacle
and vestments are not present.
It is certainly the case that Aquinas pays extensive attention to the
legal texts of the Torah in his secunda pars, as befits the significance of
the Mosaic law. Thus with respect to Leviticus, almost all the chapters
are quoted: 23 out of 27 (the missing chapters being 3, 6, 13, and 22). The
same unusually high proportion characterizes the other great legal book of
the Old Testament, Deuteronomy: of its 34 chapters, 30 are present; and
the four missing chapters include chapter two and three, where Moses is
recounting the history of Israel that has already been described elsewhere,
along with chapters 29 and 31, where Moses is also recounting the past
and where God informs Moses that Joshua will soon replace him, and
that Israel will fall into sin after Moses’ death. By contrast, the Book of
Numbers, which contains comparatively little legal material and many
stories, is much less represented: whereas Leviticus receives 100 citations
(similar to Genesis’s 111 citations, although of course Genesis is a longer
book) and Deuteronomy has 223 citations, Numbers receives only 57
citations for its 36 chapters; and only 22 of the 36 chapters are cited, a much
lesser proportion than we noted for Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Even so,
Numbers is hardly excluded from the secunda pars; on the contrary, almost
two-thirds of its chapters are referenced. Many of these chapters, of course,
include legal material.
Turning from the Torah to the historical books that follow, the number
of citations and the percentage of chapters cited goes sharply down. Only
one-fourth of the chapters of the Book of Joshua are quoted in the secunda
pars: six of 22. Chapters 11-21 are entirely left out, as we would expect
since these chapters have to do with the end of Joshua’s wars and especially
(from chapters 12-21) with the parceling out of the land to the twelve tribes,
each of whose boundaries and cities are described in rather tedious detail.
Only one-third of the chapters of the Book of Judges appear in the secunda
pars; this means that some of the stories of sin, such as the rape of the
Levite’s concubine and his symbolic division of her into twelve pieces are
absent. The Book of Ruth receives only two citations, both in I-II, question
105, but then again the Book of Ruth contains only four chapters. Of the
55 chapters of 1 and 2 Samuel, only twenty are referenced in the secunda
pars; of the 47 chapters of 1 and 2 Kings, 24 are referenced, but the total
number of citations is relatively small, 46. These historical books, then, are
not forgotten in the secunda pars, but they do not receive the same amount
of attention as does the Torah. Yet the emphasis should probably be on the
fact that they receive a good bit of attention, especially in comparison to the
extraordinarily slender amount of reference to these historical books that
one finds in contemporary works of Catholic moral theology. Aquinas goes
far beyond what can generally be found in Catholic moral theology today,
in terms of attention to Israel’s historical books. Since 1 and 2 Chronicles
largely repeat what is found in 1 and 2 Kings, Aquinas basically ignores
these books in the secunda pars: he quotes 1 Chronicles 29:14 twice but
quotes no other chapters from 1 Chronicles, and he quotes only seven of
the 36 chapters of 2 Chronicles.
Among the Church Fathers, only Bede wrote a commentary on
Ezra and Nehemiah. These books, despite what seems to me to be their
importance, likewise receive hardly any attention in Aquinas’s secunda
pars. Ezra has ten chapters, and Aquinas quotes only three of them once
each. Nehemiah appears even less frequently: of its thirteen chapters,
we find only one citation, namely Nehemiah 4:17, where Nehemiah is
depicting the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s wall and he states that «each with
one hand labored on the work and with the other held his weapon». Tobit,
Judith, and Esther similarly receive little attention, although they receive
more than Ezra and Nehemiah. Of Tobit’s fourteen chapters, the secunda
pars quotes five chapters for a total of eight citations. Aquinas focuses on
such advice as «[d]o not hold over till the next day the wages of any man
who works for you, but pay him at once» (Tob 4:14). Four chapters of
Judith’s sixteen are quoted once each, including the praise that the leaders
of Jerusalem give to Judith for killing Holofernes and ending the siege.
Esther also contains sixteen chapters, from which Aquinas makes three
citations, all in the secunda-secundae. I should note that the text of Judith
and Esther in Aquinas’s Vulgate, including the numbering of the chapters,
differs quite a bit from modern editions such as the RSV.44
I have already pointed out that other than the Torah or first five
books of the Old Testament, from which Aquinas quotes approximately
665 times and from which he cites 75% of the chapters, it is the wisdom
44
For background, see F. VAN LIERE, An Introduction to the Medieval Bible,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2014.
literature –from Job to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)– that Aquinas cites the most
in the secunda pars, approximately 912 times and accounting for 75%
of the chapters. But before I discuss the wisdom literature, let me first
underscore the place of the prophets in the secunda pars. Aquinas quotes
Isaiah 118 times, and 45 of the 66 chapters are represented. The verses that
he quotes the most are Isaiah 11:2, which contains what the Fathers and
medievals understood to be an enumeration of the gifts of the Holy Spirit
and is cited six times, and Isaiah 7:14 and 10:1, both of which appear four
times. Isaiah 7:14, of course, was read as a prophecy of the virgin birth
and the Incarnation, and Isaiah 10:1 involves just government and law
courts: «Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who
keep writing oppression». Isaiah 7:14 and 10:1 appear both in the prima-
secundae and in the secunda-secundae, whereas Isaiah 11:2 appears solely
in the secunda-secundae.
The prophet Jeremiah receives less attention than does Isaiah in the
secunda pars. Only 24 of Jeremiah’s 52 chapters are cited, for a total
of sixty citations. Even so, I should point out that the early chapters of
Jeremiah are quite well represented; it is only chapters 32-52 that appear
very infrequently (one citation each from chapters 39, 41, 48, 51, and 52
–and the citations of chapters 51 and 52 both appear in II-II, q. 147, a.
5). The chapter from Jeremiah that Aquinas quotes most, not surprisingly,
is chapter 31 with its prophecy of the new covenant. Aquinas refers to
verses in this chapter six times, four times in the prima-secundae and twice
in the secunda-secundae. Lamentations and Baruch contain five and six
chapters, respectively, and Aquinas quotes Lamentations three times and
Baruch twice.
In the secunda pars, we find 44 references to Ezekiel, but only
eighteen of its 48 chapters appear. Yet Aquinas still manages to cover the
book fairly well: he quotes from Ezekiel 1-9 eleven times, from Ezekiel
10-19 sixteen times, from Ezekiel 20-29 six times, from Ezekiel 30-39
three times, and from Ezekiel 40-48 three times. The large representation
of Ezekiel 18 deserves notice: this is the chapter in which God begs Israel
to repent and promises that the son will not suffer for his father’s sins, and
Aquinas quotes from this chapter eleven times. Ezekiel 18:23, twice cited
by Aquinas, defends the goodness of God: «Have I any pleasure in the
death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn
from his way and live»? No verse in Ezekiel is quoted more than Ezekiel
22:27, which appears three times in the secunda-secundae and which states
that Israel’s «princes in the midst of her are like wolves tearing the prey,
shedding blood, destroying lives to get dishonest gain».
Daniel’s fourteen chapters appear with a high relative frequency
for a prophetic book. Just as the secunda pars quotes around two-thirds
of the chapters found in Isaiah, so also for Daniel: nine of its fourteen
chapters are referenced. Three verses appear four times each: Daniel 1:17,
which speaks of the learning, literacy, and wisdom of Daniel and his three
friends; Daniel 4:24 (RSV 4:27), which has to do with showing mercy to
the oppressed; and Daniel 13:56, which contains Daniel’s condemnation
of the lust of the judge for the beautiful married woman Susannah. All but
four of the 34 citations of Daniel occur in the secunda-secundae, where
Aquinas is illustrating the theological and cardinal virtues.
Eleven of the fourteen chapters of Hosea receive a place in the secunda
pars, although this amounts to only 25 citations in all. These citations are
much more evenly spaced between the prima-secundae and the secunda-
secundae than is the case with respect to Daniel. Twelve are in the prima-
secundae, and thirteen in the secunda-secundae. The most any of the
verses are quoted is three times each, which is the case for two verses,
Hosea 9:10 and Hosea 13:9. Hosea 9:10 describes how God first found
Israel delightful, but then Israel worshipped Baal and became detestable.
Hosea 13:9, in the Vulgate, has the opposite meaning from what one finds
in modern translations such as the RSV. Aquinas quotes this text as stating,
«Destruction is thy own, O Israel; help is only in me». By contrast, the
RSV has, «I will destroy you, O Israel; who can help you?». As is the case
for some of Aquinas’s quotations of the Old Testament, he quotes Hosea
3:1 simply for the purpose of highlighting an insight provided by the Gloss
on this verse.
The remainder of the prophets –Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,
Nahum, Habbakuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi– contain a
total of 53 chapters and receive 44 citations in all. In this group, the largest
number of citations is to Malachi (fourteen citations for its four chapters),
followed by Amos and Zechariah with seven citations each (out of nine
chapters and fourteen chapters, respectively). Aquinas quotes Malachi
1:6 five times, once in the prima-secundae and four times in the secunda-
secundae. In this verse, God tells Israel, «If I am a master, where is my
fear?», thereby warning Israel that Israel has honored him neither with
filial fear nor even with servile fear. Nahum 1:9 is quoted three times, all in
the secunda-secundae –but Aquinas is using the Septuagint version, which
reads, «God will not judge the same twice», and which Aquinas takes
to rule out being punished in two ways for the same sin. Zechariah 1:3
appears twice, more than any other verse from Zechariah. It contains God’s
command –seemingly counter to the movement of grace–«Return to me,
says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you». Amos 3:6-7 appears three
times, once in the prima-secundae, where it forms an objection to God’s
goodness and non-causality of sin (since Amos 3:6 reads, «Does evil befall
a city, unless the Lord has done it?») and twice in the secunda-secundae,
where it has to do with prophetic knowledge (since Amos 3:7 reads, «Surely
the Lord God does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants
the prophets»). As noted above, Obadiah (one chapter), Zephaniah (three
chapters), and Haggai (two chapters) are not cited in the secunda pars; and
Habbakuk 1:13, which urges the all-good God to vindicate the righteous,
constitutes the only citation from Habbakuk (three chapters). Micah, with
seven chapters, has five citations in the secunda pars, three of which come
from Micah 7:6, which depicts the opposite of the honoring of parents. Joel
and Jonah receive three citations each, hardly surprising given that they
only possess three and four chapters respectively. Joel is cited twice in II-
II, question 147, since Joel 2: 12, 15 describes the virtuousness of fasting.
Jonah 3:6-7 is cited with regard to dressing in coarse clothing and fasting
for penitential purposes, since Jonah 3:6-7 depicts the sincere repentance
initiated by the king of Nineveh.
Returning now to the wisdom literature, let us begin with Job.
About 70% of its chapters are present in the secunda pars: 29 of 42, for
a total of 81 citations. One should keep in view that there is some textual
discrepancy, especially in the later chapters of Job, between Aquinas’s
Bible and modern versions such as the RSV. Interestingly, very few of the
verses quoted are quoted more than once. Only Job 33:15-16 is quoted
three times, and only Job 9:28, 12:11, 28:28, 34:18, 35:17, and 36:13 are
quoted twice. Aquinas employs Job 33:15-16 to show that God can infuse
knowledge in humans even without the participation of their intellect and
will: «In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls upon
men, while they slumber on their beds, then he opens the ears of men, and
terrifies them with warnings». Likewise, says Aquinas, God’s grace can
justify sinners without the participation of their free will.
Of the 150 psalms, Aquinas quotes 98, or almost two-thirds, in the
secunda pars. More frequently than with respect to Job, the same verse is
quoted twice or three times. Some verses appear four or five times. Among
those quoted five times are Psalm 18:8 and 75:12; and among those quoted four
times are Psalm 8:8, 35:10, 72:28, 118:165, and 144:9. Note that beginning
with Psalm 10, the modern numbering is different, since modern editions
divide Psalm 10 into two psalms, 10 and 11. The numbering comes back
together with Psalm 147, which in the Vulgate is divided into two psalms,
146 and 147. Thus Aquinas’s Psalm 118 is the modern Psalm 119, and so on.
There is also often divergence between Aquinas’s text and the modern text of
a psalm, not least because Aquinas used more than one Latin version of the
Psalms. Psalm 18:8 (RSV 19:8) states that «the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the
eyes». One can see why Aquinas, in his moral theology, draws so frequently
upon this verse –though it is important to note that contrary to what we might
expect, it appears only twice in the prima-secundae (home of the treatise on
law) by comparison to three times in the secunda-secundae. Psalm 75:12
(RSV 76:12) occurs all five times in the secunda-secundae. This verse states,
«Make your vows to the Lord your God, and perform them». Aquinas cites
this verse in his question on vows (as part of the virtue of religion) and in his
questions on religious life. Aquinas also likes to cite the Gloss on this verse,
which sets forth Augustine’s theology of vows.
An extraordinary 30 of the 31 chapters of Proverbs receive a place in
the secunda pars, for a total of 170 citations. This heavy use of Proverbs
should not surprise, of course, because Proverbs contains just the kind of
moral instruction that Aquinas needs. It might seem as though Proverbs
would be limited largely to supporting Aquinas’s conclusions about
particular virtues in the secunda-secundae, but this is not entirely the
case; 43 of the 170 citations occur in the prima-secundae. A small number
of verses are used more than once by Aquinas. Thus, Proverbs 2:14 and
10:12 occur five times; and Proverbs 14:22 and 27:4 occur four times.
Identification of the subject matter of these verses provides a glimpse
into why Aquinas considers Proverbs so valuable. Proverbs 2:14 warns
against those «who rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perverseness
of evil»; Proverbs 10:12 states, «Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all
offenses»; Proverbs 14:22 comments, «Do they not err that devise evil?
Those who devise good meet loyalty and faithfulness»; and Proverbs 27:4
laments, «Wrath is cruel, anger is overwhelming; but who can stand before
jealousy?». Love, mercy, loyalty, faithfulness, and their opposites such
as hatred, strife, cruelty, anger, and jealousy, are at the very heart of the
subject matter of Christian moral theology.
Ecclesiastes, for many, is a disconcerting book, but Aquinas draws it

fully into his moral theology. In the secunda pars, all twelve chapters of
Ecclesiastes appear, for a total of 47 citations. The most frequently cited
verse, Ecclesiastes 5:3, occurs four times, all of them in the secunda-
secundae; indeed, only fifteen of the 47 citations occur in the prima-
secundae. When Aquinas cites Ecclesiastes 5:3, he has in view verse 5:4
in modern translations. Ecclesiastes 5:4 states, «When you vow a vow to
God, do not delay paying it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you
vow». Aquinas cites this in his question on vows and in his questions on
the religious life. Ecclesiastes 2:3, 7:14, and 10:19 all appear three times.
Aquinas’s version of Ecclesiastes 2:3 differs rather significantly from the
RSV’s. Aquinas’s version reads, «I thought in my heart to withdraw my
flesh from wine, that I might turn my mind in wisdom»; whereas the RSV’s
version reads, «I searched my mind how to cheer my body with wine –my
mind still guiding me with wisdom». The RSV’s version indicates use of
alcohol but without drunkenness, while Aquinas’s version assists him in
identifying the problems with gluttony, since gluttony dulls understanding.
Ecclesiastes 10:19 asserts that «money answers everything». Aquinas uses
this verse both to formulate an objection, and to confirm that money, in a
certain sense, is the root of all evil, as stated in 1 Timothy 6:10.
The Song of Solomon is much less well represented than is Ecclesiastes
in the secunda pars. Of its eight chapters, only three are cited, for a total of
eight citations. Aquinas twice references Song of Solomon 2:4 and 8:6. For
2:4, Aquinas depends upon a translation whose meaning is lost in modern
translations such as the RSV. Aquinas’s version of Song of Solomon 2:4
states, «He brought me into the cellar of wine, he set in order charity in
me». This allows Aquinas to comment on the proper «order» of charity.
In the RSV, one finds the following translation: «He brought me to the
banqueting house, and his banner over me was love». The verse is still
suffused with the power of love, but it does not suggest an «order» to
love. The text of Song of Solomon 8:6, by contrast, is essentially the same
in Aquinas’s version and the RSV. Love is presented as a fiery passion:
«Its flashes are flashes of fire, a most vehement flame». Aquinas employs
this verse in an objection that supports the claim that the passion of love
wounds the lover.
For a relatively brief Old Testament book –nineteen chapters– Wisdom
of Solomon appears at a very high rate of frequency in the secunda pars.
Eighteen of the nineteen chapters are cited, and the citations number 105
in all. As in the case of Proverbs, Aquinas finds the moral pedagogy in

the Wisdom of Solomon to be of great use in his ethics. This fits with
Pinckaers’s recognition that the wisdom literature should be of particular
significance for Thomistic moral theology. Wisdom of Solomon 8:7 and
8:16 are the two most quoted Old Testament verses in the secunda pars,
at nine times each. Various other verses from Wisdom of Solomon appear
four times, including 1:13, 7:27, 7:28, 9:14, and 11:21. What makes
Wisdom of Solomon 8:7 and 8:16 so valuable for Aquinas’s purposes, not
only in the secunda-secundae but also in the prima-secundae? In Wisdom
of Solomon 8:7, personified wisdom is presented as teaching the virtues
of «self-control and prudence, justice and courage». This depiction of
the cardinal virtues serves Aquinas’s weaving together of Scripture and
Aristotelian (Greco-Roman) philosophy. Wisdom 8:16 states of wisdom
that «companionship with her has no bitterness, and life with her has no
pain, but gladness and joy». Aquinas employs this verse to show, among
other things, that perfect happiness cannot be lost, since perfect happiness
consists in the contemplation of infinite wisdom. He also cites this verse
in questions 179 and 180 of the secunda-secundae, which have to do with
the contemplative life in distinction from the active life. As with all the
Old Testament texts, especially the wisdom literature, one has to check the
verses quoted by Aquinas, by comparing them with modern translations.
Thus, in the RSV the verse that Aquinas cites as Wisdom 11:21 is part of
Wisdom 11:20: «thou hast arranged all things by measure and number and
weight». This verse is applied by Aquinas to God’s self-diffusiveness in
creating the vast but ordered diversity of finite goods.
The last book among the wisdom literature, Ecclesiasticus, appears
182 times in the secunda pars; only the Book of Psalms (319) and
Deuteronomy (223) are cited more frequently. Even so, Proverbs has a
higher rate of citation, since Proverbs’s 31 chapters generate 170 citations,
while Ecclesiasticus has 51 chapters. Of these 51 chapters, 44 are present
in the secunda pars. Almost all of the cited verses of Ecclesiasticus appear
only once or at most twice or three times, but a very few recur frequently:
10:14 is cited seven times (including once when 10:14-15 is cited), 10:15
is cited six times, 13:19 appears six times, and 15:14 appears five times.
What sets these verses apart? Again, one must keep in mind that Aquinas’s
verse numbering differs from modern versions. In the RSV, the verse that
Aquinas cites as Ecclesiasticus 10:14 appears as 10:12: «The beginning
of man’s pride is to depart from the Lord». Ecclesiasticus 10:15 (10:13 in
the RSV) offers a variation of the same point: «For the beginning of pride
is sin». Aquinas’s version translates this verse (10:15; RSV 10:13) in a
manner that makes the sentence more meaningful: «pride is the beginning
of all sin». Ecclesiasticus 13:19 is found in the RSV at 13:15, and reads,
«Every creature loves its like». This fits with Aristotle’s viewpoint, and
helps Aquinas to defend the claim that likeness is a cause of love: friends
are bonded by shared interest in the same thing; and the virtuous person
loves another virtuous person, due to the attraction of virtue. Ecclesiasticus
15:14 is the same verse as it is in modern versions, but the Vulgate’s
translation of this verse differs in meaning somewhat from the RSV. In
the RSV, Ecclesiasticus 15:14 states, «It was he who created man in the
beginning, and he left him in the power of his own inclination»; while
Aquinas’s version of 15:14 says, «God made man from the beginning and
left him in the hand of his own counsel [in manu consilii sui]». At least
in Aquinas’s anthropology, «counsel» has a different resonance than does
«inclination». But the basic point is the same: humans have the freedom
to do what we will. This point assists Aquinas in arguing that humans’
ultimate end is not preservation of bodily life. However, he also employs
this verse with respect to the specific meaning of «counsel» as an act
of reason (within Aristotelian epistemology), a specific meaning that is
not included in the RSV’s «inclination». Some of Aquinas’s citations of
Ecclesiasticus 15:14 are thus more relevant today than are others. Indeed,
this is to be expected with respect to the whole Old Testament, given the
gap between the medieval versions of the Old Testament and our own
modern editions.
There remain two final books of the Old Testament, the historical books
1 and 2 Maccabees. From 1 Maccabees’s sixteen chapters, Aquinas cites
four in the secunda pars, with a total of eight citations. From 2 Maccabees’s
fifteen chapters, Aquinas cites seven, with a total of ten citations. He quotes
none of their verses more than once. All but three of the citations of 1
and 2 Maccabees are found in the secunda-secundae. With respect to 1
Maccabees, four of the eight citations appear in II-II, question 188, on the
kinds of religious life. Aquinas quotes various verses from 1 Maccabees
3 and 13 that emphasize that the Maccabees fought justly for the defense
of Israel and its law and temple. These verses serve to support Aquinas’s
argument that it is possible to have a religious order dedicated to soldiering,
so long as the purpose of the religious order is solely «the defense of divine
worship and public safety, or also of the poor and oppressed»45. Many of
the citations of 1 and 2 Maccabees, not surprisingly, appear in relation
to good and evil uses of violence. In objection five of II-II, question 64,
article five, for instance, Aquinas quotes 2 Maccabees 14:42, where an
elder of Jerusalem, Razis, is commended for choosing to kill himself rather
than to fall «into the hands of sinners and suffer outrages unworthy of his
noble birth». Since Aquinas rejects suicide as immoral, he has to address
this verse from 2 Maccabees. He explains it by saying that Razis certainly
thought himself to be acting from courage, but was mistaken; true courage
would have instilled a willingness to endure the outrages committed by
wicked persons. Aquinas also quotes some passages from 2 Maccabees
that pertain to the acceptance of death rather than betrayal of the God of
Israel. For example, he cites 2 Maccabees 6:30, where in the midst of
being tortured Eleazar proclaims that «in my soul I am glad to suffer these
things» out of filial fear of God. Aquinas uses this verse to support the view
that courageous people are not only sorrowful, but also joyful, when they
perform acts of courage that require great suffering.46
Conclusion
Let me offer three summative comments regarding Aquinas’s use of the

Old Testament in his secunda pars, and thus in his moral theology. First, it
would be a mistake to deny that Aquinas privileges the Old Testament’s legal
injunctions, including, of course, its injunctions that pertain to the virtue of
religion. In my view, he certainly should privilege these injunctions, given the
Mosaic law’s status as a wise and good law (one that Christ Jesus perfectly
fulfills), and given the ongoing central importance of the Decalogue in the
moral life of Christians as well as Jews. The chapters that Aquinas cites the
most in the secunda pars are chapters heavy in legal material and/or in praise of
the Mosaic law: Exodus 20 (43 times), Leviticus 19 (32 times), Deuteronomy
6 (28 times), Psalm 118 (28 times [RSV Psalm 119]), Exodus 22 (21 times),
Deuteronomy 5 (19 times), Exodus 21 (17 times), and Deuteronomy 25 (15
times). Thus, a Thomistic moral theology ad mentem Thomae will need to
include texts from these parts of the Old Testament, and to do them justice.
45
Thomas Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 188, a. 3.
46
See Thomas Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 123, a. 8.
Second, Pinckaers is right to draw attention to the place of the

wisdom literature in Thomistic moral theology, and indeed he might
emphasize this much more than he does. From the wisdom literature (Job,
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom of Solomon,
Ecclesiasticus), the secunda pars contains 234 of the 313 chapters (75%).
Along with the Torah, the wisdom literature is the most cited portion of
the Old Testament in the secunda pars. The wisdom literature often serves
Aquinas as a bridge between Old Testament law and Greco-Roman virtue
ethics. Three chapters from the Wisdom of Solomon are among the most
cited chapters in the secunda pars: Wisdom 8 (25 times), Wisdom 7 (16
times), and Wisdom 1 (10 times). As noted above, the two most quoted
verses in the secunda pars come from Wisdom 8; and Psalm 18:8 (RSV
19:8), Psalm 75:12 (RSV 76:12), Proverbs 2:14, and Proverbs 10:12 are all
in the top ten among the most cited verses in the secunda pars.
Third, Aquinas’s use of the Old Testament in his moral theology
must not be reduced either to the legal material, important though it is
(especially in the treatise on the Old Law), or to the wisdom literature.
As we have seen, Aquinas quotes 43 of the 46 Old Testament books, and
he draws heavily upon the prophets, especially Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Daniel, and Hosea. He includes citations of all the historical books, even
if he basically ignores Ruth, 1 Chronicles, and Nehemiah. If one compares
his moral theology to contemporary Catholic studies in constructive moral
theology, one will be struck by the extraordinary range of his references:
almost everything gets some pertinent attention, including Tobit, Judith,
and Esther. No contemporary work of Catholic moral theology, so far as I
know, comes anywhere close to matching Aquinas’s attention to the Old
Testament. This will be important for all who, with Optatam Totius, seek
to ensure that moral theology’s «scientific presentation should draw more
fully on the teaching of holy Scripture»47.
No one has done more than Servais Pinckaers to ensure that Catholic
moral theology today returns to its biblical sources. Since textbooks of
Catholic moral theology cannot cover everything, my purpose –like
Cuddeback’s– is to add something to Pinckaers’s call to renewal, rather
than to criticize it. With Cessario (and Pinckaers), we can conclude that
Aquinas powerfully strives to «illuminate moral theology from a biblical
47
perspective»48. One crucial way in which he does this is through his

thoroughgoing appropriation of the Old Testament in the secunda pars of
the Summa theologiae –an appropriation contextualized, of course, by his
New Testament sources and commitments. Moral theologians today should
imitate Aquinas’s example and retrieve both Old and New Testaments in
expositing Christian ethics.49
48
49
For recent Evangelical Protestant efforts in this direction, see C. J. H. WRIGHT,
Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, IVP Academic, Downers Grove IL 2004;
G. J. WENHAM, Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically, Baker Academic,
Grand Rapids MI 2012.
ENRIQUE MARTÍNEZ*
THE ELEVATION OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE ACCORDING TO

THE BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES
ON ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
Introduction
One could rightfully say that the core of Saint Thomas Aquinas
philosophical and theological thought is the harmony between created
nature and grace –communicative of divine life–. As my master –Francisco
Canals, chief representative of the «Thomistic School of Barcelona»– used
to say:
This topic of the metaphysics of the personal being –subsistent spirit

who lives the supreme degree of life (defined as a perfect manner of
participation in the esse)–, is where one can find the path followed
by Saint Thomas in his search of the harmony between created
nature and grace –communicative of the divine life–, which is, in
my opinion, the main message of his theological and philosophical
thought1.
In this communication, the created nature is by no means destroyed,

but assumed and perfected by divine grace, as correctly and synthetically
states the Doctor Communis at the beginning of the Summa Theologiae:
«Since grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should
minister to faith as the natural inclination of the will ministers to charity»2.
It is not exaggerated to say that this wise principle orders Aquinas’ whole
work, and explicitly appears in several places from different perspectives.
However, because the present article is particularly based upon his biblical
*
Universitat Abat Oliba CEU, Barcelona (Spain), emartinez@uao.es.
1
F. CANALS, «Introducció», in TOMÀS D’AQUINO, Antologia Metafísica, Translated
by Alessandro Mini. Edicions 62, Barcelona 1991, pp. 15-30. On the «Thomistic
School of Barcelona» see: E. FORMENT, Historia de la Filosofía Tomista en la España
contemporánea, Ediciones Encuentro, Madrid 1998, pp. 48-54; «La Escuela Tomista
de Barcelona», Verbo, 267-268 (1988) 1119-1134.
2
ST I, q. 1, a. 8, ad 2.
376 ENRIQUE MARTÍNEZ
commentaries, we may quote, for instance, the one on the Letter to the
Colossians, in which Aquinas shows in the following way the harmony
between natural inclinations and the charity infused in the soul: «The law
of charity does not destroy the law of nature, but perfects it»3.
In light of this core principle, the purpose of this paper is to describe the
way in which this perfection or elevation of human nature, beyond its own
capability, occurs. We will do so by specifically considering knowledge,
because the fullness of the above mentioned nature is precisely reached
in an act of knowledge, namely, the contemplation of God. Thus, we will
study Saint Thomas Aquinas’ biblical commentaries, where we will find
explanations of a remarkable theological value, mainly when he comments
the Gospel of Saint John and the Letter to The Hebrews on the Incarnation
of the Word, the filial adoption and the hope in the beatific vision. We will
also find outlined the metaphysical principles on which such theological
consideration is based, although not as developed as they can be found in
other works of Aquinas, mainly in the Quaestiones Disputatae. As said
at the beginning of this work, the path followed by Saint Thomas in the
search for harmony between grace and nature is the metaphysics of the
personal being.
This article is composed of three parts. First it deals with the elevation
of human nature in general, starting by analyzing the most perfect way in
which it has occurred, namely, in the hypostatic union. We will then study
the prior requirement of such elevation, which is human nature and, when
explaining knowledge, we will focus on three of its traits: truth, interior
word and intellectual light. Thirdly, using these three traits as a guideline,
we will explain how God, when revealing the divine truths and by means
of the light of grace, elevates the word in which man manifests what he
knows.
1. The elevation of human nature
In order to study the perfection of human nature in general one has

to analyze those among Aquinas’ writings that better explain it, namely,
the ones about the mystery of the Incarnation. In effect, when the human
nature was united to the divine nature in the person of the Word, with no
3
In Col., ch. 3, lect. 4.
THE ELEVATION OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE ACCORDING 377
separation or division, it did not cease to be what it was, nor it became

mixed with the divine nature, as defined by the Council of Chalcedon:
One and the same Christ only begotten Son, our Lord, acknowledged
in two natures, without mingling, without change, indivisibly,
undividedly, the distinction of the natures nowhere removed
on account of the union but rather the peculiarity of each nature
being kept, and uniting in one person and substance, not divided
or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son only
begotten God Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as from the beginning
the prophets taught about Him and the Lord Jesus Himself taught
us, and the creed of our fathers has handed down to us4.
The human nature was nevertheless dignified by its union to the

divine Word in the most excellent way: «This taking hold of human nature
unto the unity of the person of the Son of God exalts our nature beyond
measure»5. One of the causes of this dignification or elevation of Christ’s
humanity is, on one hand, the fullness of the habitual grace infused in his
human soul, by reason of which it must be said that Christ, in his humanity,
is more than the angels:
The answer is that Christ had two things according to the human
nature in this life, namely, the infirmity of the flesh; and in this way
He was lower than the angels: but He also had fullness of grace,
so that even in His human nature he was greater than the angels in
grace and glory6.
However the main cause of elevation is the hypostatic union itself,

namely, the union of the human nature with the divine nature in the person
of the Word:
But this is not how the Apostle understood it, for he does not mean
that He was made better in regard to grace, but by reason of the
union of human nature with the divine; so He is said to be made,
4
H. DENZINGER – A. SCHONMETZER, Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et
Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, Herder, Roma 1976, n. 302; cf. ST III, q. 2,
a. 1 s.c.
5
In Heb., ch. 2, lect. 4, no. 148.
6
In Heb., ch. 1, lect. 3, no. 46.
inasmuch as by effecting that union He became better than the

angels, and should be called and really be the son of God7.
The manner of this elevation of the human nature by the Incarnation

of the Word is signified by Saint Thomas with these two expressions: it
was «clarified» by the glory of the divinity and «induced» to it by the
participation in the glory:
The human nature of Christ is clarified by the glory of his divinity,

and the human nature of Christ is induced to the glory of his divi-
nity, not by having its nature changed, but by a participation in the
glory in so far as this human being, Christ, is adored as God8.
The first expression refers to a descending way: the glory or

splendor of the divine majesty, in the person of the Word, lowers itself
to the human nature in order to «clarify» this nature or to make it
participate in God’s own perfection. The second expression refers to an
ascending way: the human nature, clarified by the glory of the divinity
is subsequently elevated or «induced» to this same glory. And because
this elevation of the human nature takes place in the person of the Word,
Saint Thomas adds –as we had the opportunity to read– that this is the
reason why Christ is worthy of being worshipped as God in his humanity
as well: «[…] in so far as this human being, Christ, is adored as God».
This statement is totally coherent with the Catholic Tradition, expressed
in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, by Saint Cyril’s eight anathemas
against Nestorius:
If any one shall dare to say that the man that was assumed ought
to be co-worshipped with God the Word and co-glorified and co-
named God as one in another (for the co-, ever appended, compels
us thus to deem) and does not rather honour Emmanuel with one
worship, and send up to Him One Doxology, inasmuch as the Word
has been made Flesh, be he anathema9.
7
8
In Ioh., ch. 13, lect. 6, no. 1829.
9
DENZINGER – SCHONMETZER, Enchiridion Symbolorum, n. 259. Cf. ScG IV, ch.
38, ST III, q. 25, a.1 c.
It is clear that no higher elevation of the human nature could be

realized, as Aquinas recognizes by quoting some enraged words of Saint
John Chrysostom:
Hence, Chrysostom says: ‘It is a great and marvelous thing for our
flesh to be seated above and to be adorned by angels and archangels.
As I turn this over in my mind, I experience excessive joy, imagining
great things about the human race’10.
Nevertheless, from these words one can deduce that not only Christ’s
particular human nature was elevated, but human nature as a whole was
elevated with it. The reason being the purpose of the Incarnation, which is
nothing but the Redemption of man because, as it is said by the Fathers:
«What has not been taken up by Christ is not made whole»11. Hence the
Council of Chalcedon, by quoting a passage of the Letter to the Hebrews,
goes as far as to say that, by the Incarnation, the Word became consubstantial
to man inasmuch as his humanity, except for sin:
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all teach that with one
accord we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the
same perfect in human nature, truly God and the same with a rational
soul and a body truly man, consubstantial with the Father according
to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to human nature,
‘like unto us in all things except sin’ (Heb 4:15)12.
Let’s see how Saint Thomas comments these passages of the Letter to
the Hebrews in which there is a reference to the assumption of the human
nature by the Word for the redemption of men. One of these passages is
this:
Surely he did not help angels but rather the descendants of Abraham;
therefore, he had to become like his brothers in every way, that he
might be a merciful and faithful high priest before God to expiate
the sins of the people. Because he himself was tested through what
he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested» (Heb
2:16-18).
10
In Heb., ch. 2, lect. 4, no. 148.
11
SACROSANCTUM OECUMENICUM CONCILIUM VATICANUM II, Decretum de Activitate
Missionali Ecclesiae Ad gentes divinitus, AAS 58 (1966) n.3.
12
DENZINGER – SCHONMETZER, Enchiridion Symbolorum, n. 301.
In his commentary, first Aquinas explains why the Word did not assume
the angelical nature although worthier than the human nature: the reason
being that the fallen angel cannot be redeemed. But because man can be
redeemed before death, the Word became man, similar to the descendants of
Abraham in everything but sin. This way, once assumed human nature, He
could suffer the death penalty of a sinner in order to be merciful by His own
experience and faithful pontiff by expiating it on the cross:
Then when he says, ‘For in that wherein he himself has suffered

and been tempted, he shows its utility’. As if to say: I do not speak
of Christ as God, but as man. Therefore, in that, i.e., in that nature
which He assumed, in order to experience in Himself that our cause
is His own. Hence he says, ‘he suffered and was tempted’; therefore,
he is able to succor them also that are tempted. Or, another way:
He became merciful and faithful, because in suffering and being
tempted He has a kinship to mercy13.
That which was assumed could then be redeemed. Actually, shortly

after, in the same letter it is stated that because the Word assumed our
nature and suffered for us, the access door to the redeeming grace has been
opened to us:
Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the
heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For
we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we
are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the
throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in
time of need» (Heb 4:15-16).
In his commentary, Saint Thomas first recalls that Christ became

similar to us and shared our weaknesses –«He has experienced our
wretchedness»–; later on he shows that, because of this lowering, we can
reach Him by means of trust –«He urges us to have confidence in him»–;
and ultimately, he teaches that by reaching Him we achieve the grace that
frees us from sin –«But by the grace of Christ we are freed of all misery,
because we are freed from sin»14.
13
In Heb., ch. 2, lect. 4, no. 154.
14
In Heb., ch. 4, lect. 3, no. 238.
In another place, while explaining the words «and you are in me, and
I in you» of the 14th chapter of the Gospel of Saint John, Aquinas quotes
again the same passage of the Letter to the Hebrews in order to show the
way in which the assumed human nature is healed. Following the path of
Saint Hilary, Saint Thomas states that man will be in Christ because in
assuming the human nature He assumed all men; and Christ will be in man
by the communion with His Body:
Hilary gives another exposition. ‘And you in me’, that is, you will
be in me through your nature, which I have taken on: for in taking
on our nature he took us all on: ‘He did not take hold of the angels,
but he did take hold of the seed of Abraham’ (Heb 2:16). ‘And I in
you’, that is, I will be in you when you receive my sacrament, for
when one receives the body of Christ, Christ is in him: ‘He who eats
my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him’ (6:56)15.
This way, man united to Christ by grace, besides being freed from sin
is also elevated to the glory of the divine nature. In order to explain that
this elevation or glorification is not only of the particular human nature of
the Word, but of all men that unite themselves to Christ, Aquinas uses this
other passage of the Letter to the Hebrews: «For it was fitting that he, for
whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to
glory, should make the leader to their salvation perfect through suffering»
(Heb 2:10). He teaches that grace is ordered to glory, thus the grant of
grace to men is ordered to their glorification, to make them participants of
the divine nature. And this is the reason why it is said that Christians are
made adoptive sons of Christ, who is the Only Begotten Son of the Father:
But grace is ordered to glory: ‘The grace of God, life everlasting’

(Rom 6:23). But God from all eternity predestined those whom He
would lead to glory, i.e., all those who are adopted sons of God,
because ‘if sons, heirs also’ (Rom 8:17). Therefore, he says, ‘who
had brought many sons to glory’. As if to say: He has one perfect
Son naturally: ‘Therefore, having yet one son most dear to him’ (Mk
12:6); but the others are adopted and, therefore, must be brought
into glory16.
15
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 5, no. 1930.
16
In Heb., ch. 2, lect. 3, no. 127.
This is how human nature is elevated and glorified: first in the person
of the Word, who in assuming it, without destroying it, elevated it to the
most excellent degree; then, in all men who unite themselves to Christ
by grace, having been made adoptive sons and participants of the divine
nature.
2. The natural order of human reason
The elevation of human nature just considered takes place, mainly, in

that which is most proper to that nature, namely, in reason. Hence, when
Saint Thomas addresses the question of why the divine Word assumes the
human and not the angelical nature, in his answer he shows that both were
assumable since both intellectual, therefore capable of knowing and loving
God; and if He assumed the human and not the angelical nature, it was
because of Redemption, which is no longer possible for the fallen angel:
I answer that a nature is assumable by the Son of God depending

on its fitness to be united to the person of the Word. But this fitness
depends on the dignity, so that the nature is assumable which is
likely to attain to the Word Himself by knowing and loving Him;
and also depending on the need, in the sense that it is subject to a
reparable sin, although the first is found in the angelical nature, the
second is not found. But the first and second are found in human
nature, which is capable of knowing and loving God, and which has
a reparable sin; consequently, it is assumable17.
It is precisely because of this intellectual nature that we can say that

man was created in the image of God. In order to explain the elevation of
human nature by grace, which transforms the ancient man into the new
man, Aquinas comments this passage of the Letter to the Colossians: «Stop
lying to one another, since you have taken off the old self with its practices
and have put on the new self, which is being renewed, for knowledge, in
the image of its creator» (Col 3:9-10). And he teaches that the renewal
takes place by knowing God through faith, adding a quote of the Second
Letter to the Corintians which refers to the renewal according to the image
as a «clarification», as we read before:
17
In Heb., ch. 2, lect. 4, no. 149.
He shows that the inner self, having become old by its ignorance
of God, is made new by faith and the knowledge of God: ‘We are
being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another’
(II Cor 3:18)18.
He then asks where this renewal occurs, and answers that it occurs
where God’s image is found, namely in the mind, the rational soul: «And
where is this renewal taking place? It is taking place where the image of
God is, and this is not in the sense faculties, but in the mind»19.
Therefore the human nature as a whole, but mainly the rational soul
with its intelligence and will, are required for the supernatural elevation
realized by grace. Let’s recall the principle that enlightens this entire
reflection: «Since grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural
reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to
charity»20. We must now consider the treatment that human nature receives
in Aquinas’ biblical commentaries, but narrowing the field of our research
to the order of knowledge; and we will study in particular three of its main
elements: the truth that is known, the interior word in which it is known
and the intellectual light by which it is known.
a) The truth
Subsequently, the first thing we will consider is the object of human

knowledge, which is nothing but the truth. Therefore, commenting the
passage of the Gospel of Saint John in which Christ says about himself: «I
am the way and the truth and the life» (Ioh 14:6), Saint Thomas explains
that truth and life are the two purposes of the way; and applies this to
human life by saying that man is inclined by nature to two purposes: as
all other beings he is ordered to the conservation of his own being, and as
something specific to him he is ordered to knowing the truth:
For the destination of this way is the end of human desire. Now
human beings especially desire two things: first, a knowledge of the
truth, and this is characteristic of them; secondly, that they continue
to exist, and this is common to all things21.
18
In Col., ch. 3, lect. 2, no. 155.
19
In Col., ch. 3, lect. 2, no. 155.
20
ST I, q. 1, a. 8, ad 2.
21
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 2, no. 1868.
Next he summarizes his teachings on the essence of the truth, which he

abundantly develops elsewhere. And he does so by giving the definition taken
from Isaac Israeli: «Now truth is the conformity of a thing to the intellect
(adaequatio rei ad intellectum)»22. This definition, as he states in the disputed
question De Veritate, lends itself to two different interpretations: first, as
the transcendental property by which we say that the being is intelligible
inasmuch as it has esse, which is the one that we know as the «truth of the
thing»; secondly, as the manifestation of the known thing by the intelligence,
which we call «truth of the intelligence»23. In the commentary of the Gospel
of Saint John we can recognize both meanings, because after mentioning
the truth as a correspondence «of the thing», he says that it is realized in the
conception of the intelligence, in which this conception manifests what the
thing is: «Now truth is the conformity of a thing to the intelligence, and this
results when the intelligence conceives the thing as it is. Therefore, the truth
of our intelligence belongs to our word, which is its conception»24.
Aquinas then distinguishes between the truth of human intelligence
and of divine intelligence. The difference being that the truth of human
intelligence is rooted in things themselves, which are its measure, while
divine truth is, on the contrary, the measure of all things. Thus it can be
said that the truth of the thing is rooted in the truth of intelligence, but the
divine intelligence. Hence the conception of this intelligence, namely, the
divine Word, is the truth itself:
Yet although our word is true, it is not truth itself, since it is not true
of itself but because it is conformed to the thing conceived. And so
the truth of the divine intelligence belongs to the Word of God. But
because the Word of God is true of itself (since it is not measured by
things, but things are true in the measure that they are similar to the
Word) the Word of God is truth itself25.
b) The interior word
We just saw that the truth of intelligence is the manifestation of the

understood thing, and that this takes place in the word, in the verbum. This
22
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 2, no. 1868.
23
Cf. De Ver. q. 1, a.1.
24
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 2, no. 1869.
25
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 2, no. 1869.
is, therefore, the purpose of knowledge, and it is the second element of

human knowledge which we are about to consider.
In man one has to distinguish between the interior and the exterior
word. While commenting the beginning of the Letter to the Hebrews,
where it is said that «He spoke to us through a Son» (Heb 1:2), Saint
Thomas distinguishes in human speaking among the interior conception of
the word, the exterior expression of that which was interiorly conceived,
and the signification of the word, as a manifestation of the conceived thing:
To understand this it should be noted that three things are required

for our speech: first, the conception of a thought whereby we
preconceive in our mind that which is to be spoken by the mouth;
secondly, the expression of the conceived thought to enable us to
indicate what has been conceived; thirdly, the manifestation of the
thing expressed, so that it becomes evident26.
The exterior word is only a sign of the interior word: «Our vocal
sound is the effect of the word conceived in our mind»27. Hence without
the interior word, properly speaking, there would be no exterior word at
all, it would be a mere meaningless sound: «Our interior word vanishes,
the sensible vocal sound also ceases»28. Nevertheless it must be added that
man cannot communicate with another man if it is not by means of the
exterior word: «And just like one of us who wants to be known by others
by revealing to them the words in his heart»29.
This distinction also appears in Saint Thomas’ commentary to the
opening words of the Gospel of Saint John: «In the beginning was the Word»
(Ioh 1:1), where we find a synthesis of his thought regarding the nature of
the verbum in human knowledge, before he elevates to the Verbum Dei. Let’s
consider this explanation. He begins by insisting on the priority of the interior
word -which is something intrinsic to the soul- over the exterior word, the
latter being a manifestation of the interior word, which is its cause:
That what is within our soul, and which is signified by our exterior
word, be called a ‘word’… It is obvious that what is signified by
26
In Heb., ch.1, lect.1, no. 15.
27
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 5, no. 135.
28
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 5, no. 135.
29
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 2, no. 1874.
the vocal sound, as existing interiorly in the soul, exists prior to the
vocal expression inasmuch as it is its actual cause30.
In order to advance in the understanding of the interior word Aquinas

focuses on the rational soul, to which the word belongs, and points out three
different things as far as knowledge is concerned: the knowing potency,
which is the intelligence; the form of the known thing impressed in the
intelligence, which is the species; and the act by which the intelligence
knows the thing, which is the understanding:
Now there are three things in our intelligence: the intellectual power
itself, the species of the thing understood (and this species is its form,
being to the intellect what the species of a color is to the eye), and
thirdly the very activity of the intelligence, which is to understand31.
By using these three elements, he elaborates a definition of interior

word, which then is: that which the intelligence forms by understanding:
«Therefore, that is properly called an interior word which the one
understanding forms when understanding»32.
Starting from this definition Saint Thomas extracts some consequences
in reference to the nature of knowledge as such. The first is that the interior
word arises from the intelligence in act of understanding, and not from the
intelligence in potency. It is act of the act, communicative of the perfection
of understanding: «A word is always something that proceeds from an
intelligence existing in act»33.
The second consequence is that this interior word formed by the
intelligence is in similarity to the known thing: «A word is always a notion
and likeness of the thing understood»34.
From this, one can infer, thirdly, that the thing is understood in the
interior word, inasmuch as it is in similarity to the thing, hence the verbum
mentis not only is the goal, but the principle of knowledge:
Hence, what is thus expressed, i.e., formed in the soul, is called an

interior word. Consequently it is compared to the intelligence, not
30
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 1, no. 25.
31
32
33
34
as that by which the intelligence understands, but as that in which it

understands, because it is in what is thus expressed and formed that
it sees the nature of the thing understood. Thus we have the meaning
of the name ‘word’35.
Fourthly, as a consequence of the latter, it must be said that without

the interior word there is no knowledge or, similarly, that all knowledge
requires the formation of an interior word:
It is clear then that it is necessary to have a word in any intellectual

nature, for it is of the very nature of understanding that the intellect
in understanding should form something. Now what is formed is
called a word, and so it follows that in every being which understands
there must be a word36.
This last statement is extremely important, since it implies considering

that knowledge insofar as it is knowledge is essentially manifestative of the
known thing37. Thus the word is recognized by Aquinas in all intelligences:
human, angelical and divine. Now, this does not happen in a univoque
way, mainly because human and angelical words have been made, they are
creatures, unlike the divine Word, which is the one to which Saint John refers:
So when the Evangelist says, ‘In the beginning was the Word’, we
cannot understand this as a human or angelical word, because both
these words have been made since man and angel have a cause and
principle of their existence and operation, and the word of a man
or an angel cannot exist before they do. The word the Evangelist
had in mind he shows by saying that this word was not made, since
all things were made by it. Therefore, the word about which John
speaks here is the Word of God38.
Nevertheless in this section we will not consider that which belongs

to the supernatural order, revealed by God, namely the affirmation that the
35
36
37
This is the fundamental thesis defended by Francisco Canals in his teachings on
the metaphysics of knowledge of Saint Thomas, mainly in his work Sobre la esencia
del conocimiento.
38
divine Word has not been created. Instead we will consider the formation
of the word in human intelligence. Saint Thomas identifies three traits that
manifest the imperfect way in which this formation happens in man. The
first is that human word is not always in act: before being formed it is in
potency:
The first difference, according to Augustine, is that our word is

formable before being formed […] . So our word is first in potency
before it is in act39.
The second trait is that human intelligence, in its imperfection, needs

to form many words in order to know what things are:
Our word is imperfect. For since we cannot express all our

conceptions in one word, we must form many imperfect words
through which we separately express all that is in our knowledge40.
The third trait of the human word is that it distinguishes itself from
the soul as an accident from the substance, because the human soul is not
its activity:
Our word is not of the same nature as we […] And therefore it is

something that subsists in the divine nature. For the understood
notion which the intelligence is seen to form about something
has only an intelligible existence in our soul. Now in our soul, to
understand is not the same as the nature of the soul, because our soul
is not its own operation. Consequently, the word which our intellect
forms is not of the essence of our soul, but is an accident of it41.
Nevertheless, the understanding and the formation of the word by

the human intelligence must not be judged only from this accidentality.
Human knowledge participates in knowledge as such, which is essentially
manifestative of the known thing by means of the word. Thus, knowledge
is judged in the light of the esse, participated to a certain extent by the
beings, in this case, by man. Hence it must be said that knowledge is a
certain living and a certain esse:
39
40
41
Life also belongs properly to him: for everything which has some
activity from itself is said to be living, while non-living things do
not have motion from themselves. Among the activities of life the
chief are the intellectual activities. Thus, the intelligence itself is
said to be living, and its activities are a certain kind of life42.
c) The intellectual light
We have already considered the object of human knowledge: truth,

and its goal: the mental word. Let’s ultimately deal with the principle by
which man knows: the light of his intelligence: «The intellectual light
together with the likeness of the thing understood is a sufficient principle
of understanding»43. In developing such task we will be aided by –again-
Saint Thomas’ commentary on the first chapter of the Gospel of Saint John,
where he says that «this Life was the Light of the human race» (Ioh 1:4).
There Aquinas explains that the light belongs to the order of
knowledge. Although light and life are put in relation, nevertheless not all
living beings have the light which is the principle of knowledge. This way
he distinguishes several degrees of life: the one of plants, living beings that
do not have light nor knowledge; the one of animals, living beings that
have sensible light, and therefore only know particular material things;
and the one of rational creatures, living beings that have the intellectual
light, through which they arrive to the reason from where they judge the
correspondence of their intelligence to what things are:
To clarify the statement, ‘And that life was the light of men’, we
should remark that there are many degrees of life. For some things
live, but do so without light, because they have no knowledge; for
example, plants. Hence their life is not light. Other things both live
and know, but their knowledge, since it is on the sense level, is
concerned only with individual and material things, as is the case
with the brutes. So they have both life and a certain light. But they
do not have the light of men, who live, and know, not only truths,
but also the very nature of truth itself. Such are rational creatures, to
whom not only this or that are made manifest, but truth itself, which
can be manifested and is manifestative to all44.
42
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 2, no. 1869.
43
ST I, q. 105, a. 3, ad 2.
44
Since knowing is a certain living and a certain esse, as it has been

already stated, this explanation of the degrees of life allows to understand
that living beings participate in esse more than non living beings; that
animals participate in living more than plants; and that men participate
in knowing more than animals. Thus –says Aquinas– the Evangelist starts
talking about esse, then about living and ends with the understanding;
therefore not all living beings have the intellectual light, but all those who
have the intellectual light are living beings that live precisely because of
this light, according to Aristotle’s: «A man lives by reason»:45
For in the natural order of things, existence is first; and the Evangelist
implies this in his first statement, ‘In the beginning was the Word’.
Secondly, comes life; and this is mentioned next, ‘In him was life’.
Thirdly comes understanding; and that is mentioned next; And that
‘life was the light of men’. And, according to Origen, he fittingly
attributes light to life because light can be attributed only to the
living46.
If one takes the meaning of the light not from man’s way of knowing,
as he starts from sensible things, but from the light’s nature, then it should
be stated that subsequently the light is more properly said of intellectual
than sensible knowledge:
Light is more properly said of spiritual things than of sensible

things […] If we compare sensible and intelligible manifestation,
then, according to the nature of things, light is found first in spiritual
things47.
Precisely this light of the human soul is the one that allows the
abstracting of that which is intelligible from the sensible image, in order to
know what things are:
For since our knowledge is through bodily things and phantasms

received from sensible things, it is first required that in the
imagination be formed the bodily likeness of things which are shown
[…] For unless an intellectual light be present for understanding
45
ScG III, ch. 122.
46
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 3, no. 100.
47
the sensible likenesses formed in the imagination, the one to whom

these likenesses are shown is not called a prophet but a dreamer48.
The light in creatures is, therefore, a participation of the Light of

the divine Intelligence. Saint Thomas then quotes a psalm in which the
participation of the divine Light by the human soul is clearly stated:
The ‘light of men’ can also be taken as a light in which we participate.

For we would never be able to look upon the Word and light itself
except through a participation in it; and this participation is in man
and is the superior part of our soul, i.e., the intellectual light, about
which the Psalm (4:7) says, «The light of your countenance, O Lord,
is marked upon us,» i.e., of your Son, who is your face, by whom
you are manifested49.
3. The elevation of human knowledge by divine Revelation
Let’s finally study the elevation of human knowledge. We have already

seen how human nature is elevated in general, but what about knowledge?
Nothing more adequate for this purpose than Saint Thomas’ biblical
commentaries, since the way in which human knowledge is elevated is
nothing but divine Revelation in Sacred Scriptures and mainly in the Son,
the Word made flesh. And as in human knowledge, according to what
belongs to its nature, we considered the truth that is known, the interior
word in which it is known and the intellectual light by which it is known,
in its elevation we will consider these same elements.
a) The Revelation of the divine truths
Let’s begin, therefore, with the revealed truth, following Aquinas’

commentary to the initial words of the Letter to the Hebrews: «In times
past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the
prophets; in these days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir
of all things and through whom he created the universe» (Heb 1:1-2). He
48
In I Cor., ch. 14, lect. 1, no. 812.
49
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 3, no. 101.
explains that this divine Revelation is already found in the Creation, later
it becomes more explicit with the enlightenments of the prophets, and ends
with the Incarnation of the Word.
The Revelation by means of creatures is the one that can be discovered
by the natural light of reason, when it recognizes in all beings the trace of
the Creator:
First, in the production of creatures, namely, when the conceived
Word, existing as the likeness of the Father, is also the likeness
according to which all creatures were made: ‘God said: Be light
made. And light was made’ (Gen 1:3)50.
In this other place Saint Thomas, commenting the First Letter to the
Corintians, compares the divine wisdom that can be found in creatures to
human teaching; this way as the master’s wisdom is communicated to the
disciple by means of words, the divine wisdom as well is communicated to
men by means of creatures:
For divine wisdom, when making the world, left indications of itself
in the things of the world, as it says in Sirach (1:10): ‘He poured
wisdom out upon all his works’, so that the creatures made by God’s
wisdom are related to God’s wisdom, whose signposts they are, as
a man’s words are related to his wisdom, which they signify. And
just as a disciple reaches an understanding of the master’s wisdom
by the words he hears from him, so man can teach an understanding
of God’s wisdom by examining the creatures He made, as it says in
Romans (1:20): ‘His invisible nature has been clearly perceived in
the things that have been made’51.
The fact that all created beings have a similarity with respect to the
divine wisdom leads to understand, even from the natural reason, that God
is the truth; so, all creatures are true or intelligible to the extent that they
correspond to the divine intelligence, which is their measure. Let’s recall a
text that we already quoted:
But because the Word of God is true of itself (since it is not measured
by things, but things are true in the measure that they are similar to
the Word) the Word of God is truth itself52.
50
51
In I Cor., ch. 1, lect. 3, no. 55.
52
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 2, no. 1869.
But beyond these truths there are those that exceed human knowledge,
and for this reason they are not accessible from creatures, but they are
found hidden in the divine Word; nevertheless, God wanted to reveal them
to men by enlightening the mind of the angels and prophets:
Secondly, through certain notions; for example, in the minds of the

angels, in whom the forms of all things, which were concealed in
the Word, were infused, and in the minds of holy men: and this by
sensible or intellectual or imaginary revelations53.
We see that he talks about three ways of supernatural revelations:

sensible, intellectual and imaginary. An example of sensible revelation is
the one of the prophet Daniel, when he saw the fingers of a human hand
writing on the wall; imaginary revelation is the one of the prophet Isaiah,
who contemplated in his imagination the Lord seated; and intellectual
revelation is the one of the prophet David, of whom the Scriptures say that
he understood better than the aged:
‘And in various ways’. This refers to the three kinds of vision: first,
ocular vision: ‘In the same hour there appeared fingers, as it were
the hand of a man writing over against the candlestick upon the
surface of the wall’ (Dan 5:5); secondly, imaginary vision: ‘I saw
the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated’ (Is 6:1); thirdly,
intellectual vision, as to David: ‘I have had understanding above the
ancients’ (Ps 119:100)54.
All these revealed truths, hidden in the Word, are mainly referred to
God, as the revelation of his name to Moses: «I am who am»; although to
future happenings as well:
Many also in regard to the matters treated, namely, divine things:

‘I am who am’ (Ex 3:14); and future events: ‘She knows signs and
wonders before they be done’ (Wis 8:8); and promises of future
benefits, at least in figure: ‘Many things are shown to you above the
understanding of men’ (Sir 3:25)55.
53
54
55
But the fullness of Revelation happens in Christ, when the divine

Word assumes human flesh. And the Common Doctor again compares
this Revelation to the human word, in such a way that it can be said that
the exterior voice is to the interior word as the incarnated Word is to the
uncreated Word; this is to say, that the Word self reveals to men by means
of the assumed flesh:
And just like one of us who wants to be known by others by

revealing to them the words in his heart, clothes these words with
letters or sounds, so God, wanting to be known by us, takes his
Word, conceived from eternity, and clothes it with flesh in time56.
Thirdly, by assuming flesh, concerning which it says in John (1:14):

‘And the Word was made flesh’. Hence, Augustine says that the
Incarnate Word is related to the uncreated Word as the voice’s work
is related to the heart’s word57.
Aquinas explains in another place, although quoting the same passage

of the Letter to the Hebrews that this Revelation in the Son is the most
perfect, because it is the divine Word Himself who directly speaks to men,
showing them what had not been revealed through Moses: the mystery of
the Holy Trinity:
But now the Only Begotten Son ‘has made him known’ to the
faithful: ‘It is I who spoke; here I am’ (Is 52:6); ‘God, who in
many and varied ways, spoke to the fathers in past times through
the prophets, has spoken to us in these days in his Son’ (Heb 1:1).
And this teaching surpasses all other teachings in dignity, authority
and usefulness, because it was handed on immediately by the Only
Begotten Son, who is the first Wisdom. ‘It was first announced by
the Lord, and confirmed to us by those who heard him’ (Heb 2:3).
But what did he make known except the one God? And even Moses
did this: ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one’ (Dt 6:4). What
did this add to Moses? It added the mystery of the Trinity, and
many other things that neither Moses nor any of the prophets made
known58.
56
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 2, no. 1874.
57
58
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 11, nos. 221-222.
Thus, one of the main truths of the Revelation in the Son precisely refers
to Himself as the Word. Privileged places on this topic in Saint Thomas’
works doubtlessly are his commentaries to the beginnings of the Gospel of
Saint John and of the Letter to the Hebrews, where he points out a series of
statements with respect to the divine Word that we will now mention.
The first of these statements is that the Word of God is always in act,
unlike the human word, which –as we have already seen- goes from the
potency to the act: «So our word is first in potency before it is in act. But
the Word of God is always in act»59.
Secondly, he shows that the Word of God is one; there is only one
Word in God, again unlike the human word, which is many. This way, with
just one Word, God perfectly Self manifested, and through It He manifested
Himself to the whole creation:
But it is not that way with God. For since he understands both
himself and everything else through his essence, by one act, the
single divine Word is expressive of all that is in God, not only of the
Persons but also of creatures; otherwise it would be imperfect. So
Augustine says: ‘If there were less in the Word than is contained in
the knowledge of the One speaking it, the Word would be imperfect;
but it is obvious that it is most perfect; therefore, it is only one’.
‘God speaks once’ (Jb 33:14)60.
Further he affirms the divinity of the Word, and he does it by means of

another comparison with human knowledge. In this, as said before, the soul
must be really distinguished from the activity, and this is the reason why
the word is not of the nature of the soul, but one of its accidents. This is not
like so in God, in Whom the Esse and the Knowledge are identical. Thus the
Word formed by the divine intelligence must belong to its same nature, and
cannot be something accidental in Him. This is to say, the Word is God:
The divine Word is of the same nature as God. […] But in God, to
understand and to be are the same; and so the Word of the divine
intellect is not an accident but belongs to its nature. Thus it must be
subsistent, because whatever is in the nature of God is God61.
59
60
61
In fourth place, Aquinas adds that the Word is always to be understood

«personally» in the divine: «From the above it is clear that the Word,
properly speaking, is always understood as a Person in the Divinity»62.
And he uses then the definition of divine person to refer to the Word: «And
therefore it is something subsistent in the divine nature»63; namely, that the
Word is God –of a divine nature– and that it is person –subsistent–, for this
reason distinct to the person of the God that speaks, from whom the Word
proceeds.
In fifth place, as we call «son» he who proceeds and is of the same
nature of his principle, that we call «father», and as the divine Word is
of the same nature of the one from whom he proceeds, hence we call the
Word «Son», begotten by the God who speaks, whom in turn we call the
«Father»:
It is also clear that since in every nature that which issues forth and
has a likeness to the nature from which it issues is called a son, and
since this Word issues forth in a likeness and identity to the nature
from which it issues, it is suitably and appropriately called a ‘Son’,
and its production is called a ‘generation’64.
But although the person of the Word is really distinct to the person
of God the Father, because it is of His same nature, it is in His perfect
similarity –«Also, that in the Divinity the Word is the likeness of that from
which it issues»65– or in His perfect image –«The Son is also the image of
the Father»66–, which is the sixth statement. Any word, according to our
previous explanations, is the similarity to the known thing; and since God
knows Himself, his understanding is locutive, it forms a Word in which
He says Himself. Commenting the Letter to the Hebrews Saint Thomas
explains in a suggesting way that the Word is in similarity to the Father
inasmuch as splendor of His glory. By «glory» of God one must understand
the utmost clear knowledge that God has of Himself, who in His absolute
immateriality can perfectly go back to his own Essence: «Only God’s
knowledge of Himself is glory in the full sense, because He has perfect and
62
63
64
65
66
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 2, no. 1878.
clearest knowledge of Himself»67. This clarity or glory of God is bright,

and this divine splendor is the Word eternally pronounced by the Father, in
which He says Himself:
But because splendor is that which is first emitted by a bright

object, and His wisdom is something bright: ‘The wisdom of a
man shines in his countenance’ (Ec 8:1), it follows that the first
conception of wisdom is, as it were, a splendor. Therefore, the
Word of the Father, which is a certain concept of His intelligence,
is the splendor and wisdom by which He knows Himself. That is
why the Apostle calls the Son the splendor of glory, i.e., of the
clear divine knowledge. Thus, he identifies Him not only as wise
but as begotten wisdom68.
Therefore, it is by means of this splendor or image –the person of the

Word–, that we know the person of God the Father:
For there is no better way to know something than through its word
or image, and the Son is the Word of the Father […] The Son is also
the image of the Father: ‘He is the image of the invisible God’ (Col
1:15); ‘He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his
nature’ (Heb 1:3). Therefore, the Father is known in the Son as in his
Word and proper image69.
In seventh place, because it is always in act one can deduce that the
person of the divine Word is coeternal to God the Father, inasmuch as the
Father is eternal: «And that it is co-eternal with that from which it issues,
since it was not first formable before being formed, but was always in act»70.
In eighth place, because it is in perfect similarity to God the Father,
one has to say that it is the same as Him in every way, except for proceeding
from Him: «And that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect and
expressive of the whole being of the Father»71.
In ninth place, because it is of the same divine substance or
nature, one has to affirm, with the symbol of Nicaea, that the divine
67
68
69
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 2, no. 1878.
70
71
Word is consubstantial to God the Father: «And that it is co-essential

and consubstantial with the Father, since it is his substance»72. In the
commentary of the Letter to the Hebrews Saint Thomas specifies that it
is best to say «substance» than «nature» because, in created things, by
«nature» we understand the second substance and, therefore, divisible
in several individuals –the human nature in Socrates and in his son–;
instead by «substance» we understand the first substance, and therefore,
indivisible; thus, in order to avoid the mistake of thinking in three gods, it
is preferable to say «of His substance»:
But why does he not say that He is the figure of His nature? Because
it is possible for the nature of a species to be multiplied according to
the multitude of individuals composed of matter and form. Hence,
the son of Socrates does not have the same numerical nature as his
father. But the substance is never multiplied; for the substance of
the father is not distinct from the substance of the son: for substance
is not divided according to diverse individuals. Therefore, because
there is one and the same numerical nature in the Father and in
the Son of God, he does not say ‘the figure of His nature’, but of
his substance, which is indivisible: ‘I and the Father are one’ (Ioh
10:30)73.
The fact that the Word is consubstantial to the Father was argued by the
Arians because they considered the Word a creature of God and, therefore,
of a different nature of the Father:
The Arians agree with this, for they say that the Son differs by
essence from the Father, since the Son is a created substance,
although he shares in the divinity more perfectly and to a greater
degree than do all other creatures. So much more that the Son is
called God, but not the true God, because he is not God by nature,
which only the Father is74.
Why did the Arians reject the divinity of the Word? Because they judged
Him only through reason and not in the light of the divine Revelation. Thus
the Word pronounced by God is understood as another creature, in the way
72
73
74
In Ioh., ch. 17, lect. 1, no. 2187.
of the neoplatonic philosophers: «The Arians misunderstood the text: for

they thought about the image of God as they did of the images they made of
their ancestors, so they could see in these images the loved ones no longer
with them»75. However, the fact that the Word is God, consubstantial to the
Father, we can only know it because God Himself has revealed it to us:
«What did this add to Moses? It added the mystery of the Trinity, and many
other things that neither Moses nor any of the prophets made known»76.
In tenth place, although «truth» is said of God essentially, it can be
attributed by appropriation to the divine Word. In effect, commenting the
words of the Apostle referred to the Word in the Letter to the Colossians-
«For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth» (Col 1:16)-,
Aquinas explains that anything is made by man inasmuch as he has in his
mind the form of the thing to create; hence, one can say that all things have
been created because they are in the mind of God, Who says everything in
just one Word. So it is understandable that, by the Word, God has created
all things:
For an artisan makes an artifact by making it participate in the

form he has conceived within himself, enveloping it, so to say, with
external matter; for we say that the artisan makes a house through
the form of the thing which he has conceived within himself. This
is the way God is said to make all things in his wisdom, because the
wisdom of God is related to his created works just as the art of the
builder is to the house he has made. Now this form and wisdom is
the Word; and thus in him all things were created, as in an exemplar:
‘He spoke and they were made’ (Gen 1) , because he created all
things to come into existence in his eternal Word77.
When something is made by man we equally say that his mind is the
measure of the thing he has made, and its «truth». Therefore, according to
what has already been said, the divine intelligence and his Word, by which
everything has been created, is the measure and truth of all things.
And so the truth of the divine intellect belongs to the Word of

God. But because the Word of God is true of itself (since it is not
75
In Col., ch. 1, lect. 4, no. 32.
76
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 11, no. 222.
77
In Col., ch. 1, lect. 4, no. 37.
measured by things, but things are true in the measure that they are
similar to the Word) the Word of God is truth itself78.
Thus Christ, the incarnated Word, self reveals as the truth: «I am the
way and the truth and the life» (Ioh 14:6).
b) The elevation of the human word
This Revelation to man of the divine truth, which is the Word, has a
purpose: to elevate him towards the contemplation of the divine Essence,
and this is his happiness. This contemplation of God as such exceeds the
capability of man:
Intellectual creatures do know God, though from a distance and

imperfectly, for ‘All men see him, from a distance’ (Jb 36:25). For
divine truth transcends all our knowledge: ‘God is greater than our
hearts’ (I Ioh 3:20). Therefore, whoever knows God can say without
lying: ‘I do not know him’, because he does not know him to the full
extent that he is knowable79.
The reason being the human way of knowing is by means of created

similarities, and no created similarity may represent the divine Essence,
which is infinite. So the knowledge that man has of God is «as in a mirror
and with enigma», in such a way that he knows more what God is not, than
what God is:
For no created species, whether it be that by which an external sense

is informed, or by which the imagination is informed, or by which
the intellect is informed, is representative of the divine essence as
it is. Now man knows as to its essence only what the species he has
in his intellect represents as it is. Therefore, the vision of the divine
essence is not attained through any species. The reason why no
created species can represent the divine essence is plain: for nothing
finite can represent the infinite as it is; but every created species is
finite; therefore [it cannot represent the infinite as it is]. Further,
God is his own esse; and therefore his wisdom and greatness and
78
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 2, no. 1869
79
In Ioh., ch. 7, lect. 3, no. 1063.
anything else are the same. But all those cannot be represented
through one created thing. Therefore, the knowledge by which God
is seen through creatures is not a knowledge of his essence, but a
knowledge that is dark and mirrored, and from afar. ‘Everyone sees
him’, in one of the above ways, ‘from afar’ (Jb 36:25), because we
do not know what God is by all these acts of knowing, but what he
is not, or that he is80.
Nevertheless, the happiness of man consists of the contemplation of

the divine Essence. Subsequently, if God should not elevate man beyond
his capability, his desire for happiness would be frustrated. Therefore
Revelation was necessary:
Therefore, to take away the possibility of the vision of the divine

essence by man is to fake away happiness itself. Therefore, in order
for the created intellect to be happy, it is necessary that the divine
essence be seen. ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God’ (Mt 5:8). […] And thus it was necessary for us to receive
wisdom, because ‘No one has ever seen God’81.
This elevation of human intelligence as to reach the contemplation of

the divine Essence in the afterlife is progressive: «So our Lord presented all
matters of faith to his disciples, but not in the way he later revealed them,
and especially not in the way they will be presented in eternal life»82. God
first adjusts to the way of knowing of men which, as we have already seen,
is «like in a mirror and with enigma». So we can affirm that the Revelation
of the divine wisdom to men starts with a descent of God, a lowering, as we
explained in the first section when talking about the «clarification» of the
human nature of Christ. And it is not possible for a creature to receive the
divine fullness, if it is not through a lowering of God towards it:
Similarly, because it is impossible for the creature to receive

God’s goodness in the fulness in which it is present in God, the
communication of this goodness to us is in a way a certain coming
down: ‘Every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the
Father of lights’ (Jac 1:17)83.
80
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 11, no. 211.
81
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 11, nos. 213-214.
82
In Ioh., ch. 16, lect. 3, no. 2101.
83
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 11, no. 269.
This lowering mainly happened in the Incarnation, when the divine

Word assumed the human nature that, because it is a creature, it is of a
servile nature. This is how Aquinas explains the topic in commenting this
passage of the Letter to the Philippians: «Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness» (Phil 2:7):
Hence he says, ‘He emptied himself’, because He assumed a human

nature. First, he touches on the assumption of human nature when
he says, ‘taking the form of a servant’. For by reason of his creation
man is a servant, and human nature is the form of a servant84.
By lowering Himself, God would be able to attract men towards Him

and to reveal to them the divine truths with words that they would be able
to understand; and not by treating them as servants, but as friends, because
to reveal the secrets of the heart is a sign of friendship:
Now he sets down the true sign of friendship on his own part, which
is that ‘all that I have heard from my Father I have made know to
you’. For the true sign of friendship is that a friend reveals the secrets
of his heart to his friend. Since friends have one mind and heart,
it does not seem that what one friend reveals to another is placed
outside his own heart: ‘Argue your case with your neighbour’ (Prv
25:9). Now God reveals his secrets to us by letting us share in his
wisdom: ‘In every generation she [Wisdom] passes into holy souls
and makes them friends of God and prophets’ (Wis 7:27)85.
The elevation of human nature by grace changes the servant to a

friend, more so when the elevation is of that which is more proper of this
nature: the knowledge of truth.
Thus it can be said that Revelation, aimed at making «friends of
God», starts its elevating task in the knowledge of God that man grasps
through creatures that, we already said, is part of the Revelation. Without
going beyond the capability of reason, this elevation takes place in the
human way, this is to say, by means of the teachings of those who have the
perfection of science: masters. Therefore, in his Providence, God wanted
there to be masters of his wisdom, who would help men to know God
84
In Phil., ch. 2, lect. 2.
85
In Ioh., ch. 15, lect. 3, no. 2016.
starting from creatures. These are the true wise men, according to God’s
wisdom, and not the foolish, according to the wisdom of the world:
For the wisdom of this world is folly with God, because it rests
mainly on this world, whereas the wisdom which attains to God
through the things of this world is not the wisdom of the world but
the wisdom of God, as Rom (1:19) says: ‘For what can be known
about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. His
invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have
been made’86.
Quoting Saint Ambrose, Aquinas says that all these truths that the wise
man teaches come from God: «Any truth, no matter who speaks it, is from
the Holy Spirit»87. Therefore, quoting now saint Augustine, these truths of
the philosophers, can be said that belong to the Christians:
Hence Augustine says in the book On Christian Doctrine that ‘if

philosophers have uttered things suited to our faith, they should not
be feared but taken from them as from an unjust possessor for our
use’88.
Thus true philosophers elevate human knowledge according to what

corresponds to its capability towards the metaphysical wisdom, in which
the divine Word is revealed: «Because whatever light and whatever
wisdom exists in men has come to them from participating in the Word»89.
Nevertheless, some of these rational truths, given their importance for
salvation, have been equally revealed by God in a positive way, as taught
by Aquinas in several places.90
The supernatural truths, the ones that exceed the capability of human
reason, we saw that God revealed them to men already enlightened either by
the prophets, or directly by the preaching of Christ. These truths are aimed
at being understood by the one who knows them, although they exceed
86
87
In Ioh., ch. 14, lect. 4, no. 1916.
88
89
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 13, no. 103.
90
Cf. ScG I, ch. 4, ST I, q. 1, a. 1, c.
his capability; therefore, one of the conditions set by Saint Thomas in

order to consider someone a prophet is that he understands the enlightened
truth in his mind, as Daniel, who understood that which was manifested to
Nebuchadnezzar:
Secondly, the understanding of the things revealed; otherwise, he

would not be a prophet: ‘There is need of understanding in a vision’
(Dan 10:1). That is why Nebuchadnezzar, not understanding the
revelation made to him, is not called a prophet, but Daniel, who did
understand it, was called a prophet91.
Now, how is it possible to understand what exceeds one’s own

capability? The already mentioned divine lowering, levelled the revealed
truth to the human way of knowing; so the human understanding in
the faith is kept «as in a mirror and with enigma», because its object is
something not seen, but believed by the testimony of someone else: «For
it is proper to faith that man believes and assents to things unseen by him,
on the authority of another»92.
Nevertheless, the concepts enlightened by the faith in their human way
acquire a new meaning, which elevates them with respect to that which was
grasped by the powers of man’s reason only. We can see this in two important
examples: the concepts «word» and «father». The elevation of the former has
been somehow explained before, because we have shown what the human
word is, according to the human way of knowing, and what the divine Word
is according to the Revelation. So «word» according to the natural light of the
human reason is something intrinsic to the soul, formed by the intelligence
in act of understanding, in similarity of the known thing, and in which the
intelligence understands; but that in man is not always in act, is many and
really distinct to the soul. However, the Revelation of God as «Word» brings
us to understand Him as always act, one, of a divine nature, subsistent or
personal; Son of the Father, of Whom He is in perfect similarity or image;
also coeternal, equal and consubstantial to the Father and, ultimately, truth
through which all things were created. No human intelligence would have
ever been capable of signifying all of this in the concept of «word» if the
divine Word itself had not revealed this to it in those words: «In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, ant the Word was God» (Ioh 1:1).
91
In Heb., ch. 1, lect. 13, nr. 16.
92
In Heb., ch. 6, lect. 1.
This Revelation of God as Word is the one that leads to knowing God
as a Father: «‘No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to
whom the Son wishes to reveal him’» (Mt 11:27)93. And this way the human
concept «father» was elevated beyond its natural meaning. According to
this meaning man understands fatherhood by reason of the proceeding that
takes place in all natural generation; and if the Gentiles referred it to God
it was analogically, inasmuch as from Him all creatures come, although He
is not properly their «father»:
The name of God the Father can be known in three ways. In one
way, as the creator of all things; and this is the way the Gentiles
knew him: ‘His invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the
things that have been made’ (Rom 1:20)94.
The Revelation of the Old Testament showed that worship was only
supposed to be given to God, and not to several gods, as the Gentiles did;
and this perfected the meaning of «father» referred to God:
In another way [the Father can be known] as the only one to whom
the veneration of latria [adoration] is to be given. He was not known
to the Gentiles in this way, for they gave the veneration of latria to
other gods. He was known in this way only to the Jews, for they
alone had been commanded in their law to sacrifice only to the
Lord: ‘Whoever sacrifices to any god, save to the Lord only, shall
be utterly destroyed’ (Ex 22:20)95.
But the fullness of the Revelation in Christ definitely elevated the

meaning of «father» when it manifested that God is the Father of his Only
Son, by an eternal generation:
Thirdly, he can be known as the Father of an only Son, Jesus Christ.

He was not known to anyone in this way, but did become so known
through his Son when the apostles believed that Christ was the Son
of God96.
93
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 11, no. 219.
94
In Ioh., ch. 17, lect. 2, no. 2195.
95
In Ioh., ch. 17, lect. 2, no. 2195.
96
In Ioh., ch. 17, lect. 2, no. 2195.
Even more, through baptism man is made in Christ adoptive son of

the Father; the divine fatherhood is therefore understood even in a broader
way, being extended also to men, allowing us to call God –for this reason–
«Father» with a filial and not servile spirit. Saint Thomas compares this
elevation of the meaning of the concept «father» with the transformation
of the water into wine: «Christ converted the water of fear into the wine
of charity when he gave ‘the spirit of adoption as sons, by which we cry:
Abba, Father’ (Rom 8:15)»97.
This whole elevation of the human concepts while one lives in faith is
ordered to move to the hope of the vision of the divine Essence, by which
the highest elevation of man’s intelligence is reached. This connection
between the faith in that which is not seen and the hope of the beatific
vision is made by Saint Thomas commenting the passage of the Letter to
the Hebrews in which it is defined as «what is hoped for an evidence of
things not seen» (Heb 11:1).
The starting point is the object of faith, which is nothing but God, the
utmost truth of intelligence and happiness of man: «But the object of faith
is the first truth, in which the end of the will consists, namely, happiness»98.
Aquinas distinguishes the manner this truth is known in the present life and
in the future life. Man currently lives of faith, but in such a way that he is
moved by faith to hope in the achievement of what he does not presently
see: «On earth (in via) the first truth is not possessed and, consequently,
not seen […] but they are only hoped for»99. In heaven, on the contrary,
man reaches happiness through the vision of the divine Essence, of God’s
«Face»: «But the ultimate end of faith in heaven, which we tend toward
by faith, is happiness, which consists in the clear vision of God»100. He
concludes then that faith moves to hope for the beatific vision: «The end,
therefore, of faith on earth is the attainment of the thing hoped for, namely,
of eternal happiness; hence, he says, ‘of things hoped for’»101.
This hope firmly founded in faith, and fearless, is called «trust»: «But
sometimes hope is firm and without fear; then it is called trust»102. Now,
something specific of this trust is the prayer by which man asks God to
97
In Ioh., ch. 2, lect. 1, no. 347.
98
In Heb., ch. 11 lect. 1, no. 553.
99
In Heb., ch. 11 lect. 1, no. 553.
100
In Heb., ch. 11 lect. 1, no. 553.
101
In Heb., ch. 11 lect. 1, no. 553.
102
In Heb., ch. 2 lect. 3, no. 133.
show him his Face, as Aquinas explains with the example of Moses: «That
Moses saw God in his essence is clear, for he begged God: ‘Show me your
face’ (Ex 33:13)»103. Because prayer is a word of the practical intelligence,
here as well one can see an elevation of human concepts, in this case by
transforming the word of petition in trustful prayer to God, with the firm
hope that He will grant the contemplation of His Essence.
This petition was effectively granted to Moses, as we just read, although
not in the definite way of the eternal blessing, but in the provisional way
of the so called «rapture». Saint Thomas explains that this consists of an
elevation of the human intelligence beyond its natural capability: «A rapture
is an elevation from that which is according to nature into that which is
above nature, produced in virtue of a higher nature»104; elevation by which
intelligence is brought to the «third sky» in order to contemplate the divine
Essence without the veils of faith, although not in the ultimate way:
But would it have been possible for Paul to see God without being
rapt? I answer: No, for it is impossible that God be seen in this life by
a man not alienated from his senses, because no image or phantasm
is a sufficient medium for showing God’s essence; therefore, he
must be abstracted and alienated from the senses105.
Now, is human concept elevated in this contemplation of the divine

Essence, as provisional, in rapture, or ultimately, in glory? One has to say
that no human concept, although it has been elevated, ceases to be finite;
subsequently, no human concept in this life or in the other adequately
represents the divine Essence:
But the vision of the divine essence is not attained by any of the
above visions: for no created species, whether it be that by which
an external sense is informed, or by which the imagination is
informed, or by which the intellect is informed, is representative of
the divine essence as it is. Now man knows as to its essence only
what the species he has in his intellect represents as it is. Therefore,
the vision of the divine essence is not attained through any species.
The reason why no created species can represent the divine essence
103
In II Cor., ch. 12 lect. 1, no. 452.
104
105
is plain: for nothing finite can represent the infinite as it is; but
every created species is finite; therefore [it cannot represent the
infinite as it is]106.
Nevertheless, in the glory there is a word of the blessed man, who

sings the praise of God: «For in heaven there will be vocal praise, as it says
in Ps 149 (v. 6): ‘Let the high praises of God be in their throats’, as a Gloss
explains»107. The perfect praise is the Word of God Himself, because the
glory is the clear news with praise, and the perfect news of the Father is the
Word, splendor of His glory:
Here it should be noted that according to Ambrose: ‘Glory is fame

accompanied by praise’, i.e., public knowledge of someone’s
goodness […] Therefore, the Word of the Father, which is a certain
concept of His intellect, is the splendor and wisdom by which He
knows Himself. That is why the Apostle calls the Son the splendor
of glory, i.e., of the clear divine knowledge108.
Now, the blessed man who sings the praise to God is found united
to Christ, the incarnated Word; and knows then God as He is known
by Himself in the Word: «Now we see through a mirror, in an obscure
manner, but then we shall see face to face» (I Cor 13:12). And in the same
place we find, «Now I know in part, but then I shall know even as I am
known»109. Subsequently the praise of a blessed man is nothing but the
divine Word itself to which he is united. More so, the representation of
the divine Essence is given to him by this union with the Word; therefore,
man reaches the highest elevation of his concepts in their glorification or
«clarification» –«clarificari idem est quod glorificari»110–, when knowing
the divine Essence with the Word of God Himself in which He is known,
for the praise of God the Father.
106
In Ioh., ch. 1 lect. 11, no. 211.
107
In I Cor., ch. 13 lect. 3, no. 789.
108
109
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 4, no. 120.
110
In Ioh., ch. 13, lect. 6, no. 1826.
c) The divine light
The only thing left to explain is the means through which the human
intelligence is elevated in order to reach the revealed truth: namely, the
divine light. This light is God Himself, who enlightens all things by means
of the Word, splendor of the divine clarity:
For as light is not only visible in itself and of itself, but through it all
else can be seen, so the Word of God is not only light in himself, but
he makes known all things that are known. For since a thing is made
known and understood through its form, and all forms exist through
the Word, who is the art full of living forms, the Word is light not
only in himself, but as making known all things; ‘all that appears is
light’ (Eph 5:13)111.
According to the order of Creation, this enlightenment is carried out by

God through second causes, which participate in the divine light to some
extent. One is the sensible light, which enlightens bodily things; another
one is the intellectual light –more perfect– that makes the intelligibles in
act, as we already saw:
The ‘light of men’ can also be taken as a light in which we participate.

For we would never be able to look upon the Word and light itself
except through a participation in it; and this participation is in man
and is the superior part of our soul, i.e., the intellectual light, about
which the Psalm (4:7) says, ‘The light of your countenance, O Lord,
is marked upon us’, i.e., of your Son, who is your face, by whom
you are manifested112.
The enlightenment not only consists of showing the object of

knowledge, which is truth, but also in strengthening the intelligence in
order to make it able to know the truth more adequately: «Therefore
the tongue of angels is said light because it strengthens the intellect in
understanding the things that it considers»113. Now, supernatural Revelation
also realizes this double enlightening action: by showing the revealed truth
111
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 4, no. 118.
112
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 3, no. 101.
113
In I Cor., ch. 13, v. 1.
and by strengthening the intelligence in order to allow it to know it. But

since this revealed truth exceeds the capability of the human intelligence,
strengthening its natural light, which could be done by an angel –as it has
been read in the recently quoted passage–, is not enough. The infusion of a
new light is required: the light of grace:
On the other hand, ‘enlightenment’ or ‘being enlightened’ by the

Word is taken in two ways. First, in relation to the light of natural
knowledge, as in ‘The light of your countenance, O Lord, is marked
upon us’ (Ps 4:7). Secondly, as the light of grace, ‘Be enlightened,
O Jerusalem’ (Is 60:1)114.
Commenting the passage of the Gospel of Saint John «The true light,
which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world» (Ioh 1:9), Saint
Thomas explains, by quoting Origen, that this light of the grace is nothing
but the light of faith: «And so we have, he enlightens every man coming, by
faith, into this world, i.e., this spiritual world, that is, the Church, which has
been enlightened by the light of grace»115. Faith, therefore, is true light, that
strengthens intelligence in the certainties of those truths in which it believes,
although it remains in the darkness with respect to that which cannot be seen:
For since our knowledge is through bodily things and phantasms

received from sensible things, it is first required that in the
imagination be formed the bodily likeness of things which are
shown, as Denis says that ‘it is impossible otherwise for the divine
ray to shine in us, unless surrounded by the variety of sacred veils’116.
These veils of the faith are eliminated in the eternal blessing, when
contemplating God face to face. The light that allows this blessed vision is
the light of the glory. Saint Paul writes in his First Letter to the Corinthians:
«In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers,
to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,
who is the likeness of God» (I Cor 4:4). Commenting this passage, Saint
Thomas distinguishes the light of faith from the light of glory, that God
does not grant to those who have made of this world their own god:
114
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 5, no. 128.
115
In Ioh., ch. 1, lect. 5, no. 130.
116
In I Cor., ch. 14, lect. 1, no. 812.
‘The god of this world’, i.e., that which men living in a worldly way
set up as their end, say pleasure or riches and the like. And God
blinds their minds, inasmuch as he prevents them from seeing the
light of grace here, and the light of glory in the future117.
The light of glory is absolutely necessary in order to contemplate the

divine Essence, being impossible to contemplate it through any created
similarity. Thus it is necessary to elevate the intelligence above its own
capability in order to allow the divine Essence to become its intelligible
form without mediation. By comparing rapture to the blessed vision, Saint
Thomas explains that in both the light of the glory is required; in the former
it causes a temporary effect, while in the latter, it causes a definitive and
somehow connatural effect:
Yet it should be noted that the vision of God by essence takes
place by means of a certain light, namely, the light of glory, of
which it says in Ps. 36 (9): ‘In your light we see light’. But light
is communicated to some things after the manner of a passing
quality and to others after the manner of an inhering form, i.e.,
connaturally produced; but it is found in the air as a passing form
and not as a permanent form, because it vanishes when the sun is
absent. Similarly, the light of glory is infused in the mind in two
ways: in one way, after the manner of a form connaturally made and
permanent, and then it makes a mind beatified in the strict sense.
This is the way it is infused in the beatified in heaven. Hence they
are called comprehenders and, so to say, seers. In another way the
light of glory affects a human mind as a passing quality; this is the
way Paul’s mind in rapture was enlightened by the light of glory118.
This light is the highest participation of the splendor of the glory of

the Father, which is the Word. Then, it is the divine Word itself that after
his lowering by assuming human flesh in the womb of Holy Mary, elevates
human intelligence in order to make it capable to contemplate God’s
Face. Thus Saint Paul teaches: «For God who said, ‘Let light shine out of
darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to bring to light the knowledge of the
glory of God on the face of Jesus Christ» (II Cor 4:6), and Saint Thomas
comments with these words that show us the most perfect elevation of
human knowledge:
117
In II Cor., ch. 4, lect. 2, no. 124.
118
To illumine the holy brightness of God, which indeed shines in the

face of Jesus Christ, i.e., so that by that glory and brightness Jesus
Christ may be known. As if to say: in summary, God has shone upon
us to enlighten us, so that Jesus Christ may be known and preached
among the Gentiles119.
Conclusion
During his life Saint Thomas Aquinas served this preaching to all
people through his study, his teaching and his writings. The consideration
of his biblical commentaries allowed us to grasp the core of his teachings,
as explained at the beginning of this article: the harmony between the
created nature and grace, communicative of the divine life, which does
not destroy nature, but it perfects it as to elevate it to the contemplation of
God’s Face.
It is not surprising that a century ago Pope Saint Pius X would point
out the Common Doctor as the most effective remedy against Modernism.
Typical of Modernism is the immanentization in nature of the supernatural
order, in such a way that man can by his own power self-elevate to the
divine. Even more, in their battle against the supernatural order, modernists:
forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred
in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine
Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple,
mere man120.
Against this perverted pretension, Aquinas’ teachings, conveniently

rooted in the metaphysics of esse, are a helpful aid; hence the first remedy
proposed by Saint Pius X against Modernism has been the following:
In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and ordain that
scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences […]
And let it be clearly understood above all things that the scholastic
philosophy We prescribe is that which the Angelic Doctor has
bequeathed to us […] Further let Professors remember that they
119
120
PIUS X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, AAS 40 (1907), n. 1.
cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions,

without grave detriment121.
As we were able to confirm, it is from this metaphysics that it is possible

to theologically speak of the elevation of nature by grace, respecting on
one hand the transcendence of the supernatural order and, on the other, the
effective elevation of the natural order. And it is precisely in Jesus Christ,
the Incarnated Word, where we can contemplate in an eminent way this
harmony between both orders, so that the glory of God «fulget in facie
Christi Iesu».122
121
PIUS X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, n. 46.
122
ROBERT J. WOŹNIAK*
AN EMERGING THEOLOGY BETWEEN SCRIPTURE AND

METAPHYSICS: BONAVENTURE, AQUINAS AND THE
SCRIPTURAL FOUNDATION OF MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY
Marked by its historical context, theology today is in search of a

kind of theory of unification between scriptural reading/exegesis and
metaphysics. The perennial tension between these two traditional tools
of theology can be sensed very intensely in the present situation marked
by a philosophical paradigm of postmodernism characterized by the so
called “end of metaphysics”. The last few centuries of Christian reflection
have brought a change of paradigms in the field of biblical studies as
well. The spiritual and theological reading of Scripture was neglected in
favor of a more literal and historical critical approach1. Both events, i.e.,
the destruction of metaphysics and the mutation of the mode of reading
Scripture, which influenced and determined the epochal crisis of Christian
theology, was interrupted just for a short time in the mid-20th century by
thinkers such as de Lubac, Balthasar and Ratzinger2 to notably overshadow
the state and situation of theology in this present age once again.
The following article has as its subject the interrelationship between
metaphysics and the reading of Scripture in two of the greatest medieval
theologians: Aquinas and Bonaventure3. The main question of my research
is about what was the most basic and common fundamental principle of
medieval theology: Scripture or metaphysics? Can we say that medieval
*
Pontifical University of John Paul II in Kraków, ul. Kanonicza 25, 31-002
Kraków, Poland, email: Wozniak_1999@yahoo.com
1
H. DE LUBAC, Medieval Exegesis. The Four Senses of Scripture, I, Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids 1998, xv.
2
It was based on the forgetfulness of the classical sources of Christian theology
(traditional way of reading Scripture and classical understanding of liturgy). The 20th
century gave rise to an exceptional movement toward the restoration of lost attitudes
and sources (ressourcement). Cf. G. FLYNN (ed.), Ressourcement: A Movement for
Renewal in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology, Oxford University Press, Oxford
2012.
3
The detailed account of the nature of medieval metaphysics can be found in: O.
BOULNOIS, Métaphysiques rebelles: Genèse et structures d’une science au Moyen Age,
PUF, Paris 2013.
416 ROBERT J. WOŹNIAK
theology, in its two greatest exponents, was founded and based on a

philosophical ground? Is the Harnackian version of foundationalism,
which claims theology is supported mostly by a foreign metaphysical
substructure at the expense of its own sources, and is the only possible and
plausible explanation and also justification of what happened to be known
as the Gestalt of medieval theology, namely the strict cooperation between
metaphysics and biblical theology?
In order to be able to sketch an answer I will start with some general
remarks on the present state of research in the field of ancient and medieval
exegesis. Then, I am going to introduce some general remarks on the
relationship between theology and philosophy in Thomas and Bonaventure.
The last part of this work is going to consist of proposing a concrete case
study, in which there we are going to take into consideration two different
theologies of God the Father as produced by both of our authors. From this
background one may see the real interplay of systematic theology, biblical
exegesis and metaphysics in both of the authors.
1. Toward a new approach to ancient and medieval exegesis: status

quaestionis
Let us start with several general considerations. Henry de Lubac’s

insight in his most influential four volume work of Exégèse medieval
is the interdependence of a concrete vision of Christianity and the way
Christians read the Bible. Ancient exegesis, this “complete act”, as de
Lubac calls it, «is itself a complete and completely unified dogmatic and
spiritual theology. It found its expression not only in literature, but also in
art, evincing a marvelous power and fecundity. In brief, this ancient form
of Christian exegesis is something quite other than just an ancient form of
exegesis. It forms “the thread” of Christian literature and Christian art. It
constitutes, in one of its essential aspects, the basis of ancient Christian
thought. It is the principal form that the Christian synthesis for a very long
time had been shaped by»4. De Lubac considers exegesis to be the main
core of ancient and medieval Christianity, a kind of systematic theology
in itself. It was not a part but the whole of Christian theology at that time.
To some extent ancient and medieval exegesis shaped Christianity and
was its most representative feature. It was due to the integral practice
4
H. DE LUBAC, Medieval Exegesis, xix.
AN EMERGING THEOLOGY BETWEEN SCRIPTURE AND METAPHYSICS 417
of reading the Bible at that time, to include not only debates on specific
historical questions but, first of all, to emphasize a spiritual reading. Such
reading produced a unitary and integrated understanding of life in which
intellectual systematization, spiritual quest, moral endeavor and existential
longing for eschatological accomplishment formed a notable unity.
The diagnosis of de Lubac is paralleled by later studies of Lewis Ayres,
dedicated to the place of exegetical strategies in the ancient Church. Ayres
focuses on the crucial role of exegesis in producing theological orthodoxy.
His fundamental intuition is that a variety of techniques of reading the
Bible should be considered as crucial for our understanding of the doctrinal
development of early Christianity. «One condition of possibility for [the]
famous Trinitarian controversies –writes Ayres– was a set of reading practices
that disputants on all sides applied to both [the] Old and New Testament.
[…] To describe how Christians in the fourth century were scriptural we
need not only to note that they valued and argued over a particular set of
texts, but also to describe the particular reading practices they used and
[all] the assumptions about the text to which they held»5. Ayres traces the
mutual relation between ecclesio-genesis and the rise of Christian Scripture
by which «Church and scripture become deeply interwoven»6.
In the area of studies on medieval theology which is of special interest
in the present article, seminal works on Aquinas written by Torrell, Levering
and Emery must be taken into account here. They all are unanimous in
recognizing that, for Aquinas, the most fundamental core of his thought is
exegesis. Such a thesis, promoted in a very special way by Torrell, produced
a new wave of studies and a new revolutionary approach to Aquinas’s opus.
I agree with the general and common findings of these authors that the
theology of Thomas has to be taken and understood as a spiritual exercise,
its essence is a spiritual reading of Scripture combined with the speculative
action of reason. In both approaches, it is meant to demonstrate the unity
of the two moments inherent in every good theology, namely, the unifying
moment of both exegetical and speculative. The conclusions of these
authors in this regard are undeniable. What the aforementioned authors
clearly state about Thomas can be extrapolated, in my humble opinion, into
the whole area of medieval theology and exegesis.
5
L. AYRES, «“There is fire in that rain”: On reading the letter and reading
allegorically», Modern Theology, 28 (2012) 618.
6
AYRES, «There is fire in that rain», p. 625.
Reflecting on all these arguments proposed one can state that

unequivocally until the end of the Middle Ages the Bible, spirituality and
theology all formed a persistent and thought-provoking unity which was
built on a concrete exegetical methodology. My own research presented here
should be viewed as a continuation of the studies of the above-mentioned
authors and their own conclusions. In what follows I will try to describe
two distinct medieval arguments, i.e., of Thomas and Bonaventure, each
aimed at the same idea: to show the fundamental place of biblical testimony
for Christian doctrine and life
2. Theology’s relation to philosophy
As it is well known, there is a notable and important difference between

Bonaventure’s and Aquinas’s concept of theology.7.It has to do with their
respective and different attitudes toward philosophy.
Bonaventure was skeptical about the usefulness of philosophy for
theology. In every case philosophy must be subordinated to theology8,
which in turn is subjected to Scripture9. If it might be arguable whether
he proposed any enclosed philosophical system at all10, it is certain that
his own understanding of theology as based on the Scripture did not
permit him to treat philosophy as a kind of foundation for theology. He
7
For a broader description of the mutual relationship between philosophy and
theology in Middle Ages, see H. ANZULEWICZ, «Zwischen Faszination und Ablehnung:
Theologie und Philosophie im 13. Jahrhundert in ihrem Verhältnis zueinander», in
M. OLSZEWSKI (ed.), What is “theology” in the Middle Ages?, Aschendorff Verlag,
Münster 2007, pp. 129-166 (Archa Verbi. Subsidia, 1), and O. BOULNOIS, Philosophie
et théologie au Moyen Âge. Anthologie, II, Cerf, Paris 2009.
8
Bonaventure, Breviloquium, prol. 3.
9
Bonaventure, Red. Art.; cf. Ch. M. CULLEN, «Bonaventure’s philosophical
method», in J. M. HAMMOND – J. A. WAYNE HELLMANN – J. GOFF (eds.), A Companion
to Bonaventure, E.J. Brill, Leiden – Boston 2014, pp. 121-166, here p. 139 (Brill’s
Companions to Christian Tradition, 48).
10
The debate on this topic took place between Étienne Gilson and Fernard
Van Steenberghen. For more details see J. RATZINGER, Offenbarungsverständnis und
Geschichtstheologie Bonaventuras. Habilitationsschrift und Bonaventura-Studien,
Herder, Freiburg – Basel – Wien 2009, pp. 592-643 (JRGS, 2), and G. LANAVE,
«Bonaventure Theological Methode», in J. M. HAMMOND – J. A. WAYNE HELLMANN –
J. GOFF (eds.), A Companion to Bonaventure, op. cit., pp. 81-120, here p. 103.
rejects strongly some of Aristotle’s metaphysical theories (especially

these which concern the eternity of the world and the possibility of
final happiness achieved only by earthly things) judging them to stand
in open opposition to the biblical teaching. One has to note that his
attitude toward philosophy evolved over time. In the commentaries on
Lombard he leaned a lot on the detailed discussions of the philosophical
theories and its implications and possible applications in theology.
Such a welcoming policy changed because of two factors. One, and
probably the most important, was his personal, interiorized experience
of the legacy of Saint Francis of Assisi11, which took place from 1257
to 1259. Itinerarium mentis in Deum should be treated as the first effect
of this experience (1259). Some of its general innovations are visible
already in Breviloquium (1257), which proves his turning toward a more
biblical theology. Bonaventure’s commentary on Hexaemeron signs the
final point of development of such a biblical orientation. The turn to
a more Bible oriented theology was motivated by Bonaventure’s own
understanding of. Francis’ legacy. Seraphicus learned from him that
any reflection on God has to be a fragment, a part of a greater spiritual
adventure. It should not be a purely rational discourse but an integral
itinerarium of human beings toward God. The second factor was the
quarrel over Aristotelianism (especially its Averroist’s interpretation),
which took place in Paris in the second half of 13 century12. The turmoil,
which happened at that time, convinced Bonaventure even more than the
truth has to be searched for, not in philosophy, but in biblical teaching.
Aquinas’s theological style represents a somewhat different position.
According to the terminology of Richard Cross it can be described as a
philosophical approach to theology13, which was enabled by the twelfth
century’s redefinition of theology as a science. «In contrast to Bonaventure’s
Franciscan synthesis, Thomas Aquinas firmly aligned himself with the
Aristotelian concept of science»14. Aquinas allows his theology to enter
in broad cooperation with the philosophy, but always on the basis of a
priority of biblical testimony. Thomas seems to be much more engaged
11
H. DE LUBAC, Exégèse médiévale, les quatre sens de l’écriture, IV, p. 264.
12
C. M. CULLEN, Bonaventure, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006, p. 76.
13
R. CROSS, Medieval Christian Philosophy, Tauris, London 2014, p. 22.
14
U. G. LEINSLE, Introduction to Scholastic Theology, The Catholic University of
America Press, Washington D.C., 2010, p. 167.
in the modern trends of thought of his own epoch than Bonaventure was,
especially after 125715.
Although Aquinas considers philosophy to be the handmaiden (ancilla)
of theology16 he endows it with a much more independent status that his
Franciscan brother does. «The believer and the philosopher consider
creatures differently. The philosopher considers what belongs to their
proper natures, while the believer considers only what is true of creatures
insofar as they are related to God, for example, that they are created by
God and are subject to him and the like»17. Both of these attitudes can
be described as theological activities, though each in a different sense of
the word: the philosophical research is grounded in the human intellect
common to all human beings, while the second has its ultimate foundation
in a special revelation of God. While maintaining their fundamental
distinctions both of the areas of knowledge go together. As Hankey puts
it: «History provides the evidence for that unity of the two theologies,
scriptural and philosophical, in which Aquinas believed and which is
essential to his theological practice. They are both aspects of one thinking
which is both human and divine or, alternatively, they are two forms of
revelation. It continually turns out that any other course than this broad
ecumenical way does not limit revelation to Scripture but makes revelation
theologically incomprehensible»18.
We can detect all this in Aquinas in his treatment of the Bible. In
this respect Aquinas’ predilection to historical meaning of Scripture (to
its literal sense) must be underscored here. His focus on the literal sense
of the Bible is due, without any doubt, to his reception of Aristotelian
metaphysics and epistemology, which match, in his own mind, the historical
character of Christianity19. It looks like his own doctrine of the senses of
the Scripture represents.a specific version of a Christian worldview, a kind
of theo-ontology, which interplays with both Christianity’s own essence as
a religion based on historical events and the new discovery of Aristotelian
15
It is the crucial period for his theology and spirituality characterized by strong
identification with the poverello.
16
ST I, q. 1, a. 5, ad 2.
17
SCG II, c. 4.
18
W. HANKEY, God in Himself: Aquinas’ Doctrine of God as Expounded in the
Summa Theologiae, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1987, p. 146.
19
E. REVENTLOW, History of Biblical Interpretation, Vol. 2: From Late Antiquity
to the End of the Middle Ages, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta 2009, p. 194.
‘down to the earth’ type of metaphysics. Something similar as well we

can discover in Aquinas’s doctrine of double authorship of the Bible. This
theory is very similar to Aristotle’s own idea of double order of causation20.
As we can see in case of Bonaventure and Aquinas we have two
different approaches to the question of the relationship of theology and
philosophy. The first one is dominated by skepticism while the second
represents equilibrated optimism toward the usefulness of cooperation
between these two dominions of knowledge. In my opinion the origin of
such a difference can be traced back to their respective understanding of
the nature, scope and role of biblical revelation itself.
3. The Theo-metaphysical status of Scripture
Both, Aquinas and Bonaventure, define theology by its relationship to

Scripture. For them, «biblical theology» is the very center of theological
reflection and its norma normans.
In the case of Aquinas his notion of sacra doctrina is, as N. Healy affirms,
«in some important respect identifiable with Scripture»21. Nonetheless such
identification must not be taken too far. Aquinas understands that Scripture
has to be taken as normative for the teaching of the Church and its doctrine:
«sacra doctrina is not normative, or not in anything like the way Scripture
is»22. The Bible achieves here the status of auctoritas, its proper role is to
govern and lead theological reflection.23 It can be done in various ways:
Scripture may be the source of theological reflection, a conclusion of the
first phase of an argumentation, a source of the solution or confirmative
conclusion of the solution.24 It is important to note, that for Thomas, at every
stage of the argumentation, the auctoritas of the Scripture can be combined
20
REVENTLOW, History, p. 195.
21
Thomas Aquinas, ST I, q. 1, a. 1 (Scriptura seu sacra doctrina); ST I, q. 1, a. 7
and 8; I Sent., prol.
22
N. M. HEALY, «Introduction», in Th. WEINANDY – D. KEATING – J. YOCUM (eds),
Aquinas on Scripture. An Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries, T&T Clark
International, London – New York 2005, p. 18.
23
On the topic of Scripture as auctoritas cf. W. G. B. M. VALKENBERG, Words of
the Living God. Place and Function of Holy Scripture in the Theology of St. Thomas
Aquinas, Peters, Leuven 2000, pp. 11-18.
24
VALKENBERG, Words of the Living God, pp. 134-139.
with other authorities25 depending on the character of particular text, its

subject matter, sources and literary genre (expositio, quaestio, disputatio).26
It does not change the fact that the Bible, and the truth it contains, is the
main focus of Aquinas’s theology as its source and framework. It confirms
once again the basic moment of Aquinas’s theological methodology: the
strong emphasis on the combination of Revelation and reason.
Such an attitude results in the fact that the unity between the exegetical
moment and the systematic one can be detected even in the stricte exegetical
works of Aquinas. With this perspective I draw my own conclusion, similar
to Emery, drawn on the basis of his research into Aquinas’s Commentary on
John: «In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, neo-scholastic Trinitarian
theology gave itself the task of explaining dogmatic formulas, recalling
that the dogma constitutes the norm of the reading of Scripture. The
developments of exegesis and historical sciences, as well as the influence
of contemporary philosophical currents, have led many to argue against
the pertinence and value of classical Trinitarian dogmatics. If we want to
follow St. Thomas today, our first task is to show the deep biblical and
Patristic foundations of his Trinitarian doctrine. The movement has been,
in a way, inverted. The commentary of St. Thomas on St. John allows us
to return along the path by showing how the speculative doctrine of St.
Thomas is inscribed in the reading of Scripture. This speculative doctrine
if the Trinity is one with the reading of the biblical text and, put to the
service of the intelligence of Scripture, it does not look for anything else
than the manifestation of the deep sense of the Gospel»27. Extrapolating
Emery’s conclusion one may risk the general thesis that the commentaries
of Aquinas on Scripture are forms of speculative exegesis or speculative
systematic theology28. They are not devoid of the systematic moments.
In this way, the whole theological production of St. Thomas Aquinas can
be said to be both biblical and systematical29. The biblical message is the
25
VALKENBERG, Words of the Living God, pp. 13-14.
26
Ibid., p. 141, 207.
27
G. EMERY, «Biblical Exegesis and the Speculative Doctrine of the Trinity in
St. Thomas Aquinas’s Commentary on St. John», in: M. DAUPHINAIS - M. LEVERING
(edd.), Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas. Theological Exegesis and Speculative
Theology, Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2005, pp. 60-61.
28
EMERY, «Biblical Exegesis and the Speculative Doctrine of the Trinity», p. 45.
29
G. EMERY, The Trinitarian Theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Oxford
University Press, Oxford 2007, p. 19.
source and framework for all theological reflection, which is to systematize

various scriptural insights. On its own, more systematic studies (like
Summa) were designed for illumining the sense of biblical statements30.
Thomas does not doubt that it is the Bible, which is the main source of
truth31.
Levering’s study Scripture and Metaphysics is of particular importance
here. Levering’s work is one of the best examples of demythologization of
demythologization. The author demonstrates that any kind of ideological
separationism between biblical, theological and philosophical ways of
thinking jeopardize the truth of Christianity, at least as it is clearly seen by
Aquinas32.
The metaphysical status of the Bible in Aquinas consists in that it
(scriptural revelation) is the ultimate source of knowledge which allows a
human being to grasp the fullest possible meaning of the reality. In other
words: the Bible adds new light and perfection to the knowledge a human
being achieves by using his natural reasoning. Ontology and the Bible form
together the real unity. The ontological status of the Bible has to do with
this operative epistemological complementarity, which is the particular
case of the relation between grace and nature: gratia supponit naturam
perfectitque.
In the case of St. Bonaventure the mutual relation of the Scripture and
theology is even more visible and persistent. His Berviloquium identifies
theology and Scripture: sacra scriptura, quae theologia dicitur33. The real,
true, uncontaminated and pure theology can be found only in the Bible34.
«Sacra scriptura signifies at one and the same time the material object of
theology, that is, the text of the Bible, and the work of faith reflecting upon
itself. In this second sense, Bonaventure considers theology to be a science,
30
31
Ibid., p. 190.
32
M. LEVERING, Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of
Trinitarian Theology, Blackwell, Oxford 2004, esp. pp. 3-4.
33
Bonaventure, Brev., prol., n. 1.
34
Bonaventure, Brev., prol., 6. 6: «Because theology is, indeed, discourse about
God and about the First Principle, as the highest science and doctrine it should resolve
everything in God as its first and supreme principle. That is why, in giving the reasons
for everything contained in this little work or tract, I have attempted to derive each
reason from the First Principle, in order to demonstrate that the truth of Sacred Scripture
is from God, that it treats of God, is according to God, and has God as its end».
because it concerns itself with a pattern of organized knowledge».35 The

Bonaventure’s equation of Scripture and theology is at the same time very
impressive and difficult. It can be sensed as a kind of strange and odd idea
from the perspective of what we usually claim to be theology. The most
difficult point here seems to be the change Bonaventure introduces into the
very concept of theology seen from the perspective of its subject. If the
Bible is theology God has to be both its object and subject. In this case, is
theology still a human action?
Bonaventure’s famous identification stimulated an interesting debate
between the experts. The opinions of two of them should be taken into
consideration here. For Henry Donneaud the identification has to be taken
seriously: Bible and theology can be understood as synonyms.36 According
to him theology «should not be understood as the intellectual activity of
the human author attempting to understand revelation, but rather as the
knowledge of God».37 Emmanuel Falque articulates a different approach.
In response to Donneaud’s argument he explains that the very text of
Breviloquium from which the identification comes, strictly forbids de
penser le rapport de l’Écriture à la théologie comme «pure synonymie».38
For Falque, Doctor Seraphicu’s definition should be better contextualized
in the consideration of an internal dynamic of the development of
Bonaventure’s theology and philosophy. From such a perspective it presents
the next step, a kind of evolution of his methodology in contrast to the
one implied in Commentaries on Lombard. For him it is only a new kind
of elaboration of medieval disputatio. Falque argues that acceptance of
the stronger version of an identification thesis would lead to many serious
misinterpretations of the very text of Breviloquium. He bases his judgment
on the detailed analyses of its literary structure and theological grammar.
These analyses help Falque to distinguish between the two styles present
in the opus of Bonaventure, namely demonstration (in Sentences) and
manifestation (Breviloquium). The characteristic feature of demonstratio
35
J.G. BOUGEROL, «Bonaventure as Exegete», in J. M. HAMMOND – J. A. WAYNE
HELLMANN – J. GOFF (edd.), A Companion to Bonaventure, op. cit., p. 174.
36
H. DONNEAUD, «Le sens du mot theologia chez Bonaventure: Étude critique à
propos d’un ouvrage récent», Revue Thomiste, 102 (2002) 271-295.
37
G. LANAVE, «Bonaventure Theological Methode», in J. M. HAMMOND – J. A.
WAYNE HELLMANN – J. GOFF (edd.), A Companion to Bonaventure, op. cit., p. 84.
38
E. FALQUE, «Le contresens du mot theologia chez Bonaventure: Réponse au
frère Henry Donneaud», Revue Thomiste, 102 (2002) 615-624.
is its engagement in disputes regarding the revealed data according to

human rationality. The methodology of manifestation does not enter
in such debates but limits itself to simple exposition of the given truth
which should be accepted in view of its divine origin. Falque’s explanation
points to the essential change in Bonaventure’s conception of theology:
Breviloquium proves his decision to make theology more biblical. Such a
mutation of theological methodology should be understood according to
the hermeneutics of continuity. It does not reject the former past forms of
theology, but truly enhances them.
Both of the interpretations have something in common. They rely
on the same presupposition which could be encountered in Bonaventure,
namely the centrality of revealed date for all theological work. Falque’s
interpretative intuition allows the combining and harmonizing of the
basic meanings of theology in such a way that it represents both divine
authority (revelation) and human action. In such a way the identification
between Scripture and theology does not reduce its human component but
emphasizes the centrality of biblical argument in theology. It is worth noting
that we have already found pretty much the same attitude in Aquinas.
The Prologus of Breviloquium allows us to enter into the details of
Bonaventure’s own understanding of the place of Scripture in his theology.
For him, the Bible and its contents describe and explain the whole universe
partly by simple words and partly by mystical words39. The interplay of
both, literal (simple words) and spiritual exegesis (mystical words) offers
the readers and interpreters a real glimpse into the very mystery of the
creation: “cosmology and salvation history, according to Bonaventure, are
displayed in a synopsis together in the Scripture”.40 The Bible reveals the
truth about the universe. In such a way, it informs a Christian universal
worldview and should be taken as cornerstone of Christianity’s own
mutation of classical metaphysics. To explain that in detail Seraphicus uses
Pauline text from Eph 3: 14-19. By doing this he extrapolates the meaning
of Paul’s original text to the realm of biblical theology. His claim is that
the Holy Scripture has its breadth, length, height and depth, which indicate
the fullness of truth revealed to us in biblical testimony in all its aspects.41
39
Bonaventure, Breviloquium, prol. 1 (5, 201b)
40
41
The fine explanation of their meaning can be found in: BOUGEROL, «Bonaventure
as Exegete», pp. 175-177; REVENTLOW, History of Biblical Intepretation, pp. 207-210.
All of these dimensions of Scripture work together in order to bring the

fullest possible understanding of reality. Such help is needed especially in
the present state of the history of salvation marked by sin.42
The ultimate foundation of such an attitude and its deepest justification
at the same time is Christological and Trinitarian. Bonaventure thinks
throughout the Bible as one of the three modes of existence of divine
Logos. The eternal Son of God (Verbum increatum), the second person of
the blessed Trinity, exists for all eternity as coequal with the Father. He is
the medium through and by whom everything is created and recreated. This
is the first mode of his existence: in the divine Trinity before all ages. The
second mode of his personal existence is incarnation (Verbum incarnatum)
through which he accomplishes his mission to be the Savior of the world.
The third mode of his personal existence is connected with the Scripture and
its inspiration. Christ, the incarnate divine Logos is Verbum inspiratum.43
The very mystery of the holy Bible consists in its relation to the eternal
Logos of God. The Bible is a kind of God the Logos’s body. Obviously
one may not overlook the ontological consequences of such theological
statements which are of transcendent importance for any biblical theology
or theology of the Bible.44 The Bible, in its Christological concentration45,
is one of the most important ways God self-expresses46 himself for the
salvation of humankind. The Seraphicus’s theory of Verbum inspiratum is
probably the most accomplished account of the ontological constitution of
42
Bonaventure, Hex., 13. 12; cf. H. DE LUBAC, Exégèse médiévale, les quatre
sens de l’écriture, IV, Paris 1964, p. 267: «Puisque l’Ecriture sainte doit permettre à
l’homme de comprendre la signification de son etre pour le ramener à Dieu, comme
faisait la création primitive au temps de l’innocence, elle devait avoir ces quatre sens,
qui sont ses quatre fleuves, venant de la mer et y retournant».
43
Bonaventure, Hex., 3.2; see P. MARANESI, Verbum Inspiratum: Chiave
ermeneutica dell’Hexaemeron di San Bonaventura, Istituto Storico dei Cappuccini,
Roma 1996.
44
See Z. HAYES, «Christology and Metaphysics in the Thought of Bonaventure»,
The Journal of Religion, Supplement. Celebrating the Medieval Heritage: A Colloquy
on the Thought of Aquinas and Bonaventure 58 (1978) 82-96.
45
For more see H. URS VON BALTHASAR, The Glory of the Lord. A Theological
Aesthetic, II, Studies in Theological Style. Clerical Styles, Ignatius Press, San Francisco
1984, pp. 260-362.
46
On the metaphysics of Bonaventure, cf. Ch. M. CULLEN, The Semiotic
Metaphysics of Saint Bonaventure, Catholic University of America, Washington D.C.,
2000 (unpublished dissertation).
the theological nature of Scripture. It is worthy to note that Bonaventure

metaphysics and theology come together in such fundamental substructures
of every mature and serious theology as a theory of inspiration and biblical
interpretation. It results in the strengthening of the relationship between the
biblical and metaphysical/philosophical sources of theology. One has to
add that such an ontological account of the Bible is grounded in Trinitarian
theology. Ontology of Verbum inspiratum is theological (Trinitarian) and
Christological in its nature.47 Bonaventure is not afraid of putting into his
theology a kind of ontological justification of its main source, but at the
same time, his ontology is characterized by its theological focus: the one
who sees everything in light of the principle which is the exemplar of all
things is the very metaphysician.48 In such a way his theology does not
cease to be consistent innerbiblical theology.49
Summarizing, we can say that the theoretical basis of the practice
of biblical exegesis is very similar in both cases. Both, Aquinas and
Bonaventure, admit that there is a decisive link between theology and
the Bible, that the truths written in the Scriptures are determinative
for any theological reasoning. Nonetheless one must acknowledge that
Bonaventure’s approach, especially in his late theology, articulates more
the importance of the Bible. It results in a more radical rapprochement
of biblically grounded theology and metaphysics (at least a theoretical
one) as the one we find in Aquinas. Bonaventure seems to focus his own
metaphysics on biblical theology. The ultimate theoretical foundation of
it was his thesis of the unity of theology and scripture which certainly
became a kind of basic ontological presupposition of his thought. For
Bonaventure the most perfect metaphysics can be found in the Scripture.
Such an attitude renders all appeals to any external metaphysics
superfluous and unnecessary, though sometimes useful, especially from
the technical perspective of the usefulness of philosophical vocabulary.
In the case of Aquinas it is quite bit different. He is much more open to
external authorities of philosophers, though always as secondary sources
of theological thought.
We can ask finally about the metaphysical status of the Bible for our
thinkers. For Aquinas the teaching of the Bible is the ground of theology
47
BALTHASAR, The Glory of the Lord, II, pp. 279-280.
48
Bonaventure, Hex., 1. 13.
49
and the ultimate rule for philosophical judgments as well. A very similar
attitude can be observed in Bonaventure. There is only one very important
point, which advances his theory forward with respect to Thomas’s
theory: he discovers the Bible to contain the proper Christian outline
of metaphysics. Such an attitude becomes relevant to the importance of
philosophical metaphysics. The ultimate justification of this thesis is a
Christological consideration of the very nature of Scriptures itself which
is understood as a kind or mode of personal existence of the eternal
Verbum.50
Both of these approaches are epistemological, since they recognize the
fundamental and ultimate sources of theological knowledge, identifying it
with the divine light of revelation and inspiration present in a very special
way, in the witness of the Holy Scripture. The Bible, as such, should be
treated as the source of supreme metaphysical knowledge. In the case
of Aquinas this epistemological status of the Bible denotes already its
metaphysical rank: the Bible is the book which introduces us in the very
arcana of divine light, which, in itself, is the supreme science. Bonaventure
seems to explore such an epistemological statement more than Aquinas
does while developing a Christological and Trinitarian assessment of the
metaphysical status of Scripture. In his theory the Bible becomes not only
a kind of divine-given handbook for sacra doctrina, which regulates a
metaphysical worldview, as in Aquinas, but is the very presence of divine
Truth in the person. Given such an understanding, it should not be a surprise
that Bonaventure did not emphasize the importance of ‘lay’ metaphysics
at all.
4. Medieval Trinitarian theology: Between biblical theology and

metaphysical principles
As we could see as outlined above, both of the aforementioned

approaches rely on a very firm conviction that Scripture is to be at the very
core of all theological thinking and arguing, and that it has a decisive role
50
All these features of Bonaventures’s style make him closer to some version
of a Protestant theological doctrine of.Scripture. Some analogies can be drawn here
between him and Barth. For a detailed analysis of his theology of Scripture see: A. H.
YUEN, Barth’s Theological Ontology of Holy Scripture, Pickwick, Eugene 2014.
in judging the truth of metaphysical propositions. The important part of

such a conviction is that one can find in the inspired text the deepest truth
about the world. Such a view puts scripture, theology and metaphysics/
philosophy in a very close relationship.
There is a significant difference in both Bonaventure’s and Aquinas’s
approaches to theology and its relationship to the Bible and to philosophy.
Aquinas admits the strict collaboration of theology with the strange
sources. His synthesis presents itself as an equilibrated vision of mutual
cooperation of Scripture, theology and philosophy. For Bonaventure,
Scripture itself contains a kind of revealed metaphysics, which makes any
philosophy superfluous and unnecessary.
Such a diagnosis allows us to understand the differences, which
occurred in the various solutions to the same questions which we can
observe in their respective works. A very good lesson can be learned from
the discipline of Trinitarian theology. It was in the space of Trinitarian
disputes where most of the metaphysical concepts had been coined. In
discussing the Trinity “the ablest minds of the Middle Ages tested some of
their most significant thought about identity, sameness, individuality and
causation”.51
Trinitarian theology of the first person is a good illustration of it. As
it is well known, Aquinas and Bonaventure in particular, and as well as
Dominican and Franciscan schools of theology in general, diverge notably
on two particular issues: how the divine person is constituted and how
to understand the Father’s unbegottenness.52 Obviously these problems
are interconnected, mutually conditioning each other. For Aquinas the
persons in the divinity are constituted by their mutual relation, while for
Bonaventure the most decisive moment of the ‘process’ of constitution is
the way each person comes to its personal subsistence. Both solutions and
theories immediately produce distinctive elaborations of the person of the
Father. In Aquinas’s opinion, the Father is constituted by his relation to the
Son (paternitas) which the immediate consequence is that innascaibilitas
51
R. CROSS, «Philosophy and the Trinity», in J. MARENBON (ed.), Oxford Handbook
of Medieval Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012, p. 705.
52
For the details on both accounts see: R. FRIEDMANN, Medieval Trinitarian
Theology, Cambridge University Press 2010. The longer, full version of the argument
can be found in his Intellectual Traditions at the Medieval University. The Use of
Philosophical Psychology in Trinitarian Theology among the Franciscans and
Dominicans, 1250-1350, I-II, E.J. Brill, Leiden – Boston 2012.
can only denote negation of origin (negative tantum).53 Bonaventure’s

position is that unbegottenness should be treated as well as perfecta
positio, as positive property of the Father.54 Such an opinion had to look
very suspicious for Aquinas,55 who “as he sees it, implies that the Father
would somehow be constituted in his personal subsistence in advance of
his paternity-relation”.56 Bonaventure’s solution seems to relativize the
importance of the notion of the relation in Trinitarian theology, which for
Thomas non videtur verum.57.
It is not our task here to resolve the above-mentioned divergences.
The question which preoccupies us is how we can explain such distinct
views given that both authors used the same scriptural references to build
up their respective theologies. There is no doubt that both solutions lean on
and lead to somewhat different metaphysical principles.58 In my opinion,
it can be explained only through the perspective of what we already
discovered concerning their conceptualization of theology, and its relation
to its sources. Bonaventure seems to follow more the Trinitarian witness
of the Scripture, letting its truth invade the metaphysical point of view.
It produces the transformation of meaning of both of the crucial ideas in
classical Trinitarian theology mentioned above. At the same time, Aquinas,
on looking toward a more equilibrated and philosophy-centered version of
theology, appeals to traditional interpretations, which already transformed
some philosophical notions for use in theology as early as in the IV/V
53
See EMERY, The Trinitarian Theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas, pp. 168-172.
54
For the detailed description of the whole argument see R. J. WOŹNIAK, Primitas
et plenitudo: Dios Padre en la teología trinitaria de San Buenaventura, Pamplona
2007 (the monography includes bibliography).
55
Thomas Aquinas, STh I, q. 33, a. 4, ad 1: «Ad primum ergo dicendum quod
quidam dicunt quod innascibilitas, quam significat hoc nomen ingenitus, secundum
quod est proprietas Patris, non dicitur tantum negative; sed importat vel utrumque
simul, scilicet quod Pater a nullo est, et quod est principium aliorum; vel importat
universalem auctoritatem; vel etiam fontalem plenitudinem. Sed hoc non videtur
verum».
56
EMERY, The Trinitarian Theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas, p. 171.
57
In reality, for Bonaventure the category of relatio remains crucial one and
his account of the constitution of the Trinitarian person is much more nuanced and
detailed; cf. WOŹNIAK, Primitas et plenitudo, pp. 116-140.
58
Th. DE RÉGNON, Études de théologie positive sur la Sainte Trinité, II, Retaux,
Paris 1892, pp. 493-497.
centuries (ousia in Athanasius59, hypostatis in Cappadocian Fathers60 and

relatio in Augustine61). His theology of the first person of the blessed
Trinity keeps perfect balance between data from Scripture, tradition,
and some metaphysical presuppositions. The strong unity of biblical and
metaphysical theology based on a combination of Neo-Platonism and
Aristotelism conditioned the concrete shape of his Trinitarian theory,
particularly his theology of the first divine person. Nonetheless it does not
describe all of the aspects of the mystery of the Father. The pre-established
relational account, focused on divine unity, cannot satisfy the biblical
testimony of the fontalitas and personal superiority of the Father in the
same way as Bonaventure’s does in his powerful stress of the idea of
divine, intratrinitarian ordo. Although the speculative part of Seraphicus’s
Trinitarian account is not developed to the same extent, and in similar
detail as Thomas’s is, some aspects of it seem to be more biblical than
Aquinas’s are, especially: the concept of divine ordo, paternal primitas,
etc. In these moments Bonaventure’s theology of God the Father reflects
better the experience of Jesus as it is testified by Him in the Gospels and
which forms the most fundamental ground and medium of revelation of
the Father.
I would like to underline once again that it does not mean in any way
that Aquinas’s theology is based on philosophy, while Bonaventure’s is
not. Both theologies are strictly biblical and both of them are characterized
by some philosophical options. What distinguishes them is the use of the
philosophical means at the time of the hermeneutical interpretation of
biblical data. The synthesis of Thomas seems to be superior to the one
of Bonaventure in this respect and it certainly is as it implies the very
traditional order between faith and reason.62 Nonetheless, Aquinas’s
59
Cf. K. ANATOLIOS, Athanasius. The Coherence of his Thought, Routledge,
London – New York 2004.
60
Cf. J. PELIKAN, Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of
Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism, Yale University Press,
Yale 1995; D. GARCÍA GUILLÉN, ‘Padre es nombre de relación’: Dios Padre en la
teología de Gregorio Nacianceno, GBP, Roma 2010.
61
See L. AYRES, Augustine and the Trinity, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2010.
62
More on the topic of debate on the relation between faith and reason: A. DE
LIBERA, Raison et foi: Archéologie d’une crise d’Albert le Grand à Jean-Paul II, Seuil,
Paris 2003.
practice of collaboration between theology and philosophy, Scripture and

metaphysics, leave in a shadow some of the above-mentioned dimensions
of biblical revelation which have to be taken into account in order to
develop a more accomplished Trinitarian theology.
Such a situation produces not so much a dissent and eclipse of the sense
of the unity of truth, but it facilitates a broader hermeneutical perspective
for Trinitarian theology in particular, and theology over.all in general. In my
opinion, the differences which I enumerated above do not present any real
theological problem. Bonaventure’s theory does not escape the relational
account, as Thomas thought, given his idea of two moments or components
of the unique process of constitutio of the Father’s person.63 In this way
both theologies can be treated as complementary. Aquinas’s equilibrated
vision of theology between Scripture and metaphysics can be compared
and broadened by a more biblical-centered account of Bonaventure. Such
a synthesis is one of the main tasks of future theology.
5. Conclusions: theology beyond foundationalism and non-

foundationalism
The present investigation leads directly to concrete theological and

methodological conclusions. They are made from the perspective of the
starting point of this article, which was the question whether medieval
theology was grounded in external sources.
Firstly, we discovered that in both cases speculative theology was
grounded in biblical reflection. The biblical witness was the strongest and
decisive moment of doing theology, both in Aquinas and in Bonaventure.
In virtue of this, one cannot justify the thesis according to which medieval
theology was founded on aprioric metaphysical presuppositions more
than on the Scripture. Medieval authors, Aquinas and Bonaventure in
particular, did not allow their respective theology to be grounded in any
kind of external sources. The so called foundationalism64 does not explain
63
Bonaventure, I Sent., d. 28, dub. 1: «Unde distinctio personae Patris quasi
inchoatur in innascibilitate et consummatur in paternitate; et ideo no intellecta
paternite, non potest intelligi persona illa complete distincta. Et ideo paternitas est
notio personalis, quamvis in ratione intelligendi prius cadat innascibilitas».
64
On the meaning of this term in philosophy and theology see: K. KILBY, Karl
Rahner: Theology and Philosophy, Routledge, London – New York 2004, n. 2. For
a medieval theological synthesis at all, and can be rejected as a type of

theory of Hellenization designed to explain what happened to theology at
that particular time. This conclusion preserves its validity even when we
take into account the differences between concepts of theology in Aquinas
and Bonaventure and the fact that Aquinas was much keener to employ
philosophy in his own theology, letting it to be informed by philosophia.
Such a process of philosophical information of theology was always under
the tutelage of the original and central role of the Bible, which was for him
the first and most important source of his theology, its starting point.65
Secondly, medieval theology, as it was conceived by its most
outstanding exponents, transcends non-foundationalism as well. The
focus on the revealed content of Holy Scripture permits one to enter into a
powerful synthesis of the biblical message and metaphysics, as in Aquinas,
or, as in case of Bonaventure, to establish a kind of its own metaphysical
account of the reality which is taken from inside revelation. What is of
great importance here is the fact that Bonaventure’s critical attitude toward
philosophy and his emphasis on the Scripture did not lead him to the total
rejection of metaphysics as such. Bonaventure, who can be considered to
be closer to non-foundationalism, incorporated into his own theological
system some of the solutions present already in philosophy, although he
had done it in a somehow different way than Aquinas, with greater caution
and on the margin of his most important ideas. He was interested in
what we could call Christological metaphysics66, which was built on the
Christological assessment of the Scripture itself.
a general and detailed description of current state of debate in theology see as well:
R. RAUSER, Theology in Search of Foundations, Oxford University Press, Oxford
2009.
65
The defense of somehow similar reading of Aquinas can be found as well in
J. MILBANK – C. PICKSTOCK, Truth in Aquinas, Routledge, London – New York 2000,
n. 22. I have to admit that, in my opinion, Milbank and Pickstock overemphasize
theology’s place regarding metaphysics. For Aquinas philosophy plays a crucial role
together with Scripture. If there is a kind of subordination of metaphysics to Scripture
it should not be understood in terms of suspension and subsuming. The reading of
Aquinas presented by the authors of Truth in Aquinas is more adequate in respect of
Bonaventure. The criticism of Milbank’s and Pickstock’s position and their evacuation
of metaphysics operated by theology can be found in: P. DEHART, Aquinas and Radical
Orthodoxy: A Critical Inquiry, Routledge, London – New York 2011.
66
Cf. I. DELIO, «Theology, Metaphysics, and the Centrality of Christ», Theological
Studies, 68 (2007) 254-273.
Thirdly, on the basis of what was said, one has to acknowledge that
the present state of theology requires a very similar attitude. In the era
of the decline of metaphysical accounts, theology’s proper vocation is to
preserve it. In a more general perspective, theology should insist on the
‘metaphysical substructure’67 of the human adventure of thought. It can be
done on the basis of the return to the central place of the Bible in theology.
The more biblical it is, the more it will be able to recover metaphysics
and restore it to its own place. On its own, theology needs both ways or
forms of theology: biblical and metaphysical. Cooperation of both should
be maintained beyond aprioric foundationalism and non-foundationalism.
As we could see above, only a difficult and demanding equilibration of
metaphysical pessimism (Bonaventure) and optimism (Aquinas) will
be able to open before us theology’s broader horizons and new creative
solutions to many of the present theological and philosophical issues.
67
Cf. R. BRAGUE, Les ancres dans le ciel. L’infrastructure métaphysique de la vie
humaine, Flammarion, Paris 2013.
MIROSŁAW MRÓZ*
VIRTUE EPISTEMOLOGY AND AQUINAS’S BIBLICAL

COMMENTARY TO THE CORPUS PAULINUM
Introduction: searching within the virtues of the speculative mind
Nowadays, we are witnessing a heated discussion in the field of

epistemology concerning the question of knowledge, the necessary
conditions to state that someone possesses knowledge and also additional
conditions or even strategies in order to reach the broader sphere of
cognition. Virtue epistemology is a very interesting concept which
being inscribed into the discussion on the theory of knowledge uses the
perspective of intellectual faculties referring to the subject. It is worth
mentioning here such internationally-known authors as Ernest Sosa, Linda
Zagzebski1, Lorraine Code, Christopher Hookway2, James Montmarquert
and Marek Pepliński3 or Natasza Szutta4 in Poland.
An interest in virtue epistemology was born out of the wish to
end an impasse between internalism and externalism in justification-
based theories of knowledge. Central to this debate were an «objective»
condition concerning the real situation of things in the world and a
«subjective» approach, dominated by the perspective of the subject. Virtue
epistemology draws an analogy between ethics and epistemology, where
these two opposing tendencies of behaviour in relation to knowledge
might be focused in the perspective of intellectual virtues of the agent of
*
Professor of Moral Theology; Nicolaus Copernicus University, Faculty of
Theology, ul. Gagarina 37, 87-100 Toruń (Poland); miroslaw.mroz@umk.pl
1
L.T. ZAGZEBSKI, Virtues of the Mind. An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the
Ethical Foundations of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1996; L.
T. ZAGZEBSKI, On Epistemology, Wadsworth, Belmont CA 2009.
2
C. HOOKWAY, Truth, Rationality and Pragmatism: Themes From Peirce, Oxford
University Press, Oxford 2004.
3
M. PEPLIŃSKI, «Wartości epistemiczne wiary w świetle Logiki religii Józefa
Marii Bocheńskiego», Filo-Sofija, 21 (2013), 53-70.
4
N. SZUTTA, «Jedność cnót jako warunek normatywności cnoty», Ethos, 10
(2010), 78-93; N. SZUTTA (ed.), Współczesna etyka cnót: możliwości i ograniczenia,
Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, Warszawa 2010.
436 MIROSŁAW MRÓZ
cognition. Intellectual faculties are shaped by the agent as characteristic of

the subject, which means that they are developed in an inner perspective,
but are simultaneously visible outside, building concrete behaviour and
activity. We may observe here a reverse action where outer attitudes
influence the power of cognition and the understanding of truth.
Such an approach demonstrates that it is impossible to omit the
presentation of the classical attitude to the theory of the virtues of reason
and their thoroughness in the context of building the cognition process.
It is necessary to mention the thought of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas
who laid solid foundations of both moral and intellectual virtues in the
context of theoretical, practical and executive reason. In this article, the
most crucial is the thought of Aquinas presented in his Commentaries to
the Corpus Paulinum. Why do we concentrate on them? The reason for
that is the power of unity, which occurs between reason and faith where
the power of grace plays a principal role in the question of the approach
to subjective theoretical actions. It was St. Paul who shifted the stress
from what is external to what is internal so that it encompasses human
cognition, which following the grace of faith gives new «divine wisdom»
which puts to shame «human wisdom» (cf. 1 Cor 1:17 and 2:5). Is it not
the mixing of wine and water? Can the grace of faith tell us something
about the virtues of reason, the abilities of their functioning and above
all about the cognitive context evaluating the thinking processes from the
inside? Supposedly, we deal with a specific Christian approach here, where
the power of grace appears as real, although it is not reistic, power which
together with reason constitutes, according to the thought of John Paul II,
the second wing on which man rises towards the contemplation of truth. St.
Thomas Aquinas had a predilection for St. Paul’s Letters, which is shown
by the fact that he commented on them twice in the course of his academic
work and preaching. St. Thomas Aquinas is a master of defining cognitive
virtues (of reason), which lead man to the meeting with truth and to enter
its path. Can someone from the Middle Ages revive contemporary thought
in the field of epistemology? Believing so, there are attempts to broaden
the scope of explanations which are crucial for the fruitful development of
virtue epistemology relying on Aquinas’ texts and which contribute to the
presentation of mutual relations between virtue epistemology and ethics.
Intellectual virtues provide a necessary unifying background for a lasting
and reliable encounter with truth which edifies man in relation to it and
in passing it to others. St. Thomas Aquinas uses his theoretical research
VIRTUE EPISTEMOLOGY AND AQUINA’S BIBLICAL COMMENTARY 437
on virtues from, for example, the Summa Theologiae or Commentary on

the Nicomachean Ethics, and in practice in his biblical commentaries
including the Corpus Paulinum. The aim of this contribution is to present
an adequate picture of this intuition and to create a narration which is
indispensable to understand the nature of intellectual virtues. The teachers
of this approach are here S. Th. Pinckaers, W. Giertych, L. Zegzebski, A.
Williams, V. Boland and others. These eminent scholars of Aquinas’ thought
and the Middle Ages, who concentrate their research on the mechanisms of
intellectual virtues and their value today, direct our attention to the synergy
of what is human and divine.
Many disputes conducted by epistemologists suggest certain atypical
solutions concerning the question of language, psychological conditions
of the subject or social contexts of cultural cognition. For a Christian who
lives in grace cognitive virtues are imbued with the «power from above»
and may constitute such a special cognitive context. Jesus Christ promised
that he would send his Spirit so that «you are invested with the power
from above» (Luke 24:49). The power of grace does not leave nature «in
peace» as it purifies and elevates it. It happens in the sphere of the virtues
of reason which will be the object of struggle with this power. The virtues
of understanding, knowledge and wisdom analysed in the context of
Thomas’ Commentaries to the Corpus Paulinum demonstrate a surprising
susceptibility to broadening their depth both in form and content.
1. The virtue of understanding
Intellect understood as mental and cognitive faculty fulfils three

principal functions to which there are subordinated three intellectual
virtues. These tres operationes are the creation of notions, namely simplex
apprehensio (simple apprehension of reality), conducting positive or
negative judgements through compositio et divisio (composition and
division) and reasoning, namely ratiocinatio, which is passing from one
judgement to another: processus de uno ad aliud. This last activity is
ratio and as tertia operatio it combines the course of reasoning with the
discursive process of reasoning. Virtue, which refers to the intellectual
faculty of three individual activities of intellect, does not directly concern
the scope of outer action as it is connected with inner understanding of
truth; however, it is very practical as it combines the will of rightness of
438 MIROSŁAW MRÓZ
judgements in directing human conduct. Inner action does not refer to

outer conduct or performance, which differs from theoretical action and
refers closely to the inner workings of the mind, namely to knowing the
truth, but being in itself dexterity in action it will undertake in time through
the unity of intellect its evaluative competences of outer conduct. «Since,
then, the habits of the speculative intellect do not perfect the appetitive
part, nor affect it in any way, but only the intellective part; they may
indeed be called virtues in so far as they confer aptness for a good work,
viz. the consideration of truth»5. Knowing the truth concerns activity also
in the holistic sense and in this way it refers to the true good. Without
this relation to truth the reality of conduct and performance would be
incomprehensible from a moral point of view. To have a dextrous mind
signifies the knowledge of virtue as dexterity, which leads to a good life:
virtus est ars recte vivendi6. Even the virtue of learning the first principles
of the theoretical mind (habitus principiorum) has a practical dimension
although it seems to be very distant from this sphere. St. Thomas in his
Commentaries to Corpus Paulinum appears to emphasise greatly this aspect
of the virtue of understanding. Thanks to this dexterity man can easily and
without hesitation know and decide that something may simultaneously
exist or that it may not exist, that something is greater than its parts or that
the effect must have its cause. The first principles from which come the
truths of cognition do not constitute an anonymous object in relation to the
truths of faith. Knowledge is based on a correct deduction and induction
but apart from this there exists a need for another type of intelligence,
which allows man to grasp the first principles. They play an important role
in understanding the world and God. This fact that something is an object
and possesses a certain form, is one, namely not contradictory, is separate,
namely sovereign in its being and is also the carrier of truth, goodness and
beauty; it constitutes the source and foundation of rational order which is
God’s order. The virtue of understanding of those first principles, revealed
as the principles of being (the principle of identity, the principle of non-
contradiction, the principle of excluded middle, the principle of the reason
of being, the principle of causality or the principle of finality) is a key,
which opens the door to knowing and understanding the world, persons
and God. In the commentatorial volume to Corpus Paulinum Thomas does
5
ST I-II, q. 57, a. 1c.
6
ST I-II, q, 58, a. 2, ad 1.
not offer such theoretical arguments, but he does so relying on his Summae
and the questions discussed there.
Commenting on the Letters of St. Paul, Aquinas makes direct references
to the correct understanding as he can clearly see that natural things from
which human intellect absorbs knowledge are «measured» by it. The scope
of this «measuring» does not concern them but the fact that they were
«measured» before by divine intellect7. All attempts to understand the world
in isolation from this fundamental idea, which Aquinas «digests» to the end
that all things are creatures (creatura), lead us astray. In the Commentaries
to Corpus Paulinum we cannot find this thought directly, but we have it in
De veritate8 and in Commentary on the Gospel of St. John: «Now truth is
not in the divine intellect because the intellect is conformed to things, but
because things are conformed to the divine intellect. While truth is in our
intellect because it understands things, conforms to them, as they are. And
so uncreated truth and the divine intellect is a truth which is not measured or
made, but a truth which measures and makes two kinds of truth: one is in the
things themselves, insofar as it makes them so they are in conformity with
what they are in the divine intellect; and it makes the other truth in our souls,
and this is a measured truth, not a measuring truth. Therefore, the uncreated
truth of the divine intellect is appropriated, especially referred, to the Son,
who is the very concept of the divine intellect and the Word of God. For
truth is a consequence of the intellect’s concept»9. Here we have a network
7
Cf. De ver., q. 1, a. 2c.
8
Cf. De ver., q. 1 a. 2c: «Ex quo patet quod res naturales, a quibus intellectus
noster scientiam accipit, mensurant intellectum nostrum, ut dicitur X Metaph. sed
sunt mensuratae ab intellectu divino, in quo sunt omnia sicut omnia artificiata in
intellectu artificis. Sic ergo intellectus divinus est mensurans non mensuratus; res
autem naturalis, mensurans et mensurata; sed intellectus noster mensuratus et non
mensurans res quidem naturales, sed artificiales tantum. Res ergo naturalis inter duos
intellectus constituta, secundum adaequationem ad utrumque vera dicitur; secundum
enim adaequationem ad intellectum divinum dicitur vera, in quantum implet hoc ad
quod est ordinata per intellectum divinum, ut patet per Anselmum in Lib. de Verit.
et per Augustinum in Lib. de vera religione, et per Avicennam in definitione inducta,
scilicet: veritas cuiusque rei est proprietas sui esse quod stabilitum est ei; secundum
autem adaequationem ad intellectum humanum dicitur res vera, in quantum est nata de
se facere veram aestimationem; sicut e contrario falsa dicuntur quae sunt nata videri
quae non sunt, aut qualia non sunt, ut dicitur in V Metaphysic.»
9
In Ioh., cap. 18, l. 6: «Sed in intellectu nostro ideo est veritas, quia ita intelligit
res ut res se habent. Et sic veritas increata et intellectus divinus est veritas non mensurata
440 MIROSŁAW MRÓZ
of relations: the divine intellect understood as the absolute foundation of

truth about things and the human intellect, which recreates and receives
what is given. Aquinas uses here a very old notion of «measure», probably
of Pythagorean origin, understood as a non-quantitative way. Mensura
signifies «giving» or «receiving» a measure from creative divine intellect
(mensurans non mensuratum), where the subject is the created reality.
Human intellect as the one which receives but does not give (mensuratum
non mensurans) concerns the truth which is only available to it and which
it can embrace.
The notion of creation is central to Thomas’ teaching about the virtue
of understanding, both from a philosophical point of view and theological
interpretation of light. This truth is so obvious to Thomas that we find it
everywhere even if it is not clearly formulated. «Everything that exists
is real», «everything that exists is good» and «everything that exists is
beautiful» reflect the dexterity of the first principles, namely this first virtue
of theological intellect. Real is synonymous to being, to that which exists
and its good and beauty are identified with the truth of being. These are the
judgements which belong to the classical ontological doctrine and things
lose their «taste» if they are empty and if they are beyond understanding,
which refers of the act of creation. In the Commentary on the First Letter
to Timothy Aquinas adds that: «wisdom according to its own intellect is not
truth other than deriving only from known things»10. The fact that things are
thought by God and thinking is the basis of knowing, it is thus impossible
that the truth of things is contrary to cognitive truth if intellect follows their
rightness. The truth of God’s intellect is the supreme and first truth. Every
thing has in itself as much reality as light11. The human intellect recognises
this light but human vanity and sin leave the mind in darkness. Man needs
God’s support. Obscuring of cognitive senses and intellect in relation to
nec facta, sed veritas mensurans et faciens duplicem veritatem; unam scilicet in ipsis
rebus, inquantum facit eas secundum quod sunt in intellectu divino; et aliam quam
facit in animabus nostris, quae est veritas mensurata tantum et non mensurans. Et inde
est quod veritas increata intellectus divini appropriatur filio, qui est ipsa conceptio
divini intellectus et Dei verbum. Veritas enim conceptionem intellectus consequitur.»
10
In I Tim., cap. 6 l. 4: «Scientia enim secundum propriam rationem non est
nisi verorum. Impossibile autem est, quod verum sit vero contrarium, licet quandoque
duo falsa sint sibi contraria; et ideo impossibile est quod illud quod repugnat veritati
divinae, quae est summa veritas, sit verum.»
11
Cf. In I Tim., cap. 6, l. 4.
the world of things demonstrates that there is a need to restore the power
of understanding to man and to recover the potential for understanding and
intuitive knowledge.
Commenting on St. Paul, Thomas forcefully emphasises that truth
is opposed to falsehood and proclaiming truth is the truth about Christ
the Word as through Him everything was created. It is through Him and
in Him that the whole truth of God and about God (He is the Father) is
revealed and the whole truth about man and the world (they are created to
reveal God’s glory). Christ, the Word and Image threw new light in order to
learn everything in truth. The fact that «res» exist and possess the light of
truth means man can reach this light but due to aversio a Deo the power of
cognition has been limited12. The defects of theoretical reason mentioned
by Aquinas are hebetudo sensus et hebetudo mentis: dullness of senses
and mind which weakens the natural light of intellect. Hebetudo mentis
est per quam mens ad intima penetrare non sufficit13, namely dullness
of mind cannot penetrate entirely what it is; dullness of human senses
and mind, which can be transformed into caecitas mentis, i.e. blindness
of mind; ignorantia, which is the poverty of intellect which is unable to
pass correct judgements about reality; stultitia, i.e. stupidity, where man
is afflicted with the paralysis of soul so that he cannot understand divine
things. This is a certain process of paralysis which affects human cognition
of truth about things including their relation to eternity and it starts with a
certain limitation of understanding by the senses. Human cognition should
penetrate the «depth of things» (cognitione intima)14, which Thomas renders
as «reading» things from inside. It is known that sensuous cognition is
focused on what is external and experienced. If the understanding of intellect
arrives at reading reality as created and to the conclusion that God exists,
it might be said that it happens as the result of a great effort. This faculty
is characteristic of man but it is questioned by inner disorder of the human
heart. Blessed are the pure in heart (beati mundo corde), they are those
who, purified of illusory artefacts, images and errors, can notice the hand
of God and see the reality of the world and themselves. Munditia mentis
is guaranteed by mundtia cordis: understanding is for pure hearts. This
purity is caused by the power of the Holy Spirit and it does so, since man,
12
Cf. Ad Rom., cap. 8, l. 2.
13
ST I-II, q. 8, a. 6, ad 1.
14
Cf. In II Cor., cap. 12, l. 2.
442 MIROSŁAW MRÓZ
recognising the Creator in a simple statement about this understanding, is

deluded and prone to mistakes. The guarantee is «the power from above»:
operatio spiritus sancti, quae est intellectus, convenit mundis corde, qui
purgato oculo possunt videre quod oculus non videt. This sentence from
St. Augustine15, Aquinas recalls also in his Catena aurea16. «The purity of
heart» is a condition of understanding, which notices more than what is
outer and fragmentary and sees what belongs to God’s intelligence. Such
vision does not belong only to the power of nature but is penetrated by the
power of grace. In the Commentary to Super I Tim17 Thomas says that when
in the world causality is revealed and it is visible that certain things realise
in their own being a certain aim because the consequences are practical and
operational. Things possess truth and they are goods and carriers of beauty,
moreover, they are addressed «to» someone. The above mentioned fact is
revealed here, namely, natural things are placed between two intellects:
divine and human. Therefore real things are the subject of understanding
in their created truth where the intellect with will reveal and order human
cognition and conduct. Senses are directed at the inner nature of things
but what is divine in them is noticeable. They are helmsmen of cognition
strengthened by what they have noticed as eternal and permanent. The
noticed characteristic of things is strengthened by the power of the gift
of understanding (donum intellecti), the gift of the Holy Spirit, who on
the basis of what is particular distinguishes what is spiritual and real as
belonging to the thought about being. Relationships discovered by intellect
demonstrate the profound basis of rationality and purposefulness of the
world. Human intellect discovering them makes them, in turn, the principle
of the «new Law», so important for further deepening of understanding
and conduct. Thanks to noticing what transcends the outside and receives
the value of spiritual connotation, reason can be wise indeed and the
surrounding world can process it according to the principle of the spirit.
What for St. Thomas is a buckle which connects different forms of
cleverness, those resulting from the natural reason per rationem naturalem,
and those belonging to the sphere of supernatural values, namely being the
gift of grace received per gratami, is the category of light. According to
Aquinas, the ability of learning the truth, knowing God by man and how
15
De Serm. Dom. in monte; cf. ST I-II, q. 8.
16
Cat. in Mt., cap. 5, l. 8; Cat. in Mc. cap. 13, l. 5; In Ioh. cap. 5 l. 5.
17
In I Tim., cap. 1, l. 2.
it takes place depend on the gift of light. Light is identified with God’s
light and fulfils a cognitive function in his system, enabling the human
mind to reach the truth, also the eternal truth. An active role is played
here not only by the physical light, which is indispensable to make contact
with an object but also the «little light» of human spirit parvum lumen
intelligibile quod est nobis connaturale18. Thanks to the light of active
intellect (lumen intellectus agentis), man, in a natural way, learns the
most general and principal rules of any knowledge but also objects are
known to him and become visible, similarly to material light thanks to
which something is visible from outside. In the same way as material light,
even a very little one, makes it possible for a human eye to see things, the
intellectual light of knowing things makes it possible to understand them,
to understand the truth about them and as a result to discover that they are
the effects which evoke the first cause. All our cognition is received by
senses. Senses perceive God’s works which are the result of His activity.
Above all, eyesight, the most perfect of all senses, plays a decisive role in
sensuous perception of objects. We can distinguish here such elements as
eyes, eyesight, light, seeing and a thing man looks at. Noticing a certain
thing through some conclusions allows us to speak about the result and
the existence of its cause. This faculty of reason is also a certain ability
which Thomas describes as a natural light. It is natural though spiritual and
allows us to grasp a thing, initially perceived only by senses, however, later
imagined, in the categories of non-sensuous truth. Also our knowledge
about God, namely the fact that He exists, we receive through reasoning
which is available to all people regardless of their moral qualifications,
faith or lack of it thanks to the light of reason19. Obviously, the engine of all
those activities is the First Cause –God– who acts through intellect.
Nevertheless, the only way to contact the world is through senses.
Even if man receives supernatural inspirations they always act through
human nature and this is a psychophysical nature, that is, both spiritual
and corporal. Therefore Aquinas does not accept the general illumination
18
ScG, lib. 2, cap. 77, n. 4.
19
Cf. M. MRÓZ, «Transzendenz-Immanenz und Entfernung-Gottesnähe im
Zusammenhang mit Thomas von Aquins Auffassung von der Tugend der Hoffnung», in
H. GORIS – H. RIKHOF – J. M. SCHOOT (edd.), Divine Transcendence and Immanence in
the Work of Thomas Aquinas (A Collection of Studies presented at the Third Conference
of the Thomas Instituut te Utrecht, December 15-17, 2005), Peeters, Leuven – Walpole
MA 2009, pp. 231-254.
444 MIROSŁAW MRÓZ
in St. Augustine’s understanding. St. Thomas does not wish to ignore the
working of secondary causes and that is why he maintains, on the one
hand, the transcendental causality of God’s light. On the other hand, he
offers such a solution which approaches the nature of cognitive process
in man with a great respect. The light of reason shows the first principles
in such a way that they are obvious and evident. Nevertheless, it has to
be remembered that our intellectual light derives its effectiveness from
the First Light (ex Prima Luce), that is God, ipsa veritas increata. The
discovery of attribute of being has a great importance in understanding
the world of persons, animals, plants and things. Thanks to it the world in
which we live is perceived not only as a collection of various objects which
we can use at our disposal but as an environment in which we can realise
ourselves according to the intention and will of the Creator. The world is a
book in which the information about the truth about God and us is written.
Dexterity of cleverness of such cognition starts at the level of the
senses, which are able to render what is spiritual through their openness
to the «light of things». In fact, our senses are the open “heart” of man as
they are the way in which being achieves the power of its understanding.
Aquinas speaks of the «word of the heart» available in intellectual
cognition20. Verbum cordis is a specific «area» for further cognitive activity
born in the agent of intellect which is the manifestation of experienced
being initiated by the senses21. In Commentaries to Corpus Paulinum
Aquinas is not interested in abstract rational human nature. What interests
him in particular is the spiritual role of human senses as man is somehow
destined for the partnership in learning the divine truth. For Thomas,
perceiving through the senses is always associated with spiritual thinking.
Man is seen here in a constant unity of spirit and body. The point of view
in Commentaries is always theological. When Thomas comments on the
hymn in honour of Jesus from the Letter to the Philippians and especially
on the words: «have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Jesus
Christ» he refers to the reality of the senses in their spiritual dimension.
«Having mind (hoc sentite), as a particular experience (est experimento)
should be experienced in five ways according to the five senses. Firstly,
20
L. SCHYNDLER, «Zagadnienie verbum cordis w ujęciu Tomasza z Akwinu», in
A. GÓRNIAK (ed.), Wokół średniowiecznej filozofii języka, Wydział Filozofii i Socjologii
Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa 2002, pp. 21-115.
21
Ibid., pp. 90-94.
to see His glory (videre eius charitatem), so that being enlightened and
being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another. […]
Secondly, to hear His wisdom (audire eius sapientiam) in order to become
happy. […] Thirdly, to smell the grace of His meekness (odorare gratias
suae mansuetudinis) so that we may run to Him. […] Fourthly, to taste the
sweetness of His mercy (gustare dulcedinem eius pietatis), so that we may
always be in God. […] Fifthly, to touch His Power (tangere eius virtutem)
so that we may be saved22. Man endowed with the grace of knowing Christ
cannot only derive his cognition from the encounter with Him as Christ is
God «for us». We learn about Him in the same way as He learns, we feel the
same way He feels; it is a mutual relation of being for each other, a specific
co-humanity. However, it is only understood at the level of grace where
one contemplates with spiritual senses. In fact, it is contemplation; seeing
(conceptio) from experience and ascertaining transformed by grace. Man
overcomes here the dilemma of being torn between the corporal power of
the senses and abstract understanding. Here the virtue of understanding is
completed with the gift of grace of understanding where eyes, ears, smell,
taste, touch, memory (memoria) and imagination (fantasia) being external
senses are filled with spiritual thinking which one experiences with the
heart (personal dimension).
2. The virtue of knowledge
St. Thomas commenting on St. Paul, who uses a Greek word gnosis,
prefers a Latin equivalent scientia, namely science, but also cognition,
namely cognition, identification and knowing. St. Paul frequently mentions
in his Letters the knowing of God (Rom 1:21, Gal 4:9, Phil 3:10), the
recognising God’s will (Rom 2:18), the knowing of law (Rom 7:1) or
the knowing of Christ’s love (Cf. Eph 3:19). In all those passages «science»
is presented as something important, useful or even necessary (scientia
necessaria); it is worth acquiring certain knowledge (certa) and healthy
knowledge (sana). Thomas Aquinas coming across the sentences about the
possibility of knowing God by pagans (Rom 1:20) develops his thought
that natural human reason concluding from the created things can acquire
certain knowledge about God. Aquinas in his Commentary on Rom 1:18
22
In Phil., cap. 2, l. 2.
446 MIROSŁAW MRÓZ
indicates the wrath of God (ira Dei) which is revealed towards those people
who through their wrongdoing do not learn what they can about God from
the times of creation of the world. These are God’s invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divinity (sempiterna eius virtus et divinitas), as they are
visible for the human mind through the act of creation (invisibilia enim
ipsius a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur).
This is God’s wrath towards pagans who will not be able to excuse
themselves from their guilt because they did not learn God’s matters. It
might be thought that it is the passage from St Paul’s sermon which he
preached to pagans. Thomas commenting on it admits that frequently the
«real knowledge of God is kept in injustice, like in slavery» (veram de Deo
cognitione «detinent in ingiustitia», quasi captivatam), as it would lead
to the final truth in itself; however, the reality appears to be completely
different, namely full of falsity and idolatry. In any case the human
mind should oppose this type of attitude. Man can possess a speculative
knowledge about God but unfortunately it is not transformed into a real
religious knowledge and becomes the source of guilt. Unfortunately,
divine truth was enslaved in fetters. «For everything that could have been
known about God was clear to them» (Rom 1:19) (qud notum est Dei,
manifestum est in illis)23. Aquinas believes that a pagan has acquired the
true knowledge of God to some extent, namely man can learn about God
through his reason «thanks to inner light» (id est ex lumine intrinseco).
Thomas emphasises that it is possible to learn the acts of God in the natural
activity of creatures but it has to be known that many matters about God
are not recognisable for man despite revelation. The episode about finding
an altar in Athens with the inscription «To an unknown God» by Paul (Acts
17:33) is for Aquinas a sufficient proof of the possibility of real judgement
of intellect towards the discovered works of God. Thomas elaborates on it
further saying that «knowledge of man starts from what is co-natural for
him, namely from creatures that fall under the category of sensuous and
are not proportional to represent divine essence» (cognitio hominis incipit
ab his quae sunt ei connaturalia, scilicet sensibilibus creaturis, quae non
sunt proprortionata ad representadam divinam essentia)24. This statement
is an introduction to present a threefold way of knowing God which is
done on the basis of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite’s thought and his
23
Ibid., n. 114
24
Ibid., n. 114
book De divinis nominibus25. Firstly, God is known through the discovery

of the cause of created things (per causalitatem). «Creatures are imperfect
and changeable that is why they have to be referred to some permanent
and perfect principle» (huiusmodi creaturae necessse est eas reducere ad
aliquod principium immobilium et perfectum). The second way of learning
about God is «the excellent or supereminent way» (via excellentiae)
where not everything is linked to the first principle as the only proper and
unambiguous rule but to the Universal and Transcendental Cause. Thomas
sees here God as the One who is above everything as entirely different.
No wonder that the third way of gaining knowledge of God is «the way of
negation» (via negationis). If God is the transcendental cause, He cannot
possess anything that belongs to the creatures. We speak of God as eternal
and infinite where these attributes in their form reveal the way of negation
when referring to created things known in a corporal way.
According to Aquinas, this knowledge is inherent to man thanks to the
light of reason (lumen rationis). The reference to Ps 4:7 is very important
for Thomas. It is quoted over thirty times in his works as the direction of
the presence of light of intellect which is a crucial image of God in man.
All the activities of intellect demand divine activity, not only those which
are performed by the power of the light of grace, which is useful as the gift
of science (donum scientiae). God reveals himself to man in two ways:
lumen rationis and lumen fidei where the light of faith is elevated to the
status of subject in the sphere of cognitive activity, filled with new power
and content. God acts here even further, not only in the sphere of endowing
with theological virtues which already empower to understanding and love
in a supernatural sphere but also with the power of intuition described by
Thomas as instinctus. This new enlightening of mind is given in the form
of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in order to learn the divine truth more and
to taste its beauty. It has to be noticed that the revelation of these powers
does not eliminate the obviousness of external signs of what is created or
preached by the word or the Scripture. Pouring out this knowledge is visible
from the outside in the new and fuller reading of the «book» of creatures
or the book of the Holy Scripture. External signs are the same, they might
be seen or touched, the words of the Scripture can be read or heard but in
the human mind the knowledge of God is present in a deeper and more
25
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, De divinis nominibus, cap. 7, n. 3 (PG 3,
872).
448 MIROSŁAW MRÓZ
equivocal unity. God pours out the internal light, thanks to which man
learns what is universal, namely the deepest truth, and always recognises
God’s presence. Thanks to similarities, he participates in various ways and
with a varied intensity of power in the activity of his intellect. The overall
thought is the same, namely if the reason is sufficient to achieve knowledge
that God exists, it is not enough to achieve the supernatural aim. Therefore
God gives His grace and pours out virtues. In the order of the final aim,
reason moves to such an extent as it is changed. This is gratia gratis data,
which empowers man to understand many divine matters, which have not
been comprehended so far. Above all, everything reveals its power in unity
with the service towards oneself and other people.
It has to be noted that the gift of science (donum scientiae) is a great
help for man. This gift being always a rational cognition is not given just
to possess it but to give testimony about divine truth. God’s independent
action in endowing with this gift means that those who receive this
knowledge should use it in the service of love. Aquinas focuses on this
question particularly in the context of the controversy concerning the
participation of Christians in the offerings to idols (1Cor 8). Knowledge
has a practical background. If a Christian is «strong» with the knowledge
of faith he knows that eating food from offerings to idols is not harmful
because there is but one God and the idols do not exist; it does not mean,
however, that with this knowledge understood in a vertical dimension
it is necessary to take into consideration also the horizontal dimension,
namely reference to others in the community who are «weak». The strong
become the cause of double indignation both to the unbelievers who have
a different understanding of pagan offerings than Christians and to other
Christians who perceive this activity as consent to compromise. Thomas
answers: sine caritate scientiam inutiliter habent; knowledge itself inflates
(scientia autem si sola est, inflat). «The strong» in knowledge become vain
in relation to «the weak» who do not know (inde supebitis contra ignoros).
The matter could be utterly trivial, but it gives Thomas the opportunity to
demonstrate that love should always be united with knowledge (addenda
est scientiae charitas). Knowledge without love for others and for oneself
appropriates by its reason the prerogative of infallibility in the general sense
and thus becomes useless. A «man of knowledge» reveals himself here
as a «know-it-all» philosopher and even knowledge about divine matters
may prove to be useless, namely a «stumbling block». Undoubtedly, such a
philosopher is useful if he takes into consideration love, otherwise he does
not serve anything or only to a lesser extent. (Per se quidem est inutilis,
ex caritate vero utilis Philosophus: Scire aut nihil, aut parum prodest ad
virtutem). Thomas refers here to the teaching of Bernard of Clairvaux
citing from his Glossa the following statement: «There are many who seek
knowledge for the sake of knowledge: that is curiosity. There are others
who desire to know in order that they may themselves be known: that is
vanity. Others seek knowledge in order to sell it: that is dishonorable. Others
seek knowledge in order to edify themselves: that is wisdom. But there are
some who seek knowledge in order to edify others: that is love [caritas]»
(Sunt namque qui scire volunt eo fine tantum, ut sciant, et curiositas est;
quidam ut sciantur, et vanitas est; quidam ut scientiam vendant, et turpis
quaestus est; quidam ut aedificentur, et prudentia est; quidam ut aedificent,
et charitas est) (n. 425).
Thomas pays attention to the fact that it is necessary to take into
consideration the learning of many things, possessing the holistic outlook,
namely knowing according to the «order» of cognition where study and
«maturity» in faith take into consideration the aim, which is salvation, the
wellbeing of the «soul»: quo ordine, ut id prius quod maturius ad salutem.
Passion for studying, gaining knowledge where the hearts are burning
should always be satiated with love, otherwise it is only a false glory.
Everything should lead to edifying oneself and others (ad edificationem tui
et proximi). One has to see truth and love in knowledge. Gaining knowledge
and love should be combined with each other if knowledge is to fulfil its
role. Thomas is aware of the mission of discovering the truth on the way
to gaining knowledge. Aquinas does not separate it from learning divine
matters; knowing God-Love is a guarantee of seeing the whole. In accepted
ordine he connects knowledge with love (caritas), which is ultimately
God’s gift. For someone who is «strong» in God’s knowledge it is not a
tragedy to forget the definition of the virtue of love given by Thomas, but
a real tragedy will be if he forgets what love is. Then sensitivity to other
people, fortified by caritas will disappear from his knowledge.
When Aquinas seeks the comparison to such knowledge he refers
to the symbol of a dove which chooses the best seeds. This refers to the
gift of knowledge whereby the saints make a choice of sound doctrines,
with which they nourish themselves (columba meliora grana eligit.
Quod pertinet ad donum scientiae, qua sancti sententias sanas, quibus
450 MIROSŁAW MRÓZ
pascantur, eligunt)26. This is the seed of knowledge sowed by the loving

hand.
As may be seen Aquinas understands knowledge (a virtue and gift) not
only in the metaphysical sense or according to the rules of moral philosophy.
Firstly, he seeks the motives which take into consideration the theological
foundation. It has to be remembered that many moral virtues influence
cognition and knowledge and among them there is undoubtedly the virtue
of sudiositas, whose main aim is to direct a human wish in search of truth
through knowledge. Knowledge which renders the relationship between
principles and discursively deducted conclusions through compositio et
divisio would be limited if we did not notice in Thomas’ understanding
of intellectus the elements of intuition. Also, the gift of knowledge, this
instinctus Spiritus Sancti27, is different from a certain judgement about a
truth by the discursive process of the reason (human knowledge is acquired
by means of demonstrative reasoning28), because God’s knowledge is not
discursive but simple intuition (simplice intuitum29). This is important in
modern times as only discursive knowledge is a dominant form of knowing
the world and also God’s world. The knowledge of saints becomes here
an indisputable argument (argumentum) where not discursive theological
knowledge (scientia acquisita), but intuitum serves to give certain
judgements about God’s truth. Although we deal here with eternal matters
26
ST III, q. 39, a. 6, ad 4; por. Cat. in Mt., cap. 3, l. 7: «Significantur etiam quatuor
virtutes in baptizatis per columbam. Columba enim secus fluenta habitat, ut, viso
accipitre, mergat se et evadat; meliora grana eligit, alienos pullos nutrit, non lacerat
rostro, felle caret, in cavernis petrae nidificat, gemitum pro cantu habet; ita et sancti
secus divinae Scripturae fluenta resident, ut incursum Diaboli evadant; sanas sententias
quibus pascantur eligunt, non haereticas; homines qui Diaboli fuerunt pulli, idest
imitatores, doctrina nutriunt et exemplo; bonas sententias lacerando non pervertunt
haereticorum more; ira irreconciliabili carent; in plagis mortis Christi, qui petra firma
est, nidum ponunt, idest suum refugium et spem; sicut etiam alii delectantur in cantu,
ita ipsi in gemitu pro peccatis. Chrysostomus in Matth.»
27
Cf. ST I-II, q. 68, a. 1.
28
Cf. ST II-II, q. 9a. 1, ad 1.
29
ST II-II, q. 9, a. 1 ad 1: «Nam homo consequitur certum iudicium de veritate
per discursum rationis, et ideo scientia humana ex ratione demonstrativa acquiritur.
Sed in Deo est certum iudicium veritatis absque omni discursu per simplicem intuitum,
ut in primo dictum est, et ideo divina scientia non est discursiva vel ratiocinativa, sed
absoluta et simplex. Cui similis est scientia quae ponitur donum spiritus sancti, cum sit
quaedam participativa similitudo ipsius.»
it is necessary to emphasise that according to Aquinas, knowledge as such

is an earthly matter (temporale); that is why it is «something» specific
«for» man. Therefore knowledge is a discernment and judgement of a
discerned matter in its truthfulness (verum), belonging to the domain of
what is concrete, separate, unique and inimitable30.
3. The virtue of wisdom
Wisdom as a dexterity is the virtue, which shows things from the

perspective of their highest and most profound cause. It is a way to discover
archè. According to Thomas, it is participation through given unity in
knowing God Himself: compassio sive connaturalitas ad res divina,
suffering with God and connaturality with God31. Thus participation is
immersion in a connatural relationship with God, in His love and mercy32.
And here in the context of wisdom we may speak of two aspects of the
same wisdom, namely philosophical and theological wisdom. We have
never an opposition between divine and human wisdom.
In Corpus Paulinum we encounter many passages, which speak of
God’s wisdom as a special gift of grace. The wisdom of Jesus Christ’s
cross from 1 Cor 1: 17-25 appears to be a very interesting and proper
fragment of St. Paul’s thought. It is on the cross where the whole truth
about God (ecce Deus) and the whole truth about man (ecce Homo) were
revealed. The cross expresses the whole love and truth of God towards
man and summarises the whole act of salvation. Undertaken by the Son,
where the Son, before God said «Go to your own», recognised Himself
and «understood with His heart» what the Father wants from Him. It
might be said that because of the unity of the Father and Son –«I and the
Father are one» (Jn 10:30)– the act of salvation takes place; it is a perfect
obedience that comes from love (obedientia caritatis). The Son is equal
to the Father and always obedient to Him. The Father is one with the Son
and loves Him, pouring love into Him and convincing with His merciful
love: inquantum inspiravit ei voluntatem patiendi pro nobis, infundendo
30
Cf. ST I, q. 16, a. 7, ad 3.
31
Cf. ST II-II, q. 45, a. 2c.
32
Cf. I. BIFFI, I misteri di Cristo in Tommaso d’Aquino, vol. I, Jaca Book, Milano
1994, pp. 65-69.
452 MIROSŁAW MRÓZ
ei caritate33. This is the essence of the mystery of divine wisdom when it

comes to the content where Jesus let us know the Father through His own
inclusion into our history. We enter here the mystery of S. Trinitatis which
we are not able to understand entirely. Only lumen gloriae34. the light of
the future glory, gives the power of comprehending its mystery, for which
we need the whole eternity.
When Thomas speaks of knowing God he uses in this context two
contradictory notions cognitio and visio, which refer to two different levels
available to the question of His cognition. Cognitio refers generally to
knowing God, which is available for us during our life on earth, whereas
visio refers to the future knowing, which as a vision and outlook will be
available to man in future life and which through the grace of faith as lumen
sapientiae affects a believer in Christ. Aquinas demonstrates in this way our
journey to God as a specific «operation» with the help of the power of light.
Apart from man endowed by God with the natural light (lumen naturale),
we encounter those who possess the light of faith (lumen fidei) and even
more, namely the light of wisdom (lumen sapientiae)35. It might be said
that the way of knowing God is a reflection about light. However, we still
remain covered by a certain kind of curtain which moves from the light of
faith towards the light of future glory (lumen gloriae). Aquinas emphasises
that one of the important functions of the light of faith is the curing of
the reason but without abusing it with something new and blinding, but
through a friendly and humble way, nevertheless, indisputably effective.
Every man needs it because reaching the threshold of cognition fills man
with the wish of further knowing which exceeds beyond the human spirit
and becomes a supernatural cognition. Man reaches his limits and needs
revelation and grace.
We deal here with the unity of the virtue of wisdom and charity (caritas).
This two-word expression sapientia and caritas lets us understand that man
can create the vision of God’s matters, even those most internal, through
seeing with his heart. This is what Aquinas has in mind when he points out
33
ST III, 47, a. 3 c.
34
Cf. M. MRÓZ, «Poznanie Boga a zrozumienie tajemnicy światła. Kilka uwag na
kanwie myśli św. Tomasza z Akwinu», Filozofia religii, 3 (2007) 85-105.
35
In Tit., cap. 3, l. 1: «Verum autem in rebus divinis dupliciter aliqui percipiunt.
Quidam enim solum per fidem, quidam praegustando per lumen sapientiae per apertam
aliquam cognitionem. Unde quantum ad secundum dicit eramus enim insipientes, id
est privati ista sapientia.»
that a supernatural wisdom (sapientia) of divine things belongs to caritas36.

Knowing the highest cause, namely God, means that man can judge and
order according to divine principles37. Man receives the ability to judge
in this way from the Holy Spirit as a gift of wisdom according to what St.
Paul says in 1 Cor 2:15: spiritualis iudicata Omnia.38 It is «illumination» of
the intellect and will, as a wise man, namely a spiritual man, can perform
good deeds and does not turn away from his aim. A man filled with God’s
wisdom does not only know it but also lives according to it. This intimate
closeness with what God’s love gives unites a wise man with God so that
wisdom derives from the will according to its origin but its essence derives
from the intellect. Commenting on the sentence of St Paul from 1Cor 6:17:
«Anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him» Aquinas explains
that it happens thanks to the principle of unity with God which is a specific
spirituale coniunctione39, which is formed by compassion and natural unity
of divine matters (compassio sive connaturalitas ad res divinas40.
Thomas discovers a specific way to cognition, namely to wisdom
which agrees with God’s outlook in the analysis of the Letter to James
3: 17. The sentence «the wisdom which comes from above is pure and
peace-loving. Persons with this wisdom show understanding and listen to
advice; they are full of compassion and good works; they are impartial and
sincere» (quae desursum est sapientia primo quidem pudica est, deinde
autem pacifica, modesta, suadibilis, bonis consenties, plena misericordia
et fructibus bonis, iudicans sine simulatione), which is a pretext to
demonstrate certain practical steps of the cognitive process. The first step
towards wisdom is the purity of heart, which is necessary to instruction and
the gift of understanding. The second step points to modesty (est modestia),
as a wise man knows that his powers are not sufficient and he has to rely
36
Comp. Theol., lib. 1, cap. 212c.
37
Cf. In I Cor., cap. 3, l. 2: «Secundum gratiam Dei, quae data est mihi, ut sapiens
architectus fundamentum posui.»
38
In I Cor., cap. 2, l. 3: «Dupliciter ergo dicitur homo spiritualis. Uno modo
ex parte intellectus, spiritu Dei illustrante. Et secundum hoc in Glossa dicitur quod
homo spiritualis est, qui, spiritui Dei subiectus, certissime ac fideliter spiritualia
cognoscit. Alio modo ex parte voluntatis, spiritu Dei inflammante: et hoc modo dicitur
in Glossa quod spiritualis vita est, qua spiritum Dei habens rectorem animam regit, id
est animales vires. Gal. ult.: vos qui spirituales estis, instruite huiusmodi, et cetera. »
39
In I Cor., cap. 6, l. 3.
40
ST II-II, q. 45 a. 2 c.
454 MIROSŁAW MRÓZ
on some form of guidance, also from God. The next instruction refers to
wisdom that is compliant (est suadibilis). It happens because man in order
to achieve the full cognition of God’s matters needs the grace from God and
can receive it only by being in unity and peace with Him (est pacifica). A
wise man discovers himself through the formation following the example
of Christ. He does not harm himself or others and does not cause new
trouble (sins). Therefore it is said that wisdom serves the good (est bonis
consentiens), and can see its aim. It also fights to remove the faults of those
who are near. The words that wisdom is full of compassion and good works
(est plena misericordia et fructibus bonis) suggest it. Wise works towards
oneself and others are full of love. Therefore the words that wisdom is
impartial and sincere (iudicans sine simulatione) suggest that under the
pretences of correction we should not feed our false ambition. Practical
advice on the way to wisdom might be found also in the Commentaries to
Corpus Paulinum. They are particularly emphasised in, for example, Super
I Cor., cap. 3, l. 3, where the stupidity (stultitia) and slyness (astutia) of the
wise men of this world are opposed to the true God’s wisdom. Stupidity
in the earthly perspective experiences repulsion towards God and His gifts
and at the same time it deprives earthly things of their dignity of God’s
creatures treating them in such a way as if they were not permeated with
supernatural light. A stupid man does not experience the authentic «taste»
of things and at the same he abuses their nature. He uproots himself from
the true reality created by God41. Aquinas is in those places very precise
and does not look for any compromise saying that stupidity is a sin42.
Conclusion; understanding, knowledge and wisdom in the power of

theology
The reading of Thomas’ Commentaries on the Corpus Paulinum

teaches us one thing, namely that Thomas does not conduct a detailed
analysis of human cognition as he does in his speculative works. Do
Thomas’ Commentaries to the Letters of St. Paul introduce a new element
into the question of epistemology of the virtues of reason? Undoubtedly,
41
Cf. J. SALIJ, «Mądrość i głupota», in ID., Eseje tomistyczne, Wdrodze, Poznań
1995, pp. 49-51.
42
Cf. In I Cor., cap. 1, l. 3.
the context of grace and its dynamics into the cognitive sphere is one of
those new elements.
The virtue of faith and its gifts –understanding, knowledge and
wisdom– are the first rational «transcending» of man towards the Highest
Good, namely God43. Faith undertakes the good for the nature of intellect
and gives it an adequate form and content. The limits of human wisdom
can be achieved in the unity with God. Quite rightly, this type of cognition
can be described as contemplative; nevertheless, wisdom associated with
it is related with the most basic thinking processes which every man uses
when realising his ordinary human activities. However, truth is fortified
by the power of reason, which is transformed by the grace of faith. If
faith defines the most important relation of being which man can achieve,
namely the relation with God described as caritas, this relation of unity
with God aided by human rationality results in the unprecedented inner
«cultivation of soul», also in the sphere of reaching the truth.
It appears clear that Thomas’ cognition project is built on virtue and
grace. Is the «project of virtue and grace» able to keep man close to earth?
Is it possible that when wisdom «sets sail» into the «divine depth» it may
harm man in his cognition? Aquinas affirms that reason and rationality
are kept close to earth thanks to this depth and bear fruit in the broad
perspective for human wisdom.
He may say precisely that man, formed according to this project of
knowing the truth through virtue and grace, is a genuine conqueror and
discoverer of truth. This is the truth that serves man in a concrete and
proper way. A man formed in forma Christi through the virtues of reason
and the gifts of reason becomes a new man strengthened by truth, which
enriches the community. This is the place where one wishes to build on
truth.
Every nature strives for its fullness and this is also true of the nature of
intellect. If the form and content of truth serves «cultivation» of intellect,
the task is fulfilled. Man learning what is elementary learns the most
profound wisdom, overcomes the greatest difficulties because he refers to
what is beyond the senses and available only to their spiritual equivalents.
There is one more vital characteristic of Thomas’ epistemological system,
namely truth is not sought for its own sake; man does not aspire to gain
truth to be wise for himself. Truth refers us to what is eternal and timeless.
43
Cf. R. GIERTYCH, Rozruch wiary, Bernardinum, Pelplin 2012, pp. 45-69.
456 MIROSŁAW MRÓZ
Man through wisdom directed to God rescues himself from the worst of
sins, namely the sin of vanity and pride. In spite of it, the participation in
God’s wisdom elevates the intellect in its dignity when the gifts of reason
guarantee a certain connaturality of man and God and man sees the reality
through the eyes of God Himself. Man receives what the intellect looks
for, namely true purity, sharpness and contemplative understanding. A wise
man needs improvement through the gift of grace to be introduced into
the order of experience and argumentation of wisdom. Here there exists
a pedagogical task, the introduction of new building material to complete
the virtues and their introduction into a fully human and wisdom-like
dimension. According to St. Thomas, reason is the power which should
be most respected and sought after. His words from Commentary on the
Nicomachean Ethics are very important: «The philosopher loves and
honours his intellect, the most pleasing to God of all human things» (Sapiens
enim diligit et honorat intellectum, qui maxime amatur a Deo inter res
humanas)44. This sentence as a motto might be presented in the question of
recognising the correct impulses of all areas of cognition, which are typical
of every man. In The Letter to the Colossians, St. Paul asks to «attain the
full knowledge of his [God’s] will through all the gifts of wisdom and
spiritual understanding» (1Col 1:9). It is through faith that we «learn about
God» (habemus notitiam Dei)45. and the study of the Gospel elevates man
when it bears fruit and gives real joy and happiness. Everything that man
apprehends in the power of grace is the «beginning» of what is final in
cognition and what will be possible in the power of the «light of glory».
44
SLE, lib. 10, l. 13, n. 9.
45
In Col., cap. 1, l. 1.
LLUÍS CLAVELL*
PHILOSOPHY AND SACRED TEXT: A MUTUAL

HERMENEUTICAL HELP. THE CASE OF EXODUS 3,14
As it is well-known, the exegesis of God’s revelation in Exodus 3:14-

17 –saying to Moses «I am who I am»– is probably the most significant case
in the history of mutual help between the sacred text and the philosophical
rationality at least at the metaphysical level. In particular, from Philo of
Alexandria until today those words have not ceased to seek the attention of
the theological and philosophical thought of the Jews, the Christians and
the Muslims.
This is shown by three major collective works, published in French
in the period of just eight years, from 1978 to 1986: P. Hadot (ed.), Dieu
et l’être. Exégèses d’Exode 3 14 Coran et 20, 11-24 (1978); A. de Libera
– E. Zum Brunn (ed.), Celui qui est. Interprétations juives chrétiennes
et d’Exode 3, 14 (1986); D. Bourg (ed.), L’être et Dieu (1986). I merely
mention these books because they offer a rich historical overview of the
subject. But I cannot omit the inaugural lecture of J. Ratzinger Der Gott und
der Gott des Glaubens der Philosophen delivered in 1959 on the occasion
of accepting the chair in Fundamental Theology at the Catholic Theological
School of the University of Bonn. Here the main point of discussion in the
contrast between Aquinas and Emile Brunner on the relationship between
faith and philosophy regards the name of God «who is»1.
*
Professor Emeritus at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Pontifical University of
the Holy Cross (Rome), email: lluisclavell@gmail.com
1
P. HADOT (ed.), Dieu et l’être. Exégèses d’Exode 3. 14 et de Coran 20, 11-
24, Centre d’études des religions du Livre, Études augustiniennes, Paris 1978; A. DE
LIBERA – E. ZUM BRUNN (edd.), Celui qui est. Interprétations juives et chrétiennes
d’Exode 3, 14, Cerf, Paris 1986; D. BOURG (ed.), L’être et Dieu, Cerf, Paris 1986;
J. RATZINGER, Der Gott und der Gott des Glaubens der Philosophen. Ein Beitrag
zum Problem der Theologia Naturalis, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg 1960 (Newly
published with commentary: J. RATZINGER-BENEDIKT XVI, Der Gott des Glaubens und
der Gott der Philosophen. Ein Beitrag zum Problem der theologia naturalis, Johannes-
Verlag, Leutesdorf 2005, 2nd revised edition).
458 LLUÍS CLAVELL
1. An introduction to the Thomistic reading of Exodus 3: 14-17
Let us recall the biblical text, according to the Revised Standard

Version (2004):
He said, “But I will be with you; and this shall be the sign for you,
that I have sent you: when you have brought forth the people out of
Egypt, you shall serve God upon this mountain.” Then Moses said
to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God
of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his
name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO
AM”. And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent
me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of
Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham,
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you: this is
my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all
generations. Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to
them, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham,
of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me, saying, ‘I have observed
you and what has been done to you in Egypt; and I promise that I
will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt, to the land of the
Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites,
and the Jebusites, a land flowing with milk and honey.’”
In Judaism YHVH was not to be pronounced as written in the Hebrew

text, it was read as Adonai; afterwards it was translated as Kyrios in the
Greek version of the Septuagint, and as Dominus in Latin of the Vulgata.
Thomas Aquinas explains the importance of this divine declaration to
Moses, showing the order in which God reveals Himself to men throughout
the sacred history. and God’s names at each step. By the name El Shaddai
He shows His omnipotence to the Patriarchs. Then He reveals more fully
His simplicity to Moses, saying, «I am who I am», an ineffable name which
the Jews pronounce as a different word, Adonai, i.e Lord. Finaly, when the
time of grace has come, the Son of God has revealed the mystery of the
Holy Trinity 2.
2
ST II-II, q. 174, a. 6 c: «Unde Dominus dicit Moysi, Ex. 6, 2-3: ‘Ego Dominus,
qui apparui Abraham, Isaac et Iacob in Deo omnipotente, et nomen meum Adonai
non indicavi eis’: quia scilicet praecedentes Patres fuerunt instructi in communi de
omnipotentia unius Dei; sed Moyses postea plenius fuit instructus de simplicitate
PHILOSOPHY AND SACRED TEXT: A MUTUAL HERMENEUTICAL HELP 459
Thomas notes the progress of the revelation from the first to the second
name, from the omnipotence, which is fundamental to the faith and trust
in God, into the simplicity of the divine being. There is also a continuity in
this progress, inasmuch both names can be reached by human reason. On
the contrary, there is a leap in the revelation of the Trinity, accessible only
by the obedience of faith thanks to a supernatural gift, which leads the man
to invoke God the Father (Abba), the incarnated Son as Brother, Friend,
Savior, and the Holy Spirit as interior Teacher.
Let us briefly examine some divine names, considered by Aquinas in
ST, I, q.13, although not in the same order.
a) ‘God’ is the most proper name from the point of view of meaning
–quantum ad id ad quod imponitur nomen ad significandum– because we
use it to directly signify the divine nature, i.e., the very essence of God,
though we do not know it in itself3. Aquinas is clear in demonstrating that
we cannot reach a quidditative knowledge of God4. But we can find a word
to signify God’s specific and peculiar nature, although. unknown. Like all
words, it also comes from the sensible order. Specifically, its etymology
refers us to an effect of divine action, which somehow embraces other
operations: the wise and loving Providence, which is the basis of our
personal contact with God our Father5.
b) ‘Good’ is another principal divine name, as well as Goodness. It
calls to mind Plato and Christian Neoplatonism and corresponds in the
theological order with the divine statement, «Deus caritas est», which
is distinctive of Christianity. «God is Love»: this is the most expressive
affirmation for many contemporary cultural areas that yearn to overcome
their closed individualism perhaps without knowing how. At the same
divinae essentiae, cum dictum est ei, Ex. 3, 14: ‘Ego sum qui sum’; quod quidem
nomen significatur a Iudaeis per hoc nomen ‘Adonai’, propter venerationem illius
ineffabilis nominis. Postmodum vero, tempore gratiae, ab ipso Filio Dei revelatum
est mysterium Trinitatis: secundum illud Mt. 28,19: Euntes, docete omnes gentes,
baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti».
3
ST I, q. 13, a. 11, ad 1: «Sed quantum ad id ad quod imponitur nomen ad
significandum, est magis proprium hoc nomen Deus, quod imponitur ad significandum
naturam divinam».
4
Cf. M. PÉREZ DE LABORDA, «Il progresso nella conoscenza di Dio secondo san
Tommaso», in Acta Philosophica, 18/II (2009), 309-334.
5
SCG I, cap. 44: «Huius autem fidei veritas in tantum apud homines invaluit ut
ab intelligendo nomen Dei imponerent: nam theos, quod secundum Graecos Deum
significat, dicitur a theáste, quod est considerare vel videre».
460 LLUÍS CLAVELL
time, it is a very controversial term because, as Rémi Brague has lucidly

shown, today many people doubt that reality deserves the adjective
‘good’6.
However, more than one modern reader will be surprised to learn that
Aquinas considers ‘being’ as the most important divine name. Good is
attractive and therefore a final cause, which presupposes being. So Good is
the first divine name in the dynamic and causal order. God has freely and
gratuitously created because He is the Good, wise and loving. With the
name ‘Good’ we express our natural knowledge of God as Beginning and
End, as the long-sought outcome for the search of our Origin and our End,
as the place of our happiness and rest7. It may also be surprising to see, on
this point, Aquinas in company of St. Bonaventure, for whom in God being
is His substance8 and being is the foundation of the good9. Actually both
Thomas and Bonaventure benefit from the fruits of a previous theological
endeavor. Alexander of Hales, meditating on the patristic testimonies, tried
to reconcile Dionysius’ theory of the primacy of the good with the priority
of being affirmed by St. John of Damascus. Earlier, William of Auxerre
dealt with the same issue10.
c) ‘Being’, ‘Who is’ or ‘I am’, or ‘I am who I am’. Regarding
the relations between man and God, the name Being is not the most
usual word, since that word clearly reflects the natural but arduous
path of human intelligence from sensible things to the Creator. The
name ‘Who is’ fits better than any other, from the point of view of
created perfection –the participated being– where the name comes
from: quantum ad id a quo nomen imponitur. The reason is that being.
6
R. BRAGUE, La infraestructura metafísica. Assaig sobre el fonament de la vida
humana, Cruïlla, Barcelona 2011.
7
ST I, q. 13, a. 11, ad 2: «Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc nomen bonum est
principale nomen Dei inquantum est causa, non tamen simpliciter: nam esse absolute
praeintelligitur causae».
8
Cf. Bonaventura, Comment. in Sap. XIII, 5, 1, in Bonaventura, Commentarii
in sacram scripturam, Ed. by COLLEGIUM SANCTI BONAVENTURAE, Collegium S.
Bonaventurae, Quaracchi, 1889 (Opera omnia, t. 6): «eum qui est, id est Deum, cui
esse est substantiale».
9
Cf. Id., In Hexaemeron, X, 10; op. cit., t. V, p. 378; ibid., XI, 1; t. V, p. 380.
10
Alexander of Hales, Summa Theologica, P. II, inq. II, tract. I, q.l, cap. II, art.
1-2, ed. Quaracchi, Grottaferrata 1924-1948, t. I. pp. 521-523: «Qui est simpliciter est
primum nomen, quoad nos vero primum nomen est bonum» (op. cit., p. 523); William
of Auxerre, Summa Aurea, cap. III, q. 7.
means the whole reality and, with regards to the reality, it is the most
intimate and perfect11.
d) The Tetragrammaton. In the same question 13 of the ST one finds
even a bigger surprise. Just as if a person reveals to us his own name or
his pet name, that is the most appropriate since it defines that person in
an exclusive way as a unique subject, so when God revealed His name to
the Jewish people, that name is maximally His own. That is the case of
the Tetragrammaton. Out of reverence for this divine name, the people of
Israel began to substitute the title Adonai in its place. The Tetragrammaton
designates the very incommunicable and singular divine substance. If God
reveals His name in that way, this is the most appropriate name12.
Two testimonies can help to grasp this issue existentially and not in a
purely theoretical way. The first is from Duns Scotus:
O Lord our God, true teacher that you are, when Moses your servant
asked you for your name that he might proclaim it to the children of
Israel, you, knowing what the mind of mortals could grasp of you,
replied: “Ego sum qui sum”, thus disclosing your blessed name. You
are truly what it means to be, you are the whole of what it means
to exist. This, if it be possible for me, I should like to know by way
of demonstration. Help me then, O Lord, as I investigate how much
our natural reason can learn about that true being which you are if
we begin with the being which you have predicated of yourself.13.
The second one is by a woman endowed with a particularly realistic

intelligence, Saint Therese of Avila, who defined humility as truth.
There was one thing of which at first I was ignorant: I did not know
that God was in all things, and, when He seemed to me to be so very
present, I thought it impossible. I could not cease believing that He
11
Thomas Aquinas, ST I, q. 13, a. 1, ad 11: «Ad primum ergo dícendum quod hoc
nomen Qui est est magis proprium nomen Dei quam hoc nomen Deus, quantum ad id
a quo imponitur, scilicet ab esse, et quantum ad modum significandi et consignificandi,
ut dictum est (in c.)».
12
Ibid.: «Et adhuc magis proprium nomen est Tetragrammaton, quod est
impositum ad significandam ipsam Dei substantiam incommunicabilem, et, ut sic
liceat loqui, singularem».
13
Duns Scotus, De primo rerum omnium principio, c. I, art. 1. Ed. Allan Wolter,
Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago 1983.
462 LLUÍS CLAVELL
was there, for it seemed almost certain that I had been conscious of
His very presence. Unlearned persons would tell me that He was
there only by grace; but I could not believe that, for, as I say, He
seemed to me to be really present; and so I continued to be greatly
distressed. From this doubt I was freed by a very learned man of the
Order of the glorious Saint Dominic: he told me that He was indeed
present and described how He communicated Himself to us, which
brought me very great comfort14.
2. É. Gilson’s Hermeneutic and some reactions
The three collective works mentioned at the beginning refer many

times to Étienne Gilson’s studies on Christian philosophy. Gilson,
especially starting from some editions of his work Le Thomisme (4th 1942,
5th 1944, 6th 1965), argues for the existence of a Christian philosophy at
whose center is placed a concept of God as fullness of being inspired by the
text of Exodus 3:14. According to him, one can find the best elaboration of
Aquinas’ philosophical thought in the theological works, which go beyond
the Aristotelian metaphysics. This thesis is especially developed starting
from two works of 1960: Introduction à la philosophie chrétienne and
Elements of Christian Philosophy.
Mostly thanks to Gilson’s research, the existence of a philosophy in the
Christian Middle Ages besides theological knowledge has been recognized.
The history of medieval philosophy is now included in the curriculum of
many universities, and its acceptance has progressively grown in many
cultural areas. This cultural change has spread the conviction that faith
and reason are not opposed, and that to be a philosopher does not require
putting aside the acceptance by faith of divine revelation, culminating in
the incarnation of the Son of God.
In 1975, on the occasion of his 91st birth anniversary, E. Gilson
–who, beginning with a doctoral thesis at the Sorbonne University in
Paris on freedom in R. Descartes ended with discovering the philosophy
14
Teresa de Jesús, Libro de la vida, chapter 18, 15 in EFRÉN DE LA MADRE DE
DIOS – OTGER STEGGINK (edd.). Obras completas de Santa Teresa de Jesús, Biblioteca
de Autores Cristianos, Madrid 1976, 5a ed., chapter 18. English translation The
collected works of St. Theresa of Avila. Transl. by K. KAVANAUGH – O. RODRIGUEZ, ICS
Publications, Washington D.C. 1976, vol. 1, p. 163.
of Thomas Aquinas and then other medieval Christian philosophers (St.

Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, etc.) - received a
congratulatory letter from Paul VI, in which the Pope praised the fruits of
that research15. The letter continues by highlighting the connection between
a metaphysics that reaches God the Creator and the Thomistic notion of act
of being16. It is worth remembering that Blessed Giovanni Battista Montini,
like his predecessor Pius XI before, had obtained a doctorate in Thomistic
philosophy at the Roman Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. During his
pontificate he encouraged very much the reflection upon the preambles of
faith, as powerfully demonstrated by the speech with which he addressed
the members of that Academy shortly before the start of the last session of
Vatican II17. This text is quoted in the footnote 31 of the Conciliar Decree
15
Lettre du Pape Paul VI au Professeur Étienne Gilson, 8-VIII-1975: «Votre
enseignement dans les Universités françaises, et notamment à la Sorbonne et au
Collège de France, ou encore à Harvard, puis à Toronto où vous avez fondé l’“Institute
of Medieval Studies”, sans oublier les leçons que vous avez données à notre Université
du Latran; les “Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen-Âge”, fondées
et longtemps dirigées par vos soins; enfin et surtout les œuvres denses que vous avez
publiées, vous classent au premier rang parmi ceux qui ont initié nos contemporains
aux richesses, souvent oubliées ou dédaignées, de la philosophie médiévale. L’Église,
experte en humanité, ne peut que s’en réjouir». This private letter can be found in
Documents pontificaux de Paul VI, Éditions Saint-Augustin, Saint-Maurice (Suisse)
1978, vol. XIV, 1975, pp. 421-423.
16
«Vous avez su mettre en évidence l’originalité du thomisme en montrant
comment le Docteur Angélique –éclairé par la révélation chrétienne, en particulier
par le dogme de la création et par ce que vous appelez “la métaphysique de I’Exode”–
était arrivé à la notion géniale et vraiment novatrice de 1’ “acte d’être”, ipsum esse.
Dès lors sa philosophie se situait sur un plan tout autre que celle d’Aristote. Vous avez
ainsi ravivé une source de sagesse dont notre société technique tirerait grand profit,
fascinée qu’elle est par l’“avoir”, mais souvent aveugle sur le sens de l’“être” et sur
ses racines métaphysiques. Votre intérêt ne s’est d’ailleurs pas limité à saint Thomas.
Saint Augustin, saint Bernard, saint Bonaventure, Duns Scot ont également fait l’objet
de vos études. De ces travaux, comme de ceux, plus généraux, sur “la philosophie au
Moyen-Age” et sur “l’esprit de la philosophie médiévale”, une grande idée se dégage
qui nous est particulièrement chère: la foi n’est pas, pour la pensée, pour la culture
humaine, une entrave ou un éteignoir, mais une lumière et un stimulant. C’est dans le
contexte de la théologie, à la lumière de la Révélation, que la pensée philosophique,
chez saint Thomas notamment, a atteint ses sommets» (Ibid.).
17
Discours du Pape Paul VI.aux membres de l’Académie Pontificale de Saint
Thomas D’Aquin, 10 –IX-1965: «Le thème que vous avez choisi pour ces journées
d’études: “Dieu dans l’œuvre de Saint Thomas et dans la philosophie contemporaine”,
464 LLUÍS CLAVELL
Gravissimum educationis. As it is well known, Montini, who wanted to be

well trained about some important thinkers of the modern age, also translated
himself into Italian the well-known work of J. Maritain Three reformers.
Along with these undeniable merits, Gilson’s view on Christian
philosophy provoked several types of reactions. Some of them came from
the misunderstanding of metaphysics as onto-theo-logy. In a 1957 lecture
entitled The onto-theo-logical constitution of metaphysics, Heidegger
argues that metaphysics considers being from the perspective of a common
ground for all beings as such. In this sense it is a rational (precisely:
logical) foundation of reality, which must be classified as onto-logic. But
metaphysics further thinks being as a whole, this is the whole reality, and
finds the supreme being that supports the totality, thus it is logical as theo-
logic18. In Was ist Metaphysik he criticizes theologians for using Greek
philosophy and forgetting St. Paul’s assertion in 1 Cor. 3:19, that «the
wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight». «Faith does not need
the thought of Being. When faith has recourse to this thought, it is no longer
faith», says Heidegger in a dialogue with students19. «The square and the
rencontre en effet l’une de nos constantes préoccupations pastorales: la négation de Dieu.

Dès notre première Encyclique, Nous avons montré en tette négation “le phénomène le
plus grave de notre époque”. […] Et vos études peuvent en outre contribuer à dissiper
la méprise d’un certain nombre de croyants qui sont aujourd’hui tentés par un fidéisme
renaissant. N’attribuant de valeur qu’à la pensée de type scientifique, et défiants à
l’égard des certitudes propres à la sagesse philosophique, ils sont portés à fonder
sur une option de la volante leur adhésion à l’ordre des vérités métaphysiques. En
face de cette abdication de l’intelligence, qui tend à ruiner la doctrine traditionnelle
des préambules de la foi, vos travaux se doivent de rappeler l’indispensable valeur
de la raison naturelle, solennellement affirmée par le premier Concile du Vatican
(Denzinger-Schönm. 3004, 3009, 3015 et 3026), en conformité avec l’enseignement
constant de l’Eglise, dont saint Thomas d’Aquin est l’un des témoins les plus autorisés
et les plus éminents. […] Elle échappe par là à la situation historique particulière du
penseur qui l’a dégagée et illustrée comme “la métaphysique naturelle de l’intelligence
humaine”. Aussi avons-Nous pu dire que, “reflétant les essences des choses réellement
existantes dans leur vérité certaine et immuable, elle n’est ni médiévale ni propre à
quelque nation particulière; mais qu’elle transcende le temps et l’espace, et n’est pas
moins valable pour tous les hommes d’aujourd’hui” (Lettre au T.R.P. A. Fernandez,
Maître général des Frères Prêcheurs, le 7 mars 1964; A.A.S., LVI, 1964, p. 303)».
18
Cf. M. HEIDEGGER, Identität und Differenz (German-Spanish bilingual edition),
Anthropos, Barcelona 1990.
19
Quoted by J. GREISCH in «La contrée de la sérénité et l’horizon de l’espérance»,
in R. KEARNEY (ed.), Heidegger et la question de Dieu, Grasset, Paris 1980, pp. 168-193.
circle have in common at least this: being either spatial figures, while on
the contrary an abyss separates the Christian faith and philosophy»20.
Heidegger’s critique against metaphysics as onto-theo-logy is
consistent with the essentialist thinkers’ stance. Trained in this tradition,
he tries to overcome it, yet he presupposes that all Christian - and even
all Western- metaphysics stands in this tradition. His idea of the God of
philosophy as Causa sui and his famous statement, «If God is, then He is
also a being»21 gives the impression of being in the horizon of an ontology
in which God is only a case under the most common and imperfect concept
of being, i.e. in the field of the formalist and essentialist ontology which
has been developed starting from Duns Scotus and Suarez and arriving at
the rationalism of Descartes and Wolff. It is a representational ontology
that remains within the idea of being without accessing being itself22.
It is understandable why Jean-Luc Marion, reacting to this kind of
ontology –although flatly mistaking metaphysics for representationalism–
has spoken of «conceptual idolatry», not only because every representation
of God is inadequate, but for the very fact of pretending a representation.
Unfortunately this confusion has led him to the proposal of a «God without
being»23. Although Marion has more recently realized that Aquinas’
philosophy is unaffected by the ontotheology criticism, however, he
still thinks that metaphysics, as such, has the characteristics stated by
Heidegger24.
What said until now recalls the question of the dehellenization of
Christianity. Benedict XVI addressed this point in his lucid and courageous
academic discourse at the University of Regensburg, on the 12 September
2006. It analyzes the program of dehellenization of Christianity in the
20
M. HEIDEGGER, Nietzsche II, Gallimard, Paris 1971, p. 108. In a letter of 1914
to Engelbert Krebs, Heidegger expresses his reaction to the Motu proprio Doctoris
Angelici of S. Pius X about the teaching of Thomas Aquinas’ thought (cf. Ph. CAPELLE,
Philosophie et théologie dans la penseé de Martin Heidegger, Cerf, Paris 1998,
p. 151).
21
M. HEIDEGGER, Die Technik und die Kehre, Neske, Pfullingen 1962, p. 45:
«Denn auch der Gott ist, wenn er ist, ein Seiender.»
22
J.-I. SARANYANA, Sobre Duns Escoto y la continuidad de la Metafísica. Con un
epílogo de gramática especulativa, Eunsa, Pamplona 2014.
23
Cf. J.-L. MARION, Dieu sans l’être, Fayard, Paris 1982.
24
Cf. J.-L. MARION, «Saint Thomas et l’ontothéologie», Revue thomiste, 95
(1995) 31-66.
466 LLUÍS CLAVELL
Reformation of the sixteenth century, in the liberal theology of the

nineteenth and twentieth (Adolf von Harnack) centuries and at its present
stage. In his reasoned conclusion he reaffirms the critical importance of
the encounter between Christianity and Hellenism. Some argue today that
the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was

an initial inculturation which ought not to be binding on other
cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple
message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order
to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is
not simply false, but it is coarse and lacking in precision. […] True,
there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not
have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental
decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use
of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments
consonant with the nature of faith itself25.
Gilson responded in his essay L’être et Dieu to the reactions from

the point of view of the onto-theo-logical interpretation of metaphysics,
of which those listed above are examples26. Géry Prouvost in his book
Thomas d’Aquin et les thomismes (1996) has dealt with the following
question: why there are so different schools of thought among the disciples
of Aquinas, from the thirteenth century to the present27? In my opinion, the
author confirms the view of some historians like F. Van Steenberghen about
the importance of rediscovering being as act for a proper interpretation
of the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas. Among the philosophers
who have used such a criterion in reading Aquinas’s writings there are
for instance Fabro, Gilson, Cardona, De Finance, Mondin, Melendo,
Campodonico, Lobato, Sánchez-Sorondo, Saranyana, Llano. According to
some of these scholars, this type of Thomism, which they call ‘existential
Thomism’ was highly influenced by the Second Vatican Council28.
25
BENEDICT XVI, Faith, Reason and the University. Memories and Reflections,
University of Regensburg, 12 September 2006.
26
«L’être et Dieu», Revue Thomiste, 62 (1962) 398-416.
27
Cf. G. PROUVOST, Thomas d’Aquin et les thomismes, Cerf, Paris 1996.
28
For my part, I find more appropriate to speak of metaphysics of ‘being as act’,
because being is not the same as mere fact or state of ‘existence’. It is a point in which
Fabro has been particularly clear and explicit, in confrontation with Heidegger. Cf. L.
ROMERA, Pensar el ser. Análisis del conocimiento del “actus essendi” según C. Fabro,
Peter Lang, Bern 1994.
On the other side, there are criticisms of the theological underpinnings

in Gilson’s interpretation. Undoubtedly, the French medievalist clearly
points out the difference between being and existence in the metaphysics
of Aquinas:
Existence may mean either a state or an act. In the first sense, it

means the state in which a thing is posited by the efficacy of an
efficient or of a creative cause, and this is the meaning the word
receives in practically all the Christian theologies outside Thomism,
particularly those of Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Scotus and
Suarez. In a second sense, the existence (esse) points out the interior
act, included in the composition of substance, in virtue of which the
essence is a “being”, and this is the properly Thomistic meaning of
the word29.
However, Gilson argues that the real distinction between essence and
being is not strictly demonstrable, because all demonstrations presuppose
the notion of act of being as the intrinsic fundamental principle of all beings30.
This notion is not the result of an intellectual intuition, but conceivably
comes from the divine statement in Exodus 3:14. The consequence is that
the key point of Thomistic metaphysics would have a theological base,
not only in its historical origin, but in a permanent way. At stake here is a
point of paramount importance. If the summit and the key of philosophy is
not attainable by rational demonstration, then, it seems that the only way
available is a kind of theological wisdom, which employs an insufficient
philosophy in the natural order.
A particularly thorough and balanced analysis of this issue is offered
by John F. Wippel31, who has managed to clarify some exaggerations
of Gilsonian notion of Christian philosophy, without forgetting what is
positive in it. Furthermore Wippel has undertaken the hard task of writing
a metaphysics of Aquinas, putting into practice the method indicated by
Thomas himself, but avoiding the Gilsonian preference of presenting
29
É. GILSON, Elements of Christian Philosophy, New American library, New York
1963, p. 184.
30
É. GILSON, Introduction à la philosophie chrétienne, Vrin, Paris 1960, pp. 55-58
and 97-105.
31
J. F. WIPPEL, Metaphysical themes in Thomas Aquinas, Catholic University
of America Press, Washington D.C. 1984 (see Chapter I: Thomas Aquinas and the
problem of christian philosophy, pp. 1-33).
468 LLUÍS CLAVELL
Aquinas’s philosophical thought in a theological order32. Wippel properly

distinguishes the various arguments for the real distinction between essence
and act of being. Some are reached after the knowledge of the identity
of being and essence in God. Others however belong to the upswing of
metaphysics toward the first and final cause of the whole reality.
3. «Qui est» and «Ego sum qui sum» in the exegetical writings of
Aquinas
Shown below are the scriptural texts of St. Thomas on the divine names
Qui est and Ego sum qui sum, especially the texts found in the Glossa
continua super Evangelia or Catena aurea (Matthew in 1264, the other
three gospels were completed between 1265 and 1268) and the Lectura
super Ioannem (probably between 1270 and 1272).
a) Catena in Mt., cap. 22, l. 3. Replying to the captious question of the
Sadducees about the levirate law («After them all, the woman died. In the
resurrection, therefore, to which of the seven will she be wife? For they all
had her»), Jesus says: «And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you
not read what was said to you by God,.‘I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the
living» (Mt 22, 31 -32).
Basing on Origen’s commentary in his Homily 22 in Matthaeum,
Thomas writes:
Origenes in Matth. Deus etiam est qui dicit: ego sum qui sum. Sic
ergo impossibile est ut dicatur eorum Deus esse qui non sunt. Et
vide, quia non dicit: ego sum Deus Abraham, Isaac et Iacob; sed
Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac et Deus Iacob. In alio autem loco sic
dixit: Deus Hebraeorum misit me ad te. Qui enim perfectissime
sunt circa Deum, quantum ad comparationem ceterorum hominum,
totum habent Deum in se: propterea non communiter, sed
singulariter dicitur eorum Deus; ut puta si dicamus: ager ille illorum
est, ostendimus quod unusquisque eorum non habet eum in toto.
Si autem dicimus, quod ager illius est, demonstramus quia totum
agrum possidet ille. Ubi ergo dicitur Deus Hebraeorum, imperfectio
32
J. F. WIPPEL, The metaphysical thought of Thomas Aquinas: from finite being to
uncreated being, Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2000.
demonstratur eorum: quia unusquisque eorum aliquid modicum de

Deo habebat. Dicitur autem Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac et Deus
Iacob, quia singuli eorum totum habebant Deum. Non autem
ad modicam laudem respicit patriarcharum quod Deo vivebant”
(Catena in Mt., cap. 22, l. 3)
The only one God who says: «I am who I am», cannot be the God of
non-existents. Therefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob live. Moreover, He is
not only the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the God of Abraham,
the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob: singuli eorum habebant totum
Deum; each one of them fully possesses God.
b) Catena in Matthew, cap. 25, l. 4. Here are Jesus’ last words on the
final judgment, when the Son of man comes in his glory: «And they will
go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life» (Mt
25 v 46.).
Thomas summarizes what S. Augustine says in De Trinitate, 1.8:
«Quod enim dixit dominus famulo suo Moysi: ego sum qui sum, hoc
contemplabimur cum vivemus in aeternum. Ita enim dominus ait: haec est
vita aeterna ut cognoscant te verum Deum» (Catena in Matthew, cap. 25
l. 4). Aquinas follows the traditional interpretation according to which the
present tense of the verb ‘to be’ is to mean the eternal life.
Let us go the Gospel of St. John, in the Catena aurea and Lectura
super Ioannem.
c) Ioh. 1,1: «In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum,
et Deus erat Verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum». Aquinas gives a
deep explanation of the use of the past tense.
In Ioh, cap. 1, l. 1:
Considerandum est etiam hic, quod dicitur verbum erat, quod est
temporis praeteriti imperfecti, et hoc maxime videtur competere
ad designandum aeterna, si attendamus naturam temporis et eorum
quae sunt in tempore. Quod futurum est, nondum est actu; praesens
autem actu est, et per hoc quod est actu praesens, non designatur
fuisse: praeteritum autem perfectum designat aliquid extitisse, et esse
iam determinatum, et iam defuisse; sed praeteritum imperfectum
significat aliquid fuisse, et non esse adhuc determinatum, nec
defuisse, sed adhuc remanere. Ideo signanter Ioannes ubicumque
ponit aliquid aeternum, dicit erat; ubi vero dicit aliquid temporale,
dicit fuit, ut infra patebit. Sed quantum ad rationem praesentis
470 LLUÍS CLAVELL
competit maxime ad designandum aeternitatem praesens tempus,

quod signat aliquid esse in actu, quod semper convenit aeternis: et
ideo dicitur Ex. III, 14: ego sum qui sum; et Augustinus dicit, quod
ille solus vere est, cuius esse non novit praeteritum et futurum. Est
etiam considerandum quod hoc verbum erat, secundum Glossam,
non sumitur hic inquantum significat temporales motus, more
aliorum verborum, sed secundum quod signat rei existentiam: unde
et verbum substantivum dicitur.
A widespread patristic interpretation of the «I am» said by God focuses

on the use of the present tense to mean eternity. But it is worth thinking
about the past tense used in John’s prologue. This recalls the Qal form in
Hebrew.
d) In John 6, 15-21, after the multiplication of the loaves, the apostles
see Jesus walking on the sea, drawing nigh unto the ship, and are afraid.
He tells them: «I am, do not be afraid». The several occasions in John’s
gospel, in which Jesus simply says ‘I am’ are well known and have been
commented by the Church Fathers. In this case, Aquinas chooses for his
Catena aurea the interpretation of Bede.
«Non autem dixit: ego sum Iesus, sed tantum ego sum: quia familiares
eius erant, ideoque audita voce, facile potuerunt cognoscere magistrum:
sive, quod verius est, ut ostenderet se illum esse qui Moysi dixit: ego sum
qui sum». (Catena in Ioh., cap. 6, l. 2).
e) Jesus’ words ‘I am’ are more frequent in the Chapter 8. Let us look
at these cases. John 8, 21: «Again he said to them, “I go away, and you
will seek me and die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come”.
Then said the Jews, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am
going, you cannot come’?” He said to them, “You are from below, I am
from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. I told you that
you would die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I am, you will
die in your sin”».
In the Catena commentary, he takes the Augustinian “I am who I am”
in the sense of divine immutability, which excludes the mixture of non-
being: «Augustinus. Cum autem dixit si non credideritis quia ego sum, quia
nihil addidit, multum est quod commendavit: quia sic etiam et Deus Moysi
dixerat: ego sum qui sum. Sed quomodo audio: ego sum qui sum, et nisi
credideritis quia ego sum, quasi alia non sint? Sed prorsus qualiscumque
excellentia, si mutabilis est, vera non est: non enim est ibi verum esse ubi
est et non esse». (Catena in Ioh., cap. 8, l. 5)
However the passage in the Lectura super Ioannem reflects the own
metaphysics of Thomas33:
Et dicit ego sum, non autem quid sim, ut rememoret quod dictum
est Moysi, Ex. III, v. 14: ego sum qui sum: nam ipsum esse est
proprium Dei. In qualibet enim alia natura a divina differt esse et
quod est, cum quaelibet natura creata participet suum esse ab eo
quod est ens per essentiam, scilicet ipso Deo, qui est ipsum suum
esse, ita quod suum esse sit sua essentia.
f) In the same chapter we read a remarkable statement which leads

many to believe in Jesus:
They said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Even what I
have told you from the beginning. I have much to say about you and
much to judge; but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world
what I have heard from him.” They did not understand that he spoke
to them of the Father. So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the
Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing
on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And
he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do
what is pleasing to him.” As he spoke thus, many believed in him.
Thomas explains this passage carefully34:
Primo divinitatis maiestatem; secundo suam originem a patre; tertio

sui a patre inseparabilitatem. Maiestatem quidem divinitatis, cum
dicit quia ego sum; idest, habeo in me naturam Dei, et sum ille qui
locutus est Moysi, dicens: ego sum qui sum. Sed quia ad ipsum
esse pertinet tota Trinitas, ideo ne excludatur personarum distinctio,
consequenter docet credere originem a patre, cum dicit et a me ipso
facio nihil: sed sicut docuit me pater, haec loquor.
I would stress the words «ad ipsum esse pertinet tota Trinitas» which
resemble those of Augustine: «Deum ergo diligere debemus trinam
quamdam unitatem, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, quod nihil
aliud dicam esse, nisi idipsum esse»35.
33
In Ioh., cap. 8, l. 3.
34
Ibid.
35
Augustinus, De moribus ecclesiae catholicae, XIV, 24; P.L., t. 32, col. 1321.
472 LLUÍS CLAVELL
In the Catena regarding the words «When you have lifted up the Son
of man, then you will know that I am he» (verse 28), Aquinas comments
the effectiveness of the exaltation of Jesus in the paschal mystery with St.
Augustine, announcing that only after the exaltation they will understand
the meaning of “I am”, as “I am who I am”36:
Cum dixisset dominus: verax est qui misit me, non intellexerunt
Iudaei quod de patre illis diceret. Videbat autem ibi aliquos quos ipse
noverat post passionem suam esse credituros; et ideo sequitur dixit
ergo eis Iesus: cum exaltaveritis filium hominis, tunc cognoscetis
quia ego sum. Recolite illud: ego sum qui sum, et cognoscetis
quid sit dictum ego sum. Differo cognitionem vestram, ut impleam
passionem meam. Ordine vestro cognoscetis qui sum, cum scilicet
exaltaveritis filium hominis. Exaltationem autem crucis dicit, quia
et ibi exaltatus est quando pependit in ligno.
g) In that same chapter, Jesus helps listeners to believe that He is God:
The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon.
Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, ‘If any one keeps
my word, he will never taste death’. Are you greater than our father
Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to
be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is
my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God.
But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know
him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his
word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he
saw it and was glad.” The Jews then said to him, ‘You are not yet
fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. So they took
up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of
the temple.”
If some of them believe, others understand that he declares himself to

be God and want to stone him. In this passage of the speech Jesus uses the
verb ‘to be’ in the present tense, but by referring to earlier times.37
36
Catena in Ioh., cap. 8, l. 7.
37
Catena in Ioh., cap. 8, l. 14.
Quos benigne redemptor noster a carnis suae intuitu submovet,

et ad divinitatis contemplationem trahit; unde sequitur dixit ergo
eis Iesus: amen, amen, dico vobis: antequam Abraham fieret, ego
sum. Ante enim praeteriti temporis est, sum vero praesentis; et quia
praeteritum et futurum tempus divinitas non habet, sed semper esse
habet, non ait: ante Abraham ego fui, sed ante Abraham ego sum:
secundum illud: ego sum qui sum. Ante ergo vel post Abraham
habuit esse, qui et accedere potuit per exhibitionem praesentiae, et
recedere per cursum vitae.
In his own commentary in the Lectura to this same text, Aquinas also
explains the names ‘who is’ and ‘I am who I am’, according to the context,
in terms of eternity almost with the same words38:
Ut ergo ostenderet se esse aeternum, et esse suum esse aeternitatis

insinuet, non ait ante Abraham ego fui sed ante Abraham ego sum
nam esse aeternum non novit tempus praeteritum et futurum, sed
in uno indivisibili includit omne tempus. Unde dici potest illud Ex.
III, 14: “qui est misit me ad vos; et ego sum qui sum. Ante ergo vel
post Abraham habuit esse, qui et accedere potuit per exhibitionem
praesentis, et recedere per cursum vitae”.
h) In the Last Supper narrated by John in chapter 13, Jesus predicts

Judas’ betrayal and again says “I am”: «If you know these things, blessed
are you if you do them. I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have
chosen; it is that Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has
lifted his heel against me’. I tell you this now, before it takes place, that
when it does take place you may believe that I am he».
Thomas did not want to miss this “ego sum” without mentioning that
it is possible to connect it to Ego sum qui sum39:
Consequenter cum dicit amodo dico vobis priusquam fiat, assignat

causam quare exceptionem posuit; quasi dicat: diu tacui eius
malitiam sed quia tempus est ut prodeat in publicum, ideo dico
vobis, idest manifesto, antequam fiat, ut credatis quia ego sum qui
futura praedico, et occulta cordis manifesto; quod est proprium
Dei; Ier. c. XVII, 9: pravum est cor hominis et inscrutabile: quis
38
In Ioh., cap. 8, l. 8.
39
In Ioh., cap. 13, l. 3.
474 LLUÍS CLAVELL
cognoscet illud? Ego dominus scrutans cor, et probans renes; Is.

LXI, v. 23: secutura quoque annuntiate nobis, et sciemus quia dii
estis vos. Vel: ego sum qui sum, Ex. III, 14.
i) Also in the so called priestly prayer in chapter 17 the eternal life is

put in relation to “I am who I am”: «When Jesus had spoken these words,
he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify
thy Son that the Son may glorify thee, since thou hast given him power
over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. And
this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ
whom thou hast sent”».
In the Catena in Ioh. cap. 17, l. 1 Thomas takes the commentary of
Augustine in De Trinitate: «Quod dixerit famulo suo Moysi: ego sum qui
sum, hoc contemplabimur cum vivemus in aeternum.»
This reading of the main exegetical texts of Thomas Aquinas on Ego
sum qui sum shows the mutual hermeneutical help between the sacred text
and philosophy, and the way in which Aquinas assimilates the tradition by
way of his personal speculation.
4. The divine name «Qui est» in the Summa Theologiae
Question 13 of the first part of the ST is probably the most perfect

synthesis of the names of God found in the works of Aquinas. In other
writings there are further developments on certain points, but here they are
better organized in an accurate and concise manner. For this reason, the
reflection on article 11 of this question –«if this is the most proper name of
God»– is a particularly deep and perfect introduction to the issue.
The analysis of the names of God is not the beginning of the path,
because everything is named by us as we know it. The name is thus
affected by the limitation of human knowledge. But the question of how
we know God is neither the first, since it arises only when we already
know and reflect on our act of understanding directed to the reality; i.e.,
having reached the truth that God is, and that He is simple, perfect –the
very goodness–, infinite, immense, immutable, eternal, one40. Hence, the
truly human way to know God is to not starting with a critique of our
40
These are the issues treated in the questions 2-11 of ST I.
knowledge of God, but first to consider what God is in Himself, and then
how God is in our intelligence.
We call God with many names, all of them poor in trying to express
the ineffable divine reality. Which one means Him with more propriety or is
less imperfect? This question is linked to God’s statement to Moses when he
approaches the bush that burns without being consumed. The answer –«sic
dices eis: ‘Qui est’ ad me misit vos»– is used by St. Thomas, according to
the traditional patristic interpretation, as an argument for his answer: “Who
is” is the most proper name of God. Aquinas offers three reasons.
1. The first one is the meaning: “He who is” does not mean a certain
way of being or a determined form, but the very being or esse. And as the
act of being of God is its essence –and this is not in any other entity–, it
is clear that between all the names, this one means God more properly41.
This first argument reaches the conclusion directly and, in its simplicity,
involves the summit of the entire metaphysics: the real distinction between
essence and act of being in any entity that is by participation, and the need
of a Principle which has perfect unity and identity. Only in God does exist
the Fullness of Being, unmixed with anything else that could be a limit. Its
essence is Act of Being. So as every name must mean the essence, hence in
the case of God, His name is ‘Being’ or ‘He who is’. This reason –propter
sui significationem– is placed firstly, because the function of a name is to
mean in some way the essence.
2. By its universality, since all the other names are less common or
universal than ‘being’; or, if they have the same universality, they add
something, inseparable of Being: Unity, Truth, Goodness, Beauty. In our
life on earth we do not know the divine essence as it is in itself, and any
determination that we can attribute to God is always deficient with respect
to His being. Hence, the more determined the name is, the more it requires
purification of the imperfections of our knowledge and of the creatural
reality to apply it to God. Conversely, we can apply to God more properly
the names that are less determinate, more common and absolute. Therefore,
the name “He who is” has no limits in any way, but it is indeterminate,
41
ST I, q. 13, a. 11 c: «Primo quidem, propter sui significationem. Non enim
sígnificat formam aliquam, sed ipsum esse. Unde, cum esse Del sit ipsa eius essentia,
et hoc nulli alii conveniat, ut supra (q. 3, a. 4) ostensum est, manifestum est quod inter
alia nomina hoc máxime proprie nominat Deum: unumquodque enim denominatur a
sua forma».
476 LLUÍS CLAVELL
covers every mode of being, and can help us to get a clear concept of the
infinite ocean of substance that is God42.
In this second argument, the reason is not so direct, but it is derived
from the first one: it is based on the mode of signifying. And from the
point of view of the order of our knowledge, since all the names applied to
God are taken from creatures, they have an imperfect mode of signifying,
as a consequence of the imperfection of creation. The name ‘being’ is
the least determined and concrete, and therefore the least imperfect. But
it causes some dissatisfaction to us, who sometimes have the inclination
of conceiving the word and concept of being as the most empty and
indeterminate, the most common and general notion. That is a paradox: the
most proper name seems the poorest one. This impression can be removed
when the metaphysics of being is recovered and becomes able to grasp
again the wealth condensed in the term ‘being’. More specifically, in light
of the Thomistic notion of actus essendi, this second reason appears highly
expressive, not only for the lack of imperfections, but because being is
the act of all acts, the perfection of all perfections: the act par excellence.
Reaching the summit of metaphysics is indispensable to understand and
relish this name of God. Without this notion of an intensive act of being,
we would find this term as the most poorest of expression, like a mere
indetermination, almost identical to nothing.
This argument, therefore, should be read after the first one, forming a
unit with it. It highlights the limitation of our knowledge of being, which
has repercussion on the name of God. The first reason, on the contrary,
would emphasize the positive moment of our knowledge: we know that
God is Being, that is, the full Perfection. Under this metaphysical light we
42
Ibid.: «Secundo, propter eius universalitatem. Omnia enim alia nomina vel sunt
minus communia; vel, si convertantur cum ipso, tamen addunt aliqua supra ipsum
secundum rationem; unde quodammodo informant et determinant ipsum. Intellectus
autem noster non potest ipsam Dei essentiam cognoscere in statu viae, secundum quod
in se est: sed quemcumque modum determinet circa id quod de Deo intelligit, déficit
a modo quod Deus in se est. Et ideo, quanto aliqua nomina sunt minus determinata,
et magis communia et absoluta, tanto magis proprie dicuntur de Deo a nobis. Unde et
Damascenus dicit quod principalius omnibus quae de Deo dicuntur nominibus, est Qui
est; totum enim in seipso comprehendens, habet ipsum esse velut quoddam pelagus
substantiae infinitum et índeterminatum’. Quolibet enim alio nomine determinatur
aliquis modus substantiae rei: sed hoc nomen Qui est nullum modum essendi
determinat, sed se habet indeterminate ad omnes; et ideo nominat ipsum pelagus
substantiae infinitum».
can glimpse the philosophical contribution added by Aquinas to the text of

St. John Damascene, and not as an addition from outside, but from inside.
In fact, the metaphysics tries to go deeper inside the reality (intus legere).
3. From its consignification. The divine name “He who is” signifies to
be in the present tense, and this fits very well to God, which in his eternal
life has neither past nor future43.
This last reason is taken from something that is meant only indirectly
in the name “He who is” or “I am”, as we saw in John’s gospel. It is clearer
if we consider the term ‘Being’ instead of “He who is” or Qui est, in which
the personal and subsisting nature of God is emphasized. Thus, Aquinas
states that «that which has being by its essence, if we stress the terms,
should be described as “being itself” (ipsum esse) rather than as “that
which has being” (id quod est)»44.
God is the only being whose name is a verb in the infinitive form –
to be –, because He is the very act of being unparticiped, which does not
requires a subject. Plus, the past and the future are inflections of the verb,
not existing in the present. Actually only the present is, and God is always
in an eternal and endless present. The name “Being” connotes therefore
eternity. So the argument, which at first glance might seem only linguistic,
has a metaphysical root and forms a unit with the previous two.
5. The issue of the Tetragrammaton
It is worth l shining a further light on the most proper divine name,

considered by Thomas almost only in ST45. The Greek Church Fathers
–for example Clement of Alexandria and Origen– considered this term as
a personal name ineffable and mystical. Saint Jerome, Alcuin, Bede the
Venerable among others convey this information, distinguishing between
the Tetragrammaton and the name “He who is” (Esher Ehjeh).
43
Ibid.: «Tertio vero, ex eius consignificatione. Significat enim esse in praesenti:
et hoc máxime proprie de Deo dicitur, cuius esse non novit praeteritum vel futurum, ut
dicit Augustinus in V De Trin.».
44
Cf. De Pot., q. 7, a. 2, ad 8 : «[…] quod enim per essentiam suam est, si vim
locutionis attendamus, magis debet dici quod est ipsum esse, quam sit id quod est».
45
Cf. A. MAURER, Being and Knowing. Studies in Thomas Aquinas and Later
Medieval Philosophers, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Toronto 1990, chapter
5: St. Thomas on the Sacred Name ‘Tetragrammaton’, pp. 59-69.
478 LLUÍS CLAVELL
According to Armand Maurer, Aquinas includes this point in his

treatise on the divine names in ST thanks to a more careful reading of
Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed. The Rabbi devotes two chapters to
the Tetragrammaton and then another one to the name “He who is”, clearly
distinguishing both names, as already did Philo of Alexandria centuries
earlier. The Tetragrammaton was written, but only the high priest was
hallowed to pronounce it on the day of Atonement. It was the proper name,
unparticipable by any other. Its meaning was lost, although Maimonides
suggests that of “to be necessary” (necesse esse). YHWH designates only
the reality of God; it is a name not derived from the creatures, its etymology
is unknown.
In Aquinas’ works there are several references to the Tetragrammaton.
For example, in ScG IV, cap. 7, where the heresy of Arius is attacked. In
n. 7 we read:
Amplius. Apostolus, ad Rom. 9-5, dicit: ex quibus Christus est

secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula,
amen. Et Tit. 2-13: expectantes beatam spem, et adventum gloriae
magni Dei et salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi. Et Ierem. 23 dicitur:
suscitabo David germen iustum et postea subditur, et hoc est nomen
quod vocabunt eum, dominus iustus noster, ubi in Hebraeo habetur
nomen tetragrammaton, quod de solo Deo certum est dici. Ex quibus
apparet quod filius Dei est verus Deus.
Thomas offers a very successful explanation in ST I, q. 13, a. 9 c:
Est nihilominus communicabile hoc nomen Deus, non secundum

suam totam significationem, sed secundum aliquid eius, per
quandam similitudinem, ut dii dicantur, qui participant aliquid
divinum per similitudinem, secundum illud, ego dixi, dii estis. Si
vero esset aliquod nomen impositum ad significandum Deum non
ex parte naturae, sed ex parte suppositi, secundum quod consideratur
ut hoc aliquid, illud nomen esset omnibus modis incommunicabile,
sicut forte est nomen tetragrammaton apud Hebraeos. Et est simile
si quis imponeret nomen soli designans hoc individuum.
In the human language, the role of proper nouns is to mean one thing
in its singularity, for example, a mountain (the Everest), a sea (the Baltic
Sea), a person (Joseph), etc. The name ‘John’ means a man as one specific
and unique individual, a singular subject (suppositum); on the contrary,
the term ‘man’, when is the predicate of a given subject (“John is a man”),
means him by its nature, which is common to other individuals of human
species. The first term (John) is ex parte suppositi; the second is ex parte
naturae. The Tetragrammaton is the maximally proper name of God
because it appoints Him ex parte suppositi, ie, as is “this something” (hoc
aliquid).
The reality is made of concrete beings; and these are also what we
know. So our knowledge only reaches its perfection, when it assimilates
the realities in their individuality: what is known only in general is not well
known, since the most important of the thing, its ultimate perfection, is
ignored; to know in general is still to know in potency rather than actually46.
The individual beings are not unintelligible due to their singularity,
but because of the materiality47; but even the individual material things
are not unintelligible. Certainly for the human intelligence the acts or
perfections of material things are potentially intelligible, because such
acts are constrained by prime matter (materia prima). By the light of the
intellectus agens, which is a sharing in the divine Intelligence, we extract
the form and the acts of those material things, and in receiving them in
our intelligence, are somewhat spiritualized, freed from their material
constraint; in this way we also note that in their individual being these
perfections are by participation, in a divided and fragmented way. The
intellectual act of abstracting the universal concepts or notions means to
apprehend the act that is participated in the singular. It is not therefore a
poorer but a richer knowledge of a singular entity.
Knowledge and language terminate in singular subjects having being.
«If metaphysics forgets the suppositum and refers to the essence, it loses
the place and the center of esse, and declines, at least by its method, into
a particular science, as has happened in the metaphysical and scholastic
rationalism. It is not surprising that these positions have caused reactions
to recover the singular and the singular act - existentialism, for example -,
46
ScG I, cap. 50: «Quod autem cognoscitur in communi tantum, non perfecte
cognoscitur: ignorantur enim ea quae sunt praecipua illius rei, scilicet ultimae
perfectiones, quibus perficitur proprium esse eius; unde tali cognitione magis
cognoscitur res in potentia quam in actu».
47
ST I, q. 86, a. 1, ad 3: «[…] singulare non repugnat intelligibilitati inquantum
est singulare, sed inquantum est materiale, quia nihil intelligitur nisi immaterialiter.
Et ideo si sit aliquod singulare immateriale, sicut est intellectus, hoc non repugnat
intelligibilitati».
480 LLUÍS CLAVELL
but in so far as this recovery focuses only on its operations and not in its
act, it cannot grasp the singular as a whole»48.
The first Cause is not a vague divinity, but the living and personal
God who has revealed His name. But as the proper nouns usually come
from some typical accidents (e.g. the Red Sea) or a conventional decision
(family nicknames, for example), in the case of YHWH, however, this
proper name somehow comes, as we saw in Maimonides, from the very
essence of God, which we know only by way of affirmation, removal and
eminence and that is the fullness of Being subsisting in all its intensity and
unlimited wealth. This identity between act of being and essence is unique
of God. So I end with this question: in God, given that his name comes
from his unique fullness of Being (ex parte suppositi), is his name also
somewhat a name ex parte naturae? The question arises because YHWH
is the most proper divine name inasmuch it indicates the same ‘Being’,
which is God.
48
J. J. SANGUINETI, «La persona humana en el orden del ser», in Tommaso d’Aquino
nel suo settimo centenario (Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Roma-Napoli, 17-24
aprile 1974, Edizioni Domenicane Italiane, Napoli 1978, vol. 7, p. 344.
MATTHEW J. RAMAGE*
IN THE BEGINNING: READING GENESIS WITH

THOMAS AQUINAS & BENEDICT XVI
Introduction
This chapter explores the respective exegetical methods and practices

of Thomas Aquinas and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as applied within the
account of primeval history narrated in Genesis 1-3. Before treating
commonalities between Aquinas and Ratzinger, the latter’s critiques of
neo-scholasticism are addressed first so as to make it clear that Ratzinger
is not strictly speaking a Thomist. With this initial caveat in place, there
follows an overview of principles illustrating key points of contact in
which Ratzinger implicitly (and explicitly at points) connects his exegetical
programme with that of Aquinas. Finally, the core of the chapter consists
in illustrating how the shared principles of Aquinas and Ratzinger are
applied to specific realities within the biblical text. It will be shown that
Ratzinger conducts his exegesis of Genesis in a way that is much in the
spirit of Thomas and indeed shares many parallels with Thomas’ exegesis
of the same texts. At the same time, it will be made clear that Ratzinger
makes significant advances beyond Aquinas with the help of the modern
scholarly tools to which he is privy. Thus it will be seen that Aquinas’
exegesis continues today to exert its influence and to remain profitable
even as it needs to be supplemented by the best scholarship currently
available –precisely the view advanced by a leading biblical scholar who
was to become bishop of Rome.
Ratzinger’s Critiques of Neo-scholasticism & Preference for

Bonaventure
Before exploring commonalties in the exegetical projects of Ratzinger

and Aquinas, a word is in order concerning the former’s critical stance
towards scholasticism in the form it had assumed within the century prior
*
Benedictine College, 1020 N. 2nd St., Atchison KS 66002 (USA); mramage@
benedictine.edu
482 MATTHEW J. RAMAGE
to Vatican II. In the interview book Salt of the Earth, Cardinal Ratzinger
sums up his view at the time of the council:
I was of the opinion that scholastic theology, in the form it had

come to have, was no longer an instrument for bringing faith into
the contemporary discussion. It had to get out of its armor; it also
had to face the situation of the present in a new language, in a new
openness. So a greater freedom also had to arise in the Church1.
Instances of such criticism abound in Ratzinger’s reflections published

after the council in the volume Theological Highlights of Vatican II. Here
he relates that the council’s preparatory schema on revelation, framed upon
the basis of a «cramped» neo-scholastic theology with an «excessively one-
sided zeal», was imbued with the same «anti-Modernistic neurosis which
had again and again crippled the Church since the turn of the century»2.
Young Fr. Ratzinger was critical of scholasticism broadly speaking,
but in a few places it emerges that he had difficulty relating with Thomas
Aquinas specifically. Reflecting on his seminary experience at Freising, he
writes, «I had difficulties in penetrating the thought of Thomas Aquinas
whose crystal-clear logic seemed to me to be too closed in on itself, too
impersonal and ready-made»3. Ratzinger traces the cause of this difficulty
to his experience with a certain Thomist professor who «presented us with
a rigid, neo-scholastic Thomism that was simply too far afield from my
own questions…[I]t seemed that he himself no longer asked questions but
limited himself to defending passionately, against all questions, what he
had found»4.
While Fr. Ratzinger struggled to relate with the thought of Aquinas
early in his career, he did find a like-minded partner in Bonaventure. He
indicates in his habilitation thesis on Bonaventure’s theology of history,
«For the questions with which I was concerned, Bonaventure was naturally
1
J. RATZINGER, Salt of the Earth, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1997, p. 73. Note
that this chapter at times refers to the one man Ratzinger/Benedict by his surname and
other times by papal name in the effort to distinguish writings composed during his
pontificate from those preceding it.
2
J. RATZINGER, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Paulist Press, New York
1966, pp. 41-42, p. 27; cf. Theological Highlights, p. 23, p. 219.
3
J. RATZINGER, Milestones, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1998, p. 44.
4
RATZINGER, Milestones, p. 14.
IN THE BEGINNING: READING GENESIS WITH 483
a more likely subject for study than Aquinas»5. Bonaventure dealt more
directly than Aquinas with the themes that interested Ratzinger—
specifically questions at the intersection of divine revelation, history,
and metaphysics. Moreover, while Bonaventure did not target Thomas
himself in his critiques of contemporary Aristotelianism, it is likely that
what Ratzinger describes as an «anti-Thomism» in Bonaventure exerted
its influence upon him insofar as Bonaventure was wary of a theology that
would rely too heavily upon the thought of Aristotle6.
While Bonaventure’s lesser reliance on Aristotle had its appeal for
Ratzinger, the latter acknowledges that neither Bonaventure nor Aquinas
discussed the nature of divine revelation in the sense it has been understood
within fundamental theology in the modern period. As one finds in the
treatise on prophecy in the Summa (II-II, qq. 171-74), the theologians of
the Middle Ages were more concerned with the nature of “revelations” than
with the objective reality or content of «revelation» as such7. Ratzinger
elaborates:
[In the High Middle Ages] “revelation” is always a concept

denoting an act. The word refers to the act in which God shows
himself, not the objectified result of this act. And because this is so,
the receiving subject of revelation is always also part of the concept
of “revelation.”Where there is no one to perceive “revelation,” no
re-vel-ation has occurred, because no veil has been removed8.
Bonaventure’s understanding of «revelation», which referred to the

unveiled spiritual sense of Scripture rather than its letter, had a profound
impact on Ratzinger’s theology of revelation as evinced in writings
spanning his entire career9.
5
J. RATZINGER, Theology of History in St. Bonaventure, Franciscan Herald Press,
Chicago 1971, xii.
6
RATZINGER, Theology of History, pp. 136-138.
7
Ibid., p. 57.
8
9
RATZINGER, Theology of History, p. 62. On the subject of not being revelation
per se but rather the “essential witness” or “testimony” to a revelation which precedes
and exceeds it, see Milestones, 109 and 127; K. RAHNER - J. RATZINGER, Revelation and
Tradition, Herder, New York 1966, p. 35; BENEDICT XVI, Verbum Domini, 17-18.
Aquinas and Benedict: Points of Contact
Notwithstanding young Fr. Ratzinger’s criticisms of neo-scholastic

thought, from both what was stated above and from what he states
elsewhere in his corpus it is clear that Ratzinger’s problem was not with
Thomas himself so much as with the overly rigid presentation of Aquinas’
thought common in preconciliar theology. The following will tease out
four points of contact between the thought of Aquinas and Ratzinger
implied by the latter’s suggestion that Thomas’ exegesis offers an antidote
to deconstructive forms of modern exegesis.
An Open Philosophy
In a number of key places Ratzinger explicitly acknowledges the

significance of Aquinas’ thought within his own exegetical programme.
After explaining that his Jesus of Nazareth is not a «Life of Jesus» or a
«Christology», Ratzinger explicitly states that Aquinas’ treatise on the life
of Christ in the Summa is «closer to my intention» and that with this work
«my book has many points of contact»10. Though privy to scholarly tools
not available in Aquinas’ day, Ratzinger identifies with the Angelic Doctor
in his patient attentiveness to God’s word and his desire to put believers in
touch with the «figure and message» of Jesus Christ11.
In the section of his 1988 Erasmus Lecture entitled «Basic Elements of
a New Synthesis», Ratzinger expounds at greater length on the importance
of Thomas’ thought for helping believers encounter Christ through his
word. In contrast with a Kantian «ready-made philosophy», Aquinas’ «open
philosophy» is «capable of accepting the biblical phenomenon in all its
radicalism» by admitting that a real encounter of God and man is witnessed
in history –and made possible today– by the Scriptures12. For Ratzinger, a
10
BENEDICT XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 2, Holy Week: From the Entrance into
Jerusalem to the Resurrection, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2011, xvi.
11
BENEDICT XVI, Jesus, xvi.
12
J. RATZINGER, «Biblical Interpretation in Conflict: On the Foundations and the
Itinerary for Exegesis Today», in J. GRANADOS – C. GRANADOS – L. SÁNCHEZ-NAVARRO
(eds.), Opening Up the Scriptures: Joseph Ratzinger and the Foundations of Biblical
Interpretation, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI 2008, p. 23. This version of Ratzinger’s
text (there are three different published editions of the lecture in the English language
«critique of the critique» requires a rejection of the false presuppositions

of those who would exclude a priori God’s ability to speak through human
words. Aquinas’ method, deeply rooted in the Catholic tradition with its
conviction that the boundary of time and eternity is permeable, allows
Ratzinger to perceive in the Bible an inspired witness to the marvelous
interplay of divine and human freedom such as it unfolded over more than
a thousand years of salvation history.
Divine Pedagogy & Condescension
In his Erasmus Lecture Ratzinger identifies a second point of contact

with Aquinas: the recognition of salvation history’s Christological
teleology. According to Ratzinger, Thomas serves as a «counter-model»
to Kantian exegesis in that he presupposes the action of divine providence
which guided salvation history to its destination in Christ. Christ is «the
unifying principle» of history «which alone confers sense on it». God’s
action gradually leading his people towards Christ is thus »the principle of
the intelligibility of history»13.
The centrality of this principle comes into full relief if one steps back
to observe how Ratzinger articulated his exegetical proposal over the span
of more than two decades. Written during his pontificate, Verbum Domini
states that «God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished
slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance»14. The pontiff
alone) is interesting because it reveals more explicit connections with Aquinas than
the original English version published in the volume Biblical Interpretation in Crisis:
The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI 1989.
13
RATZINGER, «Biblical Interpretation in Conflict», 24, n. 37. It should be observed
that Ratzinger here is also dependent upon the thought of Bonaventure. Critiquing
Joachimite theology while recasting it within an ecclesial context, Bonaventure
underscored the progressive nature of divine revelation. In doing so, he shifted the
emphasis from Christ being the telos of salvation history as one finds in Aquinas and
elsewhere to Christ being “the true center and turning-point of history.” Ratzinger,
Theology of History, 118. See also Benedict’s remarks on the same subject in Holy
Men and Women of the Middle Ages and Beyond, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2012,
p. 45.
14
Ratzinger elsewhere describes the Bible as the story of a twofold struggle:
God’s struggle to «make himself understandable to them over the course of time»,
and the people of God’s struggle to «seize hold of God over the course of time».
explains that God patiently and gradually revealed himself in order to «guide
and educate… training his people in preparation for the Gospel». What is
needed for correct interpretation, therefore, is «a training that interprets the
texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective
which has the Gospel as its ultimate hermeneutical key»15. This text itself
echoes Dei Verbum and the Catechism, which eloquently states: «The
divine plan of revelation [...] involves a specific divine pedagogy: God
communicates himself to man gradually. He prepares him to welcome by
stages the supernatural revelation that is to culminate in the person and
mission of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ»16.
For Ratzinger, this patristically-based hermeneutic of divine pedagogy
articulated by Dei Verbum and the Catechism is precisely the bridge that
enables one to reconcile the unity of Scripture traditionally emphasized
by Christian exegetes with the development, diversity, and apparent
contradictions observed by modern scholars. The hermeneutic of divine
pedagogy affirms that Scripture has a unity in light of the fact that it proceeds
from God’s one, wise educational plan for mankind. At the same time, the
hermeneutic is comfortable with diversity and apparent contradictions in
Scripture since it sees these within the greater context of a progression
towards Christ.
For both Benedict and Aquinas, the rationale for the progressive nature
of divine nature lay within man’s nature. In continuity with the patristic
and medieval tradition, Benedict explains that the sometimes puzzling
language of the Bible is the result of divine «condescension» whereby
God’s word becomes true human words adapted to the thought patterns of
ancient cultures17. For his part Thomas articulates, «Man acquires a share
of this learning, not indeed all at once, but little by little, according to the
This familiarization between God and man was a journey of faith, and «only in the
process of this journeying was the Bible’s real way of declaring itself formed, step by
step». Ultimately, however, the whole Old Testament is “an advance toward Christ,”
and as such its real meaning becomes clear only in light of him who is its end. In the
Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, trans. B.
RAMSEY, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1995, pp. 10-11
15
BENEDICT XVI, Verbum Domini, 42 (emphasis Benedict’s); cf. sections 11 and
20 of the same document for Benedict’s use of the term “divine pedagogy.”
16
Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 53.
17
BENEDICT XVI, Verbum Domini, 11.
mode of his nature»18. In De veritate he extends this principle from the

individual to the whole human race: «Just as there is a progress in the
faith of an individual man over the course of time, so there is a progress
in faith for the whole human race. This is why Gregory says that divine
knowledge has increasingly grown over the course of time»19. Aquinas
instantiates these principles a number of times within his treatise on the
six days of creation in ST I, qq. 65-74. As will be seen below, the general
explanation for why Moses (whom Aquinas, unlike Ratzinger, takes to
be the sole author of the Pentateuch) penned certain seemingly erroneous
texts was that he had to accommodate himself to the understanding of an
«uncultivated» and «ignorant» people. Thus as Thomas states concerning
divine providence earlier in the Summa, «[I]t belongs to His providence
to permit certain defects in particular effects, that the perfect good of the
universe may not be hindered, for if all evil were prevented, much good
would be absent from the universe»20.
The Essential Point
A third point of contact between Aquinas and Ratzinger is not explicitly

made in the latter’s corpus but is readily observable in the way he always
seeks to determine the «essential point» asserted in apparently erroneous
biblical texts. The problem of admitting the presence of contradictory
18
Aquinas, ST II-II, q.2, a.3; I, q.12, a.4. For a more thorough treatment of Aquinas
and the principle of development within divine revelation, see M. RAMAGE, Dark
Passages of the Bible: Engaging Scripture with Benedict XVI and Thomas Aquinas,
Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2013, ch. 3.
19
Aquinas, De Ver, q.14, a.11.
20
Aquinas, ST I, q.22, a. 2. Another text from the Summa also illumines how
the Scriptures sometimes portray reality in seemingly problematic terms, which are
nonetheless the design of divine providence. On the question of whether the divine
will is always fulfilled, Aquinas states, «The rule in forms is this: that although a thing
may fall short of any particular form, it cannot fall short of the universal form […]
Something may fall outside the order of any particular active cause, but not outside
the order of the universal cause; under which all particular causes are included: and if
any particular cause fails of its effect, this is because of the hindrance of some other
particular cause, which is included in the order of the universal cause… Hence that
which seems to depart from the divine will in one order, returns into it in another
order.» Aquinas, ST I, q.19, a. 6.
biblical texts, of course, lies in squaring it with the doctrine of inerrancy

such as it is articulated in Dei Verbum: «[E]verything asserted by the
inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy
Spirit»21.
Ratzinger assesses concrete problems in a way that is compatible
with and builds on Aquinas’ understanding of inspiration and revelation.
Paul Synave and Pierre Benoit state in their commentary on the Summa’s
treatise on prophecy:
Truth is the adequatio rei et intellectus. It exists only in the judgment.

And by “judgment” we obviously do not mean every proposition
made up of subject, verb, and predicate, but the formal act by which
the intellect affirms its conformity (adequatio) to the object of
knowledge […] An [inspired] author does not speak of everything
in an absolute way. He tells the truth or he is mistaken only within
the limits of the field of vision which he has established for himself
and in which he forms his judgment. […] We must therefore respect
the varying degrees of his assent, rather than take all his sentences
as categorical affirmations22.
As Abbot Denis Farkasfalvy explains, inspiration does not

imply that every sentence of the biblical text must be found free of
error from every conceivable point of view. The key is that God’s
word never asserts error notwithstanding the reality that its message
is expressed with the imperfections one would expect to find in the
documents of ancient cultures23. One might expand upon this point
with a Thomistically-inspired distinction, explaining that apparent
21
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, 11.
22
P. SYNAVE – P. BENOIT, Prophecy and Inspiration, Desclee Co., New York 1961,
pp. 134-135 and p. 142: «[God] certainly cannot prevent [the sacred author] from
using in one way or another these erroneous views and, consequently, from letting
them show through in his text. For example, no one will deny that the biblical authors
had now outmoded cosmological ideas in which they believed, and that they employed
them in their writings because they were unable to think apart from contemporary
categories. But they do not claim to be teaching them for their own sakes; they speak
of them for a different purpose, e.g. to illustrate creation and divine providence.»
23
D. FARKASFALVY, Inspiration and Interpretation: A Theological Introduction to
Sacred Scripture, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2010,
p. 232.
contradictions in Scripture are in reality material imperfections rather

than formal errors. As Aquinas himself indicates in his Commentary
on the Sentences, some biblical statements pertain to the substance of
the faith (ad substantiam fidei), while others pertain to the faith only
accidentally (per accidens). With respect to Genesis, Aquinas thus states
that the doctrine of creation belongs to the substance of the faith, but
how and in what order the world was made (quo autem modo et ordine
factus sit) pertain to the faith only accidentally24. In other words, the
text of Genesis faithfully conveys the substance of the faith and what
its divine author intended to express. As Dei Verbum has it, «[T]he
books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully
and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings
for the sake of salvation»25.
For his part, Ratzinger often seeks to reconcile apparently erroneous
biblical texts by inquiring into their «substance», «kernel», or «essential
point», that is to say by asking what message the human and divine
authors intend to teach or assert in a given text. The bulk of this chapter’s
inquiry into Ratzinger’s exegesis of Genesis below will focus precisely on
examples in which he makes this type of move.
The Spiritual Sense
This leads to a fourth and final connection between Ratzinger and

Aquinas: their agreement concerning the need for a rich doctrine of the
senses of Scripture. While the principles already articulated are sufficient
to account for biblical texts that appear to contradict the nature of God,
Ratzinger identifies spiritual exegesis as an essential component of his
programme. Indeed, it is here that the word of God achieves its end of
«taking flesh» in our human lives and becoming truly a «living» word.
In Verbum Domini, Pope Benedict draws on Aquinas, himself citing
Augustine, to emphasize the importance of the spiritual sense and the
reality that «it is impossible for anyone to attain to knowledge of that
truth unless he first have infused faith in Christ» since «the letter, even
that of the Gospel, would kill, were there not the inward grace of healing
24
Aquinas, In II Sent., dist. 12, a. 2.
25
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, 11.
faith»26. In the Erasmus Lecture Cardinal Ratzinger speaks to this at

greater length:
To discover how each given historical word intrinsically transcends

itself, and thus to recognize the intrinsic rightness of the rereadings
by which the Bible progressively interweaves event and sense, is
one of the tasks of objective interpretation. It is a task for which
suitable methods can and must be found. In this sense, the exegetical
maxim of Thomas Aquinas is much to the point: “The task of the
good interpreter is not to consider words, but sense27.
In contrast with those whose methodologies focus solely on the

«words» of Scripture, Ratzinger shares with Aquinas the conviction that
the words of Scripture were meant to be «re-read» over time, to point
beyond themselves to a reality revealed through them but which transcends
them28. In this way, their rich teaching on the senses of Scripture, while
giving due attention to its words, also points beyond the words so as to
show that even Scripture’s most problematic passages may put believers in
touch with Christ. The text in its wholeness, Ratzinger says, must become
Rabbenu, «our teacher»29. To put it in language based on that of Thomas,
the words of Scripture signify something in addition to their human authors’
original intended meaning: realities in the lives of believers of all ages who
meditate on these texts in order to gain the knowledge and strength they
need to live a life in Christ. These Christians may be privy to the fullness
of revelation in a way our elder brethren of the Old Testament epoch were
not, but Ratzinger affirms that the ancient truths taught therein «are of
course valid for the whole of history, for all places and times» and «always
need to be relearned»30.
26
BENEDICT XVI, Verbum Domini, 29; cf. ST I-II, q. 106, a. 2.
27
RATZINGER, «Biblical Interpretation in Conflict», p. 26 (emphasis added), citing
Aquinas, In Matt., XXVII, n. 2321. Cf. Verbum Domini, 37. He cites Aquinas three
times in this work.
28
For the reality of revelation being broader than the Bible see Verbum Domini,
16.
29
RATZINGER, «Biblical Interpretation in Conflict», p. 27.
30
J. RATZINGER, God and the World, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2002, p. 154.
Aquinas’ Exegesis of Genesis
This section will explore Aquinas’ assumptions concerning the text of

Genesis as well as offer concrete illustrations of how he applies some of
the aforementioned exegetical principles. The analysis will be divided into
subsections, each briefly summarizing how he deals with particular facets
of the creation accounts which will then serve as a basis for comparing
Ratzinger’s thought on the same texts.
The Seven Days
To his credit and contrary to what those unfamiliar with medieval

exegesis might assume, Thomas was well aware of the difficulties entailed
by Genesis describing creation as having taken place over the course of
seven days. As is ever his concern, Aquinas seeks an explanation which
«defends Sacred Scripture from the derision of infidels»31. Following
Augustine, he offers two rules for interpreting the days:
The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The
second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity
of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in
such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with
certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule
of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing32.
That said, Thomas does offer some clear conclusions regarding the
work of creation. First, as seen above, Moses spoke in this way «to make the
idea of such matter intelligible to an ignorant people»33. Second, Aquinas
concludes that «Moses, instructing an ignorant people about the creation
of the world, divides into parts things that were made simultaneously»34.
He says that this can be compared to the way one teaches geometry.
Although the parts of a figure constitute the figure without any order of
time, nevertheless the geometer teaches that the constitution comes to be
31
Aquinas, In II Sent., dist. 12, a. 2 (author’s translation).
32
Aquinas, ST I, q.68, a.1.
33
Aquinas, ST I, q.66, a.1, ad 1
34
Aquinas, In II Sent., dist. 12, a. 2 (author’s translation).
by drawing line after line35. The bottom line is thus that the «days» of
which Genesis speaks do not describe a succession of events in time but
rather «denote merely sequence in the natural order»36.
The Waters above the Heavens
«And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.» (Gen
1:7)37. Responding to the objection that there are no waters above the heavens,
Thomas cites Augustine to the effect that the waters truly exist, although «[a]s
to the nature of these waters, all are not agreed.» Moreover, the waters cannot
be interpreted simply as symbols or even as spiritual substances. Rather, «We
must hold, then, these waters to be material, but their exact nature will be
differently defined according as opinions on the firmament differ»38. Although
medieval Christians were aware of the scientific difficulties entailed by this
claim, for Aquinas the material nature of the waters cannot be written off as
accidental to the central point of Gen 1:7.
A particularly fascinating feature in his discussion of this point concerns
Thomas’ awareness that the text Genesis resonates at certain points with
other ancient cosmological worldviews. In discussing the «darkness [that]
was upon the face of the deep» (Gen 1:2), he remarks, «The text of Genesis,
considered superficially, might lead to the adoption of a theory similar to
that held by certain philosophers of antiquity, who taught that water was
a body infinite in dimension, and the primary element of all bodies.» With
flawless logic, he proceeds to the conclusion, «As, however, this theory can
be shown to be false by solid reasons, it cannot be held to be the sense of
Holy Scripture». Why, then, does Genesis seem to say things, which in fact
it does not? Here as above Thomas invokes one of his favorite principles, «It
35
Aquinas, In II Sent., dist. 12, a. 2. For another germane example of a geometry
analogy, see Aquinas, In Heb., caput 11, lectio 1. Here Aquinas argues that, just as one
who possesses merely the principles of geometry already possesses its substance, so
those with a simple faith (as in the case of many in Old Testament epochs) possess the
entire substance of the faith by virtue of their assent to its most fundamental articles.
36
Aquinas, ST I, q. 68, a. 1; cf. ST I, q. 69, a. 1.
37
Unless indicated otherwise, biblical citations will be taken from the RSV even
though this is obviously not the translation Aquinas used.
38
Aquinas, ST I, q. 68, a. 2.
should rather be considered that Moses was speaking to ignorant people, and
that out of condescension to their weakness he put before them only such
things as are apparent to sense». Moses speaks of «waters above the heavens»
instead of describing air «to avoid setting before ignorant persons something
beyond their knowledge»39. While Aquinas’ exegesis of the waters is lucid
and reasonable, below we will see that Ratzinger follows similar principles
yet arrives at a different conclusions because of a difference in premise.
Unlike Aquinas, Ratzinger does not assume that the waters or many other
figures described in Genesis require a physical referent in the first place.
Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in Eden
It is illuminating to observe the great care with which Thomas

endeavors to distinguish which assertions in Genesis are to be taken literally
and which admit or even require a spiritual interpretation. On the one hand,
in treating Gen 2:7, he argues that God’s breathing into man «is not to
be taken in the material sense; but as regards the act of God, to breathe
(spirare), is the same as to ‘make a spirit’»40. On the other hand, Aquinas
appears to assume that the same verse’s depiction of man’s creation from
the dust of the earth, as well as the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib in Gen
2:22, are to be taken in a material sense: «Now God alone, the Author of
nature, can produce an effect into existence outside the ordinary course of
nature. Therefore God alone could produce either a man from the slime of
the earth, or a woman from the rib of man»41.
When it comes to the events surrounding Adam and Eve in Eden,
Thomas likewise maintains that Eden was a physical location on this
planet. For, while he grants with Augustine that Eden may have a spiritual
signification, the events described therein really occurred in history:
«For whatever Scripture tells us about paradise is set down as matter of
history; and wherever Scripture makes use of this method, we must hold
to the historical truth of the narrative as a foundation of whatever spiritual
explanation we may offer»42. The same holds for the tree of life and the tree
39
40
41
42
of good and evil situated within the garden (Gen 2:9). These were material
trees which also had spiritual significations43.
Finally, Thomas sticks to the same hermeneutical paradigm in the case
of the serpent who enters Eden in Gen 3. On the one hand, he follows
Augustine in explaining that «the concupiscence of sin in the sensuality
[is] signified by the serpent» and that «the lower reason, by pleasure, [is]
signified by the woman»44. At the same time, this is not to deny that the
temptation of Adam and Eve was caused by the devil acting through an
actual serpent: «Accordingly, the serpent spoke to man, even as the ass on
which Balaam sat spoke to him, except that the former was the work of a
devil, whereas the latter was the work of an angel»45. Once again, Aquinas’
exegesis is brilliant and balanced, yet Ratzinger will draw different
conclusions insofar as he interprets as symbols many of the referents which
Aquinas believes to have existed physically within history.
Neo-scholastic Anti-Modernism and the Exegesis of Genesis
Although Ratzinger has great respect for Aquinas and operates with
a similar exegetical method to that which we observed above, a decisive
difference between the two results simply from the fact that Ratzinger is
a modern. As a modern, he is privy both to additional exegetical tools as
well as to more nuanced premises made possible in light of the greater
knowledge we now possess of the ancient world in which the Bible arose.
Among Ratzinger’s greatest criticisms of neo-Thomism in the past century
was its antipathy towards modern exegetical methods. As he states in his
volume Milestones, «The liberal-historical method created a new directness
in the approach to Sacred Scripture and opened up dimensions of the text
that were no longer perceived by the all-too-predetermined dogmatic
reading»46. On the other hand, the preparatory schemata of Vatican II,
like many magisterial documents from earlier in the century, «gave an
impression of rigidity and narrowness through their excessive dependency
on scholastic theology»47.
43
Aquinas, ST I, q. 102, a. 1, ad 4.
44
Aquinas, ST I, q. 165 a. 2.
45
Aquinas, ST I, q. 165 a. 2 ad 4.
46
47
A couple key texts in Ratzinger’s corpus specifically target what he

calls «the anti-modernistic decisions at the beginning of [the twentieth]
century, especially the decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time»48.
In the judgments contained within these documents, Ratzinger writes that
«the Magisterium overextended the range of what faith can guarantee with
certainty and that, as a result, the Magisterium’s credibility was injured and
the freedom needed for exegetical research and interrogation was unduly
narrowed»49. There were a number of such responsa offered at the time,
but a few are directly germane to the subject of this chapter. In order to
understand the exegetical moves Ratzinger makes below, it is important
to be aware of the approach which he wishes to purify by taking into
account not only the best of the Catholic interpretative tradition, but also
the best modern exegesis has to offer. For the sake of brevity, only the most
poignant instance of this approach will be discussed.
A document certainly looming behind Ratzinger’s comments above,
the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s 1909 decree On the Historicity of
Genesis 1-3 was issued at a time when the PBC served as an official organ
of the Magisterium50. Consisting in a series of questions and answers, at
points the document stands in tension with or even opposition to Ratzinger’s
exegesis later in the century. In its opening question, the commission rejects
the arguments of «various exegetical systems that have been devised and
supported under the pretense of science for the purpose of excluding the
literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis»51. While there
is nothing overly problematic about this first example, it at least reveals the
PBC’s attitude toward those who «under the pretense of science» attempt
to apply modern exegetical tools to study of Genesis.
48
RATZINGER, «On the ‘Instruction Concerning the Ecclesial Vocation of the
Theologian», in J. RATZINGER, The Nature and Mission of Theology: Approaches
to Understanding Its Role in Light of the Present Controversy, Ignatius Press, San
Francisco 1995, p. 106.
49
RATZINGER, «Exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church», in Opening Up the
Scriptures, p. 133.
50
These discrepancies would not be nearly as significant if they occurred between
a reigning pope and the PBC today. The PBC was restructured by Paul VI in 1971 so
that it no longer acts an official organ of the Magisterium but rather an advisory forum
in which the Magisterium and expert exegetes to work together in the quest to illumine
matters concerning Sacred Scripture.
51
Translations of the PBC documents cited here are taken from D. BÉCHARD, The
Scripture Documents, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN 2002, p. 188, pp. 192-194.
The document’s lengthy second question is more revealing and

therefore merits to be cited in full:
Second Question: Whether we may teach […] that these three

chapters of Genesis do not contain narratives of things that actually
happened –that is, narratives referring to objective, historical reality;
and whether we may teach that they contain fables derived from the
mythologies and cosmologies of ancient peoples, which the sacred
author has purified of all polytheistic error and adjusted to comport
with monotheistic teaching, or allegorical and symbolic stories without
any foundation in objective reality but presented under the guise of
history for the purpose of inculcating religious and philosophical
truth, or, finally, certain legends partly historical and partly fictitious,
freely constructed for the instruction and edification of souls.
Response: Negative to each part.
In the initial question within this document, the PBC wishes to make
it clear that the events narrated in Genesis actually happened in what it
calls «objective, historical reality.» While the text does articulate precisely
what it means by «objective» here, the question that immediately ensues
sheds some light into its intention. According to the PBC, one may not
teach that the creation accounts contain material derived from preexistent
pagan mythologies52. Nor may one hold that Genesis 1-3 narrate a
merely symbolic portrayal of human history in order to teach religious
or philosophical truths. Finally, it is impossible to affirm that the sacred
word contains legends in which fiction and fact and woven together for the
purpose of edifying souls.
In the questions that follow, the document offers precisions which
balance what was just stated above. The fifth question, for example, grants
that «not all words and phrases must be taken according to their literal
sense». The sixth question affirms the validity of interpreting certain
52
Pius XII would later emend this view with a helpful corrective: «If, however,
the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this
may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine
inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and
evaluating those documents. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been
inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths
or other such things». Pius XII, Humani Generis, 38-39.
passages according to their allegorical or prophetic sense. The seventh

question teaches that one is not obliged «to look for the precision proper
to scientific discourse» in Gen 1-3 which the sacred author composed as a
«popular account» and with language «adapted to the intellectual capacities
of his audience». These last remarks are perfectly consistent with Aquinas’
hermeneutic discussed above in which he ascribed oddities in the creation
narratives to the condescension required by Moses in order to instruct an
ignorant people in the truths of the faith. Even so, the negative stance on
modern exegetical methods evident in the first question here as in the other
PBC decrees at the time, as well as the problematic requirements outlined in
the second question, exemplify the precise mentality targeted by Ratzinger
in his various remarks against the neo-scholasticism of his day. At the same
time, it is worth noting that Ratzinger never criticizes Thomas himself for
lack of willingness to use the best tools available to him in his day; nor
does he attack the Angelic Doctor for holding the truncated view of history
and truth he attributes to the PBC’s decrees53.
Ratzinger’s Exegesis of Genesis
Up to this point we have been surveying points of contact between

Ratzinger and Aquinas and anticipating ways in which Ratzinger’s
exegesis differs from that of Thomas and the neo-scholastic tradition of
the early twentieth century. At last we are in a position to examine several
illustrations of Ratzinger’s exegesis to see how the example of Aquinas
is made profitable in the work of this biblical scholar who became pope.
Ratzinger discusses the creation accounts at many points in his corpus and
in a way that is congenial with the aims of Aquinas.
53
Other texts germane to this discussion include the PBC’s June 23, 1905 decree
Concerning Historical Narratives, published in the same volume as the document on
Gen 1-3, as well as the 1948 text Regarding the sources of the Pentateuch and the
historical value of Genesis 1-11, available only in Italian and French from the Vatican
website. This latter piece, written four decades after the PBC’s more anti-modernist
decrees, exhibits a greater awareness of the Pentateuch’s sources and literary forms
and thus offers an understanding of historicity much more aligned with that which one
finds in Ratzinger’s corpus. Its principles would be incorporated into Pius XII’s 1950
encyclical Humani Generis discussed above.
The Seven Days and the Real Purpose of the Creation Account
Like Aquinas, Ratzinger does not take Genesis to be teaching creation

over the span of seven literal days. Indeed, he is so confident in this conviction
that he describes the very issue as not particularly urgent: «For it is obvious
even in the Bible that this is a theological framework and is not intended
simply to recount the history of creation»54. Noting that the two creation
narratives are not the only creation accounts in the Bible, he continues:
In the Book of Job and in the Wisdom literature we have creation

narratives that make it clear that even then believers themselves did
not think that the creation account was, so to speak, a photographic
depiction of the process of creation. It only seeks to convey a
glimpse of the essential truth, namely, that the world comes from the
power of God and is his creation. How the process actually occurred
is a wholly different question, which even the Bible itself leaves
wide open55.
The «essential truth» or «essential core» of Genesis’ account has

nothing to do with a relaying a video or photographic depiction of the
universe’s first hours. The Bible leaves open the question of how creation
happened. In language reminiscent of Aquinas’ warnings against making
the faith look ridiculous to pagans, Ratzinger argues that this process
«should not be explained away by forced interpretations» such as trying to
square science with a wooden literalistic reading of Genesis.
According to Ratzinger in the above quote, what really concerns the
author of Genesis is to demonstrate that «the world comes from the power
of God and is his creation.» As he explains at greater length in In the
Beginning, the real thrust of the Genesis narratives is to teach monotheism:
54
RATZINGER, Salt of the Earth, p. 31.
55
RATZINGER, Salt of the Earth, p. 31. While recognizing Genesis contains
mythological elements and accepting evolution as a reasonable scientific theory,
Ratzinger immediately proceeds to offer an ironic critique an overly facile adoption of
evolutionary theory: «Conversely, I think that in great measure the theory of evolution
has not gotten beyond hypotheses and is often mixed with almost mythical philosophies
that have yet to be critically discussed.» On the issue of multiple creation accounts and
how their presence demonstrates the gradual process of development by which the Old
Testament came into being, see In the Beginning, 14-16. The «normative» creation
account is found within the New Testament and its treatment of the Logos in John 1.
They do not depict the process of becoming or the mathematical

structure of matter; instead, they say in different ways that there
is only one God and that the universe is not the scene of a struggle
among dark forces but rather the creation of his Word. But this
does not imply that the individual passages of the Bible sink into
meaninglessness and that this bare extract alone has any value. They
too, express the truth –in another way, to be sure, than is the case in
physics and biology. They represent truth in the way that symbols
do– just as, for example, a Gothic window gives us a deep insight
into reality, thanks to the effects of light that it produces and to the
figures that it portrays56.
For Ratzinger, individual passages of the creation narratives are like

pieces of a great mosaic or parts of a Gothic window, which shed great light
even while not intended to represent their subject photographically. Just as
each piece of a stained-glass window makes no sense when considered in
isolation from the whole, so individual biblical periscopes or narratives
must be interpreted in light of the whole of Scripture.
Another element in the text above –an element Ratzinger is able to
identify thanks to modern knowledge of the ancient Near East– is that
the Genesis account is not simply teaching monotheism in a vacuum but
rather in the context of a polemic against pre-existing creation myths from
ancient Babylon. Diverging from the view advanced by the earlier PBC,
Ratzinger grants that the text of Genesis is «in part based» on such pagan
creation myths57. Creation became a dominant theme in Israelite thinking
during the time of the Babylonian Exile, and it is in this period that the
biblical creation accounts assumed their present form58. In contrast with
the Babylonian Enuma Elish, which depicted creation as the product of a
struggle between dark forces, Genesis intends to show that the world was
not a demonic contest but rather the created expression of the one true
God’s logos:
Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different

species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the
moon and the stars were established. Its purpose ultimately would
56
RATZINGER, In the Beginning, pp. 25-26.
57
J. RATZINGER, A New Song for the Lord, The Crossroad Publishing Company,
New York 1998, p. 86.
58
RATZINGER, A New Song for the Lord, pp. 10-11.
be to say one thing: God created the world. The world is not, as
people used to think then, a chaos of mutually opposed forces; nor is
it the dwelling of demonic powers from which human beings must
protect themselves. The sun and the moon are not deities that rule
over them, and the sky that stretches over their heads is not full
of mysterious and adversary divinities. Rather, all of this comes
from one power, from God’s eternal Reason, which became –in the
Word– the power of creation59.
In Ratzinger’s view, the truth that the world as a whole issues from the
creative mind of God is «precisely what the belief in creation means»60.
Moreover, Ratzinger emphasizes that the logos is not only the source
of creation but also its telos. All of creation is ordered toward the Sabbath
wherein it returns to and rests in God. In this way, «The metaphor of the
seven-day week was selected for the creation account because of the
Sabbath»61. Because he shares with Aquinas a non-literal interpretation of
the seven days, Ratzinger elsewhere is then able to state that the seven-day
narrative «is not directly true, in its bare literal meaning, but rather insofar
as it has been taken up into the New Testament perspective.» In other words,
it is «valid only in union with the New» inasmuch as it forms «part of the
history leading up to Christ»62. As seen above in discussing Aquinas on the
divine pedagogy, so here Ratzinger affirms that the Old Testament can only
be understood properly in light of the fullness of truth revealed in Christ.
Perhaps most importantly, Ratzinger follows Aquinas in emphasizing
the need to distinguish what is de fide from what pertains to the faith
only accidentally. As he puts it, «the doctrinal message of the Bible»
(e.g. the doctrine of monotheism) is distinct from «what may be only the
temporary contingent vehicle for its real theme» or its «world view» (e.g.
the framework of seven days). This is expressed well when Ratzinger
discusses how the ancient Israelite worldview was received by the Fathers:
59
RATZINGER, A New Song for the Lord, p. 5 (emphasis Ratzinger’s). Ratzinger
thus describes the Genesis account as «the decisive ‘enlightenment’ of history and as a
breakthrough out of the fears that had oppressed humankind.» Ratzinger, A New Song
for the Lord, p. 14.
60
J. RATZINGER, «Belief in Creation and the Theory of Evolution», in J. RATZINGER,
Dogma and Preaching, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2011, p. 139.
61
RATZINGER, A New Song for the Lord, p. 84; cf. RATZINGER, In the Beginning, p. 27.
62
RATZINGER, «Farewell to the Devil?», in J. RATZINGER, Dogma and Preaching,
p. 200.
The early creation accounts express the world view of the ancient
Near East, especially of Babylon; the Church Fathers lived in the
Hellenistic age, to which that world view seemed mythical, pre-
scientific, and in every way intolerable. One consideration that
helped them, and ought to help us, is that Bible is really literature
that spans a whole millennium. The literary tradition extends from
the world view of the Babylonians to the Hellenistic world view that
shaped the creation passages of the Wisdom literature, which give
a picture of the world and of the creation event completely unlike
that of the familiar creation accounts in Genesis, which of course
are not uniform themselves. The first and the second chapters of this
book present largely contrasting images of the course of creation.
But this means that, even within the Bible itself, faith and world
view are not identical: the faith makes use of a world view but does
not coincide with it. Over the course of biblical development, this
difference was clearly not a theme for reflection but, rather, was
taken for granted63.
Another way Ratzinger articulates the difference between faith and

world view is to say that «the content» of Scripture is distinct from its
«form» (not taken here in its Aristotelian sense but rather in the sense of
literary form). In a wonderfully evocative image, he states that interpreters
must learn again and again, with the changing of the times, how to
distinguish between «fixed stars» and «planets», between “permanent
orientation» and «transient movement»64. With respect to Genesis, it cannot
be denied that the author lacked the knowledge possessed today thanks
to modern physics, but this detracts nothing from the core message of his
text. The cosmology of his day was not what the author wanted to teach; it
was the vehicle for his teaching. Like any good author, he operated within
a cultural context and conveyed his point through the media available to
him at the time.
For Aquinas, this means that Moses had to condescend to the level
of his audience in order to make the truth about God known to them.
63
RATZINGER, «Belief in Creation and the Theory of Evolution», p. 137. For other
instances where Ratzinger emphasizes the importance of the Bible’s development over
the course a more than a millennium, see God and the World, pp. 151-152. As in the case
of his exegesis as a whole, he illustrates and applies this thought in many different venues.
For example, see his speech at the Collège des Bernardins in Paris (September 12, 2008).
64
RATZINGER, «Farewell to the Devil?», pp. 198-199.
Ratzinger, however, while adopting the same principle of condescension,

applies it differently. He accentuates not Moses’ condescension, but rather
the condescension of God as the principal author of Scripture. Unlike
Thomas, Ratzinger does not assume that Moses had a superior cosmological
worldview to the simple folk living in his day65. Indeed, at various points in
his corpus it is clear that Ratzinger rejects the assumption of Aquinas –and
with him a host of other authors within the Catholic tradition– that Moses
substantially authored the Pentateuch in the first place. For Ratzinger, the
authors and redactors of Genesis were firmly rooted in the culture of their
respective ages, but the Lord worked through that culture to teach his
chosen people the truth that would eventually prepare them for the coming
of his Son in the flesh.
Adam and Eve and Other «Images»
While the above section surveyed convergences and differences

between Aquinas and Ratzinger’s exegesis of the seven days, the divergences
come across all the more clearly in the context of man’s creation and fall
from grace. In contrast with Aquinas, Ratzinger emphasizes not the literal
historical existence of man’s first parents but rather the life of Adam and
Eve relived in every human being since the dawn of our species. This
conviction is made clear in several places throughout Ratzinger’s corpus,
but the following illustrations are particularly forceful:
When Holy Scripture presents an image of the creation of man

–with God as the potter, who shapes him and who then breathes
the spirit of life into him– that is meant as being archetypical for
each and every one of us. In the psalms, man says with respect to
himself: You have shaped me with clay; YOU have breathed into me
the breath of life. What is thereby portrayed is the fact that each
person stands in direct relationship with God. And each has thus
in the great web of world history a significant place and role that
have been assigned to him and by means of which he can make an
irreplaceable contribution to history as a whole66.
65
For Aquinas’ distinction between the learned and the simple in relation to
condescension in the Old Testament, see RAMAGE, Dark Passages, pp. 103-108.
66
RATZINGER, God and the World, p. 75.
Here Ratzinger does not explicitly deny that Genesis has two specific
individuals in its sights; rather, he takes Adam to be an archetypal image
of not just the first man but every man. Like Aquinas, he does not read
the breath of life bestowed upon man literally. «The essential point in
this picture», he writes, «is the double nature of man» –not any particular
details about how or when the first man was created or even who he was,
but rather the union of body and spirit in man67. In others works this is
taken a significant step further. As he writes in an article on human origins,
«The picture that describes the origin of Adam is valid for each human
being in the same way. Each human is Adam, a new beginning; Adam is
each human being»68. Even more to the point is this selection from a text
on the question of evolution.
[W]ith respect to the creation of man, “creation” does not designate a

remote beginning but, rather, has each of us in view along with Adam;
every man is directly in relation to God. The faith declares no more
about the first man than it does about each one of us, and, conversely,
it declares no less about us than it does about the first man69.
At this point Ratzinger bluntly parts ways from a more traditional

interpretation of Genesis. It appears that he takes the application of Adam’s
story to every man not just as a moral sense of Genesis but rather its author’s
originally intended literary sense. Important issues could be raised at this
point concerning the implications of such an interpretation for the doctrine
of original sin. While the constraints of this chapter do not leave room for
such a discussion, Ratzinger does devote considerable time to expounding
his view of original sin in light of the foregoing exegesis70. This will be
touched on just briefly below.
As Ratzinger’s exegesis tends to eschew a literal interpretation of
man’s creation, it is also highly illuminating to see how he extends this
67
RATZINGER, God and the World, pp. 76-77.
68
RATZINGER, «Man between Reproduction and Creation: Theological Questions
on the Origin of Human Life», in Joseph Ratzinger in Communio, vol. 2, Anthropology
and Culture, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 2013, p. 79.
69
RATZINGER, «Belief in Creation and the Theory of Evolution», p. 141.
70
For Ratzinger’s understanding of original sin as a damaged network of
relationships in existence passed down since the first sin at the dawn of our species,
see In the Beginning, pp. 71-74 and God and the World, pp. 84-88.
approach to other elements within Genesis 1-3 and indeed to various other
images from Genesis and Exodus. Unlike Aquinas, he characterizes the
creation of Eve from Adam’s rib as a «myth» and «legend»71. For Ratzinger
this is one of the Bible’s «great archetypal images» which expresses «the
common nature of man and woman» as well as the reality that they are
turned toward each other»72. The garden and tree of life, too, are seen in
terms of a metaphorical «image for the undamaged creation and for secure
existence within it»73. Adam and Eve’s garments are likewise a «symbolic
representation of the attempt to be ourselves, whereby we attempt and
external restoration of the personal dignity that has suffered intimate
damage»74.
When it comes to the Fall and original sin, Ratzinger is not going
to deny a Catholic dogma, but he does describe the term ‘original sin’
as «certainly misleading and imprecise»75. Ratzinger emphasizes that sin
constitutes «a rejection of relationality» or a «loss of relationship» which
cannot be restricted to the individual and hence has been passed down from
generation to generation since the inception of the species76. In contrast
with Aquinas, he does not view the serpent who tempts Adam and Eve
as a physical creature but again as a «great image» and «symbol of that
wisdom which rules the world and of the fertility through which human
beings plunge into the divine current of life. » In particular, in Ratzinger
the serpent is taken to be a «symbol» of the attractive temptation Eastern
fertility cults exerted upon Israel for centuries. At the same time and in
keeping with Aquinas’ understanding that certain referents in Genesis have
both a literal and spiritual sense, Ratzinger adds that man’s first temptation
signifies «the nature of temptation and sin in every age»77.
71
J. RATZINGER, Daughter Zion, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2005, p. 16.
72
RATZINGER, God and the World, p. 80.
73
Ibid., p. 64, p. 77.
74
Ibid., p. 88.
75
RATZINGER, In the Beginning, p. 72.
76
Ibid., pp. 72-73.
77
Ibid., p. 66; cf. BENEDICT XVI, Saint Paul, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2009, p.
93. Another illuminating piece which ties together many of these images in relation to
theology is the International Theological Commission’s Communion and Stewardship:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God, especially sections 62-70. Published
in 2004 while Ratzinger was the commission’s president, the document bears great
resemblance with the exegesis discussed here.
Conclusion
The texts discussed above are certainly not the only instances in which
Ratzinger applies his hermeneutical principles to the text of Genesis,
but these examples are particularly revealing because they allow one to
glimpse points of convergence and divergence in the thought of Aquinas
and Ratzinger78. As this chapter has shown, Ratzinger is not a Thomist of
the strictest observance. On many points –especially early in his career–
he exhibited great discomfort with a certain anti-modernistic mindset
observable in his neo-scholastic contemporaries as well as in the theology
of Magisterium earlier in the past century. All the same, Ratzinger’s esteem
for Aquinas is evident in that he implicitly and explicitly connects his
exegetical programme with that of the Angelic Doctor at various points.
Likewise, many of his particular exegetical conclusions may differ from
those arrived at by Thomas, yet they share a common project in endeavoring
to ascertain the essential points or affirmations of challenging biblical
texts. This involves a keen awareness of the need to ascertain the sense or
senses according to which a given text ought to be read. Since he is privy
to modern scholarly tools –in particular a broader knowledge of the ancient
Near Eastern milieu in which Genesis reached its final form– Ratzinger is
able to make advances upon the prior tradition of which Aquinas formed
an integral part. Yet this is by no means to say that the Angelic Doctor’s
exegesis of Genesis has nothing to contribute to our understanding of the
text today. Indeed, Ratzinger would never have been able to produce his
brilliant theology if he had not been standing on the shoulders of the great
exegetical and theological giants of the Middle Ages.
78
On the many other examples that could be offered here, Ratzinger’s God and
the World is particularly insightful. In this text he applies his hermeneutical principles
to the story of the Flood, Babel, and the giving of the Ten Commandments in Exodus.
RATZINGER, God and the World, pp. 141-145; pp. 165-168.
DANIEL A. KEATING*
EXEGESIS AND CHRISTOLOGY IN THOMAS AQUINAS
In this study I will explore how Thomas Aquinas uses the scripture
to display his view of Christ. This is to ask how his biblical exegesis
informs and governs his Christology, and at the same time to inquire
how the theological and conciliar traditions he inherited, and which
were authoritative for him, informed his reading of the scriptural witness
to Christ. I will begin by examining his respective treatments of the
Incarnation in the Summa Contra Gentiles and the Summa Theologiae,
and then investigate his treatment of two core christological texts from
his commentaries on the Gospel of John and the Letter to the Philippians.
My first aim is to grasp how Aquinas employs the scripture in sketching
his account of Christ, but then I hope to offer, through an assessment of
the strengths and limitations of his approach, proposals for how he can
illuminate an exegetically-grounded Christology today.
The Mystery of the Incarnation in Aquinas
When we speak of «Christology» in Aquinas, we mean by this what

Aquinas typically calls «the mystery of the Incarnation» (mysterium
incarnationis), which he identifies as «the most excellent of all mysteries»1.
His opening statement in the section on the Incarnation in the Summa
Contra Gentiles displays his meaning:
It now remains to speak of the mystery of the Incarnation itself.

Indeed, among divine works, this most especially exceeds the
reason: for nothing can be thought of which is more marvelous
than this divine accomplishment: that the true God, the Son of God,
should become true man. And because among them all it is most
*
Associate Professor of Theology, Sacred Heart Major Seminary, 2701 Chicago
Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, 48206, USA; keating.daniel@shms.edu.
1
Summa Theologiae (ST) I, q. 57, a. 5. Translations of the Summa Theologiae are
from the edition of the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Benziger Brothers,
New York 1947), accessed at http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm.
508 DANIEL A. KEATING
marvelous, it follows that toward faith in this particular marvel

all other miracles are ordered, since “that which is greatest in any
genus seems to be the cause of the others”2.
For Aquinas, there are two principal matters of faith that are proposed to
us: the first is the revelation of the Trinity, the inner life of God; the second
is «the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation» which concerns especially «the
mystery of Christ’s human nature»3. In other words, when Aquinas speaks
about the Incarnation he is occupied particularly with the humanity of Christ,
or more precisely with how divinity and humanity are joined in Christ. He
explicitly calls his treatise on the Incarnation in the Summa Theologiae «the
treatise of the union of God and man», and he appends to this a treatment of
the mysteries of the life of Christ, identified as «what things the Incarnate
Son of God did or suffered in the human nature united to him»4.
We could describe these two parts of his account of the Incarnation as
a division between the conceptual and the historical. In the first part (ST
III, qq. 1-26 ) Thomas considers the Incarnation from the perspective of its
qualities; in the second part (ST III, qq. 27-59) he takes up the historical
sequence of Christ’s life. Together these comprise for Aquinas what he
calls «the mystery of the Incarnation», and it is this topic area that we will
explore in terms of his biblical exegesis5.
The Mystery of the Incarnation in the Summa Contra Gentiles
Immediately upon announcing his topic, «the mystery of the

Incarnation», in Book IV (q. 27) of the Summa Contra Gentiles, Thomas
turns directly to the scripture for a confession of this mystery: «This
2
Summa contra Gentiles (ScG) IV, 27, 1. Translations of the ScG are from
J. KENNY, Hanover House, New York 1955-1957, accessed at: http://dhspriory.org/
thomas/ContraGentiles.htm.
3
ST II-II, q. 1, a. 8.
4
ST III, q. 27. For a summary treatment of Aquinas’s teaching on the Incarnation,
see Th. WEINANDY, «Aquinas: God IS Man: The Marvel of the Incarnation», in
Th. WEINANDY – D. KEATING – J. YOCUM (edd.), Aquinas on Doctrine: A Critical
Introduction, T&T Clark International, London – New York 2004, pp. 67-89.
5
In the ScG (IV, 27-55), Aquinas explores only the first, conceptual part of the
mystery of the Incarnation. His treatment in the ST adds the historical section on
the mysteries of Christ’s life, and so fills out more fully his earlier account of the
Incarnation in the ScG.
EXEGESIS AND CHRISTOLOGY IN THOMAS AQUINAS 509
marvelous incarnation of God, of course, which divine authority hands

down, we confess». How does he make this confession? By citing two
central texts on the Incarnation, John 1:14 and Philippians 2:6-76. Here
confession is accomplished by citation. At this point there is no discussion
of these texts or development of their contents. Aquinas then straightaway
adds scriptural testimony, first to Christ’s true humanity (Jn 14:28; Matt
26:38) and then to his genuine divinity (Jn 10:30; 16:15)7. By this he
signals the core subject of Christology, namely, how the human and divine
natures come together in the one Christ. Thus far the topic is addressed by
explicit reference to the Bible.
If the citation of scripture leads the way, Aquinas quickly turns to the
various christological «errors» that appeared in history as a framework for
teaching on the Incarnation. Among the named practitioners of these errant
views are Photinus, the Manichaeans, Valentinus, Apollinarius, Arius,
Origen, Theodore, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Macarius of Antioch8. Thomas
is assuming at this point that the issue of Christ’s full divinity is established;
the errors he identifies are problems concerning the humanity of Christ or
how the humanity and divinity are joined in Christ. This procedure is quite
noteworthy. Thomas begins his treatment of the Incarnation with reference
to the scripture but then turns to the history of debate over Christ’s
humanity as the primary school of exposition. This gives a sharpness and
clarity to his exposition and ties it admirably to the conciliar tradition, but
it also has the effect of turning attention away from the scriptural texts
themselves. Aquinas could have chosen to display the full humanity and
divinity in Christ by carrying out fuller expositions of the biblical texts that
he already cited, delving into them and explaining them, as Athanasius did
in his controversy with the Arians9. Instead, he opts to frame his treatment
of the mystery of Christ by recourse to christological views that fall short
in one respect or another.
6
ScG IV, 27, 2.
7
ScG IV, 27, 3-4.
8
Aquinas dedicates one chapter each to these errant teachers (IV, 28-36). He
concludes this list of errors by referring to two more recent errors (37-38), but does not
name those who proposed them. These views were, in fact, proposed by Peter Abelard
and his followers. For a description of Aquinas’s rejection of these later errors, see
WEINANDY, «Aquinas: God Is Man», pp. 71-72.
9
See Athanasius, Orationes Contra Arianos, I-III, for examples of argument by
means of extensive exegesis of given biblical texts.
The scripture is by no means absent in this treatment, however.

Throughout, Thomas shows how the various errant positions fail to uphold
the scripture. For example, when refuting Photinus who claimed that Christ
was a mere man adopted by God, Aquinas writes: «For, according to this
position, God would not have assumed flesh to become man; rather, an
earthly man would have become God. Thus, the saying of John (1:14) would
not be true: “The Word was made flesh”; on the contrary, flesh would have
been made the Word»10. Or in rejecting the position of the Manichaeans
that Christ did not really become a man at all, Aquinas marshals more than
a dozen biblical texts against them, concluding that their teaching «wipes
out the whole teaching of the New Testament». Therefore, «it was not a
phantasy body, but a true one, which the Son of God assumed»11. At points
Aquinas goes beyond mere citation of the biblical text by offering a short
comment to give the true sense, as he does when rejecting Apollinarius:
«Plainly, then, the saying of John, “The Word was made flesh”, must not
be understood as though the Word had been changed into flesh, but that He
assumed flesh so as to dwell with men and appear visible to them»12.
Upon completion of the historical survey of christological errors,
Aquinas returns to his topic by offering an impressive synthetic statement
on the Incarnation as the only means to guard effectively what the scriptures
say about Christ:
From what has been set down above it is clear that according to
the tradition of the Catholic faith we must say that in Christ there
is a perfect divine nature and a perfect human nature, constituted
by a rational soul and human flesh; and that these two natures are
united in Christ not by indwelling only, nor in an accidental mode,
as a man is united to his garments, nor in a personal relation and
property only, but in one hypostasis and one supposit. Only in this
way can we save what the Scriptures hand on about the Incarnation.
Since, then, sacred Scripture without distinction attributes the things
of God to that man, and the things of that man to God (as is plain
from the foregoing), he of whom each class is said must be one and
the same13.
10
ScG IV, 28, 4.
11
ScG IV, 29, 14.
12
ScG IV, 31, 6.
13
ScG IV, 39, 1, emphasis added.
From this it becomes clear that Aquinas thinks he has demonstrated his
case from the scriptures themselves. The framework for his treatment is the
sequence of christological errors –these set the questions to be addressed.
But the content of his treatment is the entirety of the biblical witness to
Christ. The scriptures provide the authoritative norm against which all
christological claims must be judged, but they also furnish the grounds
for argumentation along the way. To put this differently, on first reading it
appears that in Aquinas’s treatment of the Incarnation in the Summa Contra
Gentiles scripture occupies only a modest, instrumental role. There is no
extensive exegesis of selected biblical texts. But a closer reading shows
that scripture provides not only the authoritative norm for Christology, but
also the «matter» by which the various errant positions are overturned.
The Mystery of the Incarnation in the Summa Theologiae
In the Summa Contra Gentiles, the ordering principle for treating

the Incarnation is the historical sequence of heretical views concerning
Christ’s humanity. In the Summa Theologiae Aquinas adopts a different
ordering principle, one centered on a concern for the union of the
humanity and divinity in Christ. Following an opening apologetic article
on the fittingness of the Incarnation (ST III, q. 1), Thomas himself names
«the union» as the operative principle, dividing his investigation of «the
mystery of the Incarnation itself» into two main parts: (1) the mode of
union of the Incarnate Word (qq. 2-15), and (2) the consequences of
the union (qq. 16-26)14. This is a genuinely systematic treatment of the
union of the divine and human natures in Christ in which Aquinas weaves
together scriptural testimony, historical development of views on Christ,
and technical questions regarding terms and concepts. But the ordering
principle of his treatment is a systematic investigation into the nature of the
union of humanity and divinity in Christ.
What role does biblical exegesis play in this systematic treatment
of Christology? A careful scrutiny of the first twenty-six questions does
not yield a simple answer to this question. At no point does Thomas offer
anything like a full exposition of a biblical text; it would be a stretch to say
that he offers anywhere even a brief conventional commentary. So in one
14
For Aquinas’s division of the treatise on the Incarnation, see ST III, qq. 1, 2, 16.
sense it appears that there is very little exegesis in play at all in Aquinas’s
treatment of the Incarnation in the Summa Theologiae.
But if there is little to no biblical commentary as such, there is a high
frequency of biblical citation throughout the Treatise. If we ask about the
density of this citation, it varies widely depending on the topic at hand.
When the topic concerns the definition of terms or an explanation of
concepts, biblical citation is infrequent and plays at most a tangential role.
For example, when considering the union of the divine and human in Christ
in itself –whether it took place in the nature, the person, or the hypostasis–
scripture does not appear once in the first four articles and plays little role
throughout15. Quite reasonably Aquinas is concerned here to trace the post-
biblical conciliar tradition and explain how the various terms should be
understood.
But when the question concerns issues that touch on Christ’s true
humanity or the grace that Christ received «as man», the discussion is
replete with biblical references that then play a major role in answering
the question. For example, when Aquinas inquires whether Christ assumed
a full humanity (body, soul, and intellect), scriptural references appear
throughout the discussion –in the objections, in the answer, and in the replies
to the objections16. There is an even denser concentration of scripture when
Aquinas asks about the grace Christ received as man. Did Christ, Aquinas
asks, possess the gift of fear? The text from 1 John 4:18 speaks against this
conclusion, «perfect love casts out fear». Since Christ possessed perfect
love, so the objection goes, he must have experienced no fear. But in his
reply Aquinas rejects this conclusion, stating that Christ did possess the
gift of fear rightly understood, citing Isaiah 11:3 as the foundational text to
establish that Christ did indeed possess the gift of godly fear. He concludes
his answer by summing up the scriptural testimony: «Hence it is said that
in all things “he was heard for his reverence” (Heb 5:7). For Christ as man
had this act of reverence towards God in a fuller sense and beyond all
others. And hence Scripture attributes to him the fullness of the fear of the
Lord»17.
The issue of «proof-texting» as a flawed biblical hermeneutic may
be raised at this point. Can Aquinas be charged with proof-texting, that
15
ST III, q. 2.
16
ST III, q. 5.
17
ST III, q. 7, a. 6.
is, citing passages from the Bible out of context to defend or confirm a
theological conclusion that he has reached on other grounds? His treatment
of the question whether Christ is the head of the Church can serve as a test
case. After lodging three objections, Aquinas establishes his answer in the
sed contra by citing Ephesians 1:22 as clear and decisive: «And he has
made him [Christ] head over all the Church». Then he proceeds in his reply
to offer a systematic explanation of how Christ is the head of the Church,
citing scripture texts at each juncture. The text is worth citing in full:
As the whole Church is termed one mystic body from its likeness
to the natural body of a man, which in diverse members has diverse
acts, as the Apostle teaches (Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12), so likewise
Christ is called the Head of the Church from a likeness with the
human head, in which we may consider three things, viz. order,
perfection, and power: “Order”, indeed; for the head is the first part
of man, beginning from the higher part; and hence it is that every
principle is usually called a head according to Ezek. 16:25: “At
every head of the way, thou hast set up a sign of thy prostitution”
– “Perfection”, inasmuch as in the head dwell all the senses, both
interior and exterior, whereas in the other members there is only
touch, and hence it is said (Is. 9:15): “The aged and honorable, he
is the head” – “Power”, because the power and movement of the
other members, together with the direction of them in their acts, is
from the head, by reason of the sensitive and motive power there
ruling; hence the ruler is called the head of a people, according to 1
Kings 15:17: “When you were a little one in your own eyes, were
you not made the head of the tribes of Israel?” Now these three
things belong spiritually to Christ. First, on account of his nearness
to God his grace is the highest and first, though not in time, since
all have received grace on account of his grace, according to Rom.
8:29: “For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made
conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the first-born
amongst many brethren”. Secondly, he had perfection as regards the
fullness of all graces, according to Jn. 1:14, “We saw him [Vulg.:
“his glory”] […] full of grace and truth”, as was shown. Thirdly, he
has the power of bestowing grace on all the members of the Church,
according to Jn. 1:16: “Of his fullness we have all received”. And
thus it is plain that Christ is fittingly called the Head of the Church.
What kind of biblical exegesis is going on here? Plainly the «load-

bearing» text (Eph 1:22) is not taken out of context –it asserts in plain
words the very point Aquinas has set out to establish: Christ is the head
of the Church. But then he furnishes a short systematic account of Christ
as head of the Church, and for each «quality» of Christ’s headship (order,
perfection and power) he supplies a single verse from the Old Testament
to confirm or demonstrate the point. Clearly this is not an «exegesis» of
those texts. Aquinas is taking a verse out of its context to shed a certain
light on the point he is making. Is this proof-texting? Certainly Thomas is
picking individual verses from their context, like grapes from a vine, and
putting them to use in a different context to undergird or illustrate the point
he is making. No one –including Aquinas himself– would want to argue,
for instance, that Ezekiel 16:25 was written with the express purpose of
shedding light on Christ’s headship of the Church. Then how can we make
sense of his use of the scripture in this question?
I propose that there are two distinct but interrelated principles at work
in Aquinas’s use of scripture both in general but also here in his treatment
of the Incarnation. The first is his regard for scripture as the primary
source for sacra doctrina, the second is his commitment to ground specific
theological conclusions in the scripture itself. Why does Thomas refer to
the scriptural text so frequently, even when it is not strictly necessary?
Because of his deep regard for sacred scripture as the primary source for
theology. In fact his oblique or tangential citations of scripture make this
point with special force: it is as if scripture ought to be brought into play
and have a voice as often as possible, not only when it provides the central
load-bearing authority but also when it can illuminate a point from an
oblique angle. But this is not just window-dressing; for Aquinas the truths
of the faith must be grounded in scripture or at the very least supported and
illuminated by recourse to the scriptural text.
The constituent parts of a medieval cathedral can serve as an
illustration for the various ways that Aquinas uses the scripture. Just as
a cathedral has load-bearing walls that hold up the roof and keep the
whole intact, so the scripture often functions explicitly for Thomas as the
load-bearing authority for a question, as it does for establishing Christ as
head of the Church (Eph 1:22). Just as a cathedral requires buttresses that
support the walls and keep them from crumbling under various pressures,
so Aquinas also cites the scripture to buttress a point already made to give
it greater strength. His reference to the head-body reality of the Christ and
the Church in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 function in this way –they
give important support to the main conclusion. Finally, just as cathedrals
were populated with tracery of all kinds and with lights that illuminated
the spaces within, so at times Aquinas cites the scripture, not to establish
or directly support the point, but to «illuminate» it by showing its aptness
and beauty, or shedding light upon a point already established. This we can
see in his use of the Old Testament texts in the article on Christ’s headship.
Recognizing these various functions of the scripture in Aquinas’s
treatise on the Incarnation enables us to escape from the hermeneutical
cage that imprisons the scripture within a strictly literal, contextual use.
Aquinas is renowned for defending the primacy of the literal sense and
for drawing only on the literal sense for the establishment of Christian
doctrine18. But this does not limit his use of the scripture. Rather, he
operated in a world where the Bible was a kind of hermeneutical key to all
things revealed by God, and the practice of theology included teasing out
the riches of that biblical treasury in various ways: to establish the truth,
to support the truth already established, and to beautify and illuminate the
truth already firmly fixed in place. This is not proof-texting in a proper
sense. For Aquinas, the truths of the faith are already in place and secure,
anchored in the clear teaching of the Scripture. This enables him to employ
the scripture to support and illuminate what is already established, not as
a spurious claim to scriptural support (proof-texting), but as an exegetical
practice by which the Bible illumines in surprising ways what we already
know to be true.
When the Scripture is functioning as the load-bearing authority for
a question, Thomas normally cites it in the sed contra. It comes right at
the beginning of his positive exposition and establishes the truth of the
matter that will then be further explained (often by recourse to other
texts of Scripture). For instance, in response to the question, whether the
evangelists (Matthew and Luke) have suitably traced Christ’s genealogy,
Aquinas simply refers to «the authority of Scripture» (sed contra est
18
ST I, q. 1, a. 10, ad 1: «Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses
are founded on one –the literal– from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not
from those intended in allegory […] Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes
on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual
sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense». See N.
M. HEALY, «Introduction», in Th. WEINANDY – D. KEATING – J. YOCUM (edd.), Aquinas
on Scripture. An Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries, T&T Clark International,
London – New York 2005, pp. 7-8, for the historical reasons for the shift of emphasis
to the literal sense by Aquinas and the Dominicans.
auctoritas Scripturae)19. More commonly, he uses a stock phrase, literally

«on the contrary is what is written» (sed contra est quod dicitur), to advert
to the scripture as sufficient for establishing the truth20. Notably he adopts
this form of words when seeking to establish whether it is true that in
Christ «God is man». He answers: «It is written (Phil. 2:6,7): “Who being
in the form of God […] emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,
being made in the likeness of man, and in habit found as a man”; and thus
he who is in the form of God is man. Now he who is in the form of God
is God. Therefore God is man»21. This brief gloss on the passage cited
suffices to demonstrate the truth that in Christ God is indeed man.
In the Summa Theologiae, then, the load-bearing use of scripture
normally arrives first and anchors the explanation. This process is reversed
in his earlier Summa Contra Gentiles, because his aim is to establish
the truth of a question through reason first, and then to show how this is
confirmed by the Scripture. In fact, Aquinas uses a variety of words in
this work to show the overlapping ways that the Scripture functions to
confirm or attest to a truth already gained through reason. In Aquinas’s
hand, the authority of sacred scripture «confirms» (confirmare)22, «attests
to» (attestor)23, «witnesses to» (confiteor)24, «professes» (profiteor)25, and
«implies» or «beckons toward» (innuere)26 the conclusion he has reached.
Here the scripture functions as a final confirmation to what has been
established on the basis of human knowledge –and by this Thomas also
shows the congruence of faith and reason.
Does Aquinas in fact always hold firmly to his principle, expressed at
the start of the Summa Theologiae, that only the literal sense of scripture can
suffice for establishing an argument about Christian truth? In his Treatise
on the Incarnation we find some instances where it seems that a spiritual or
mystical reading of a text functions in a load-bearing manner. For example,
when considering the human knowledge possessed by Christ, Aquinas
19
ST III, q. 31, a. 3.
20
For the use of this phrase, «it is written», see ST III, q. 11, a. 1; q. 11, a. 6; q.
13, a. 3; q. 14, a. 1; q. 14, a. 3.
21
ST III, q. 16, a. 1.
22
ScG I, 14, 4.
23
ScG I, 49, 7.
24
ScG I, 26, 8.
25
ScG I, 82, 7.
26
ScG II, 87, 7.
asks whether there is just one single «habit of knowledge» in Christ. His
reply points to a spiritual/mystical reading of a text of Zechariah: «On the
contrary, it is written (Zech. 3:9) that on “one” stone, i.e. Christ, “there
are seven eyes”. Now by the eye is understood knowledge. Therefore it
would seem that in Christ there were several habits of knowledge»27. Here
I believe that Aquinas employs the scripture, not to establish the conclusion
authoritatively, but to «point to» the conclusion already reached on the
basis that Christ possessed a full humanity (and a full humanity has more
than one habit of knowledge).
A special case arises when Aquinas enquires into Mary’s role in the
Incarnation. When asking about the sanctification of the Virgin in the womb,
he begins by admitting that «nothing is handed down in the canonical
Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being
sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth»28.
Thus, there is no load-bearing scriptural authority for these questions. What
does Thomas do? He draws on a line from the Song of Songs, employing
a mystical reading, to shed light on Mary’s purity: «It is written (Canticles
4:7): “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee!” But the
fomes implies a blemish, at any rate in the flesh. Therefore the fomes was
not in the Blessed Virgin»29. In this case, the citation from the Song of Songs
does not actually ground the conclusion, but confirms it.
When considering the vexed question of Mary’s perpetual virginity,
Aquinas adopts a curiously inverted appeal to scripture as authoritative,
making use of as many as six passages from the gospels in their literal sense
to raise objections against Mary’s perpetual virginity, and then employs
Augustine’s mystical reading of Ezekiel 44:2 to establish the truth of it:
It is written (Ezek 44:2): “This gate shall be shut, it shall not be

opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God
of Israel hath entered in by it”. Expounding these words, Augustine
says in a sermon: “And what means this –“it shall be shut for
evermore”– but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in
His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?30
27
ST III, q. 11, a. 6.
28
ST III, q. 27, a. 1.
29
ST III, q. 27, a. 3. «Fomes» is literally «fuel» and refers to the internal incentive
to sin.
30
ST III, q. 28, a. 3.
It may appear that Aquinas relies on the spiritual sense of the scripture
to establish the point, but in fact he is relying on Augustine’s authority for
that mystical reading. The authority in this case is really Augustine, who
is using the scripture spiritually to illuminate the truth of what is already
known on the basis of the church’s tradition.
Following this survey of the various specific ways that Aquinas uses
the scripture, we can now return to the broader question of how exegesis
informs Aquinas’s explication of Christology in the Summa Theologiae.
Toward this end, the second part of the Treatise on the Incarnation,
comprised of the mysteries of the life of Christ (ST III, 27-59), is especially
illuminating31. At first glance, many of the individual questions regarding
the life of Christ seem artificially constructed. Aquinas asks questions that
have clear and obvious answers. Why go through the intricate process of
asking these questions, raising objections (which are often not strong or
cogent), and then offering the answer that was clear from the beginning?
In part, Thomas is constrained by the fixed scholastic method he adopted,
where every «topic» must be stated in terms of a question and objections
are raised before an answer is given. This method functions particularly
well when handling highly controverted questions but can prove awkward
or ungainly when the goal is to give a simple exposition of a mystery in
the life of Christ32.
Nevertheless, the interrogatory method of the Summa Theologiae
contains within itself a certain form of exegesis of the biblical text. An
illuminating example is the question concerning Christ’s circumcision33.
Aquinas asks the following questions in the four articles: (1) Should Christ
have been circumcised? (2) Was the name «Jesus» suitably given? (3) Was
Christ becomingly presented in the temple? (4) Was it fitting that the Mother
of God should go to the temple to be purified? In every case the answer is
that the authority of scripture suffices to establish each question. In other
words, there is really no question at issue here –Aquinas uses the question
31
For a survey and analysis of Aquinas’s treatment of the mysteries of Christ’s
life, see M. J. DODDS, «The Teaching of Thomas Aquinas on the Mysteries of the Life
of Christ», in Th. WEINANDY – D. KEATING – J. YOCUM (edd.), Aquinas on Doctrine, op.
cit., pp. 91-115.
32
Aquinas is spared this methodological procedure in Book IV (on salvation) in
the ScG where he is free to consider a topic positively and describe it at length without
needing to raise objections.
33
ST III, q. 37.
format simply as an opportunity to «interrogate» the mystery stated and

explore what it means and how we should understand it. We could call this
a form of biblical commentary through interrogation– a form of scholastic
commentary that takes «objections» as the path into a question. Rather
than taking a more discursive approach to the text (as he often does in
the biblical commentaries), he adopts an interrogatory approach that in
fact assumes the truth stated and explores what it might mean. And so
when Aquinas asks whether it was fitting for Christ to be circumcised, he
is really asking what the circumcision means for our salvation and he uses
this opportunity to explore the meaning of Christ’s circumcision (giving
seven reasons for it).
Thomas follows the same procedure when interrogating the baptism
of Jesus34. Of the eight articles under this heading, seven are resolved by
the simple citation of the scripture that states what the question is asking.
This gives Aquinas the opportunity to explore the «why» of the question:
Why was it appropriate that Jesus was baptized, and baptized by John, and
at this stage of his life, and baptized in the Jordan. Should the heavens have
opened, why did the Spirit descend in the form of a dove, and why should
the Father’s voice have been heard? The only article tangential to the
scriptural record is the issue of whether the dove was real or an apparition
(and Aquinas defends the reality of the dove). Otherwise, this «question» is
really an exegesis of the scriptural account, across the synoptic gospels, of
the baptism of Jesus –but it is exegesis in a scholastic interrogatory form35.
Aquinas’s handling of Jesus’ temptation in the desert reveals a
further feature of his exegesis, namely, using a simple question to work
out potential discrepancies between the gospel narratives. Following the
path he pursued in other questions, Aquinas exegetes the story of Jesus’
temptation by asking whether all the events surrounding this were fitting
and giving an explanation for why he was tempted, why in the wilderness,
why after fasting, and why in this order of temptation36. He works from
all three synoptic accounts and attempts to account for why the order of
34
ST III, q. 39.
35
HEALY, «Introduction», p. 9, accounts for this shift towards what he calls a
new «dialectical inquiry» of the biblical text as prompted by the apostolic tasks of
preaching and apologetics: «Dialectical inquiry –the formulation of objections and
their solutions to issues arising within or prompted by the text– clarified Scripture’s
meaning and, it was believed, would result in better preaching of the gospel».
36
ST III, q. 41.
the last two temptations is different in Matthew and Luke, calling upon
traditional commentators to give persuasive arguments. In other words,
he is working with the biblical account, explaining what it means, and
sorting out apparent discrepancies between the accounts. This is genuinely
a form of biblical exegesis even though it follows a scholastic style of
interrogation rather than a discursive style normally found in biblical
commentaries. Examples could be multiplied that follow the same pattern.
What can we conclude about the place of exegesis in Aquinas’s account
of Christology in the Summa Theologiae? We began by recognizing the
near absence of anything like conventional biblical commentary. Aquinas
adopts a systematic ordering of the topic and largely makes reference to
scripture through short one-verse citations. All this could seem as merely
proof-texting, but we saw how Aquinas in fact employs the scripture in
various subtle ways: as a load-bearing authority, as support (buttress) for
a given conclusion, or as an illumination of a point already established.
Furthermore, when he is considering events in the life of Christ the scholastic
interrogatory method actually functions as a form of biblical exegesis,
bringing together the central texts on a given area and working toward
reconciliation of potential discrepancies and deeper understanding of the
scriptural texts under scrutiny. Aquinas’s account of Christ is thoroughly
biblical even if the form of his treatment makes this difficult to see at points.
Why did he adopt this method of scriptural citation and interrogation in
the Summa rather than a classic expository style of biblical commentary?
On the one hand it suited his purpose in giving an ordered, systematic
treatment of the person and work of Christ. One the other hand, he had
already completed (or was actively engaged in producing) a wide-ranging
set of biblical commentaries that functioned both for himself and his readers
as a deeper and more extensive biblical repository, to be drawn upon for use
in the Summa. It is to these biblical commentaries that we now turn.
Exegesis and Christology in the Biblical Commentaries
Throughout his entire teaching career Thomas Aquinas was tasked with
giving commentary on the Bible. First as a baccalarius biblicus (a bachelor
of scripture) and then as a magister sacra pagina (master of the sacred
page), or as was sometimes called a doctor sacrae scripturae (a doctor
of sacred scripture), «his primary task was to teach scripture, which he
did throughout the remainder of his life»37. One reason that Aquinas could
safely refer to scripture so briefly and often with only mere citation in the
two Summae is that he was assuming a commonly-formed understanding
of the scripture that his readers would have received in their basic training
in theology. Consequently, if we want to understand his dogmatic treatises
accurately and understand the place of exegesis within them, we need to
read them in the light of his biblical commentaries. As Jean-Pierre Torrell
has advised: «It is imperative to read and use in a much deeper fashion
these biblical commentaries in parallel with the great systematic works»38.
My aim here is to examine briefly Aquinas’s commentary on two
biblical texts that function centrally in his understanding of the Incarnation,
especially the union of the divine and human in Christ: John 1:14 and Phil
2:5-1139. While it is not possible to date Aquinas’s biblical commentaries
with precision, scholarly consensus dates the commentary on Philippians
(and the Pauline letters more generally) to the period 1265-68, and the
Commentary on John to the period 1268-72 (meaning that parts of it were
written concurrently with the Summa Theologiae)40.
Commentary on John 1:14
Aquinas’s commentary on this single verse runs to about seven

pages41. For Thomas, John 1:14 explains principally the way or the
37
HEALY, «Introduction», p. 11.
38
Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol 1, The Person and his Work, Catholic University of
America Press, Washington D.C. 1996, p. 55.
39
These two texts frame Aquinas’s consideration of the Incarnation in the ScG (IV,
27, 2). In the Treatise on the Incarnation in the ST, John 1:14 is cited seventeen times
and Phil 2:5-11 is cited twenty-two times. For a parallel examination of how Aquinas
develops his teaching on Christology from the Letter to the Hebrews, see D. KEATING,
«Thomas Aquinas and the Epistle to the Hebrews: “The Excellence of Christ”», in
J. C. LAANSMA – D. J. TREIER (edd.), Christology, Hermeneutics, and Hebrews: Profiles
From the History of Interpretation, T&T Clark, London 2012, pp. 84-100.
40
For two leading theories on the dating of the biblical commentaries, see J.A.
WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas D’Aquino: His Life, Thought and Works, Catholic University
of America Press, Washington D.C. 1974, pp. 246-249, and TORRELL, Saint Thomas
Aquinas, vol. 1, pp. 327-329, 337-341.
41
For the full text in English translation, see St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary
on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-5, F. LARCHER and J. WEISHEIPL (trans.), Catholic
University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2010, pp. 66-73. Each chapter of
means of the Word’s coming in the Incarnation: «Having explained the

necessity for the Word’s coming in the flesh as well as the benefits this
conferred, the Evangelist now shows the way he came»42. After showing
how Augustine and Chrysostom variously contextualized this verse within
the Gospel prologue, Aquinas sets out to exegete the first line, «and the
Word was made flesh», by recourse to a multitude of christological errors
(Eutyches, Arius, Apollinarius, the Manicheans, and finally Nestorius).43
This strikingly mirrors his treatment of Christology in the Summa Contra
Gentiles (IV, 28-38). In other words, here in the Commentary on John he
provides an exegesis of the text through a historical lens, explaining what
it means for the Word to become flesh by contrasting a true understanding
with specific erroneous notions that appeared in the course of history.
Once again we see canonical exegesis in play. For each error
adumbrated, Aquinas offers a refutation by appealing to a range of biblical
texts other than the one at hand. To refute Eutyches he appeals to Malachi
3:6; to uncover the error Arius he brings forward Matthew 26:37-38; to
reveal the errant teaching of Apollinarius he points to Matthew 8:10.
Aquinas then interrogates the text by asking: Why then did John not
include a reference to a rational soul in Christ? Why did he just say, «and
the Word became flesh»? Four reasons are offered, each one buttressed
by reference to the scriptural witness outside the gospel of John: (1) Luke
24:39 demonstrates the reality of the flesh that Christ genuinely assumed;
(2) 1 Timothy 3:16 illuminates the great compassion the Son showed by
assuming our nature; (3) Psalm 14:10 and Job 28:17 point to the unique
union of God with flesh that took place in the Incarnation; and (4) Romans
8:3 shows that Christ came to redeem the weakness of our flesh.44
Thomas next interrogates the text of John 1:14 in a different manner.
Why did the Evangelist not say that the Word assumed flesh? Why did he
say that the Word was made flesh? For Thomas, this was said in order to
refute the error of Nestorius who (according to Thomas) predicated two
persons and two sons in Christ and denied that the Virgin was the mother
John’s gospel is divided into numbered lectures (John 1:14 comprising lecture seven),
and the entire text is marked with paragraph numbers that allow for a more precise
identification of passages within the commentary. References to this text (In Ioh.) will
be given according to paragraph number and page number of the English translation.
42
In Ioh., 165, p. 66.
43
In Ioh., 166-170, pp. 67-70.
44
In Ioh., 169, p. 69.
of God. Nestorius’s position would mean that God did not truly become
man: «For a thing is made or becomes something in order to be it; if, then,
the Word is not man, it could not be said that the Word became man […].
This union is such as would truly make God man and man God, i.e., that
God would be man»45. As he had done in the Summa Contra Gentiles (IV,
37-38) Aquinas then identifies and rejects the opinion of Peter Abelard that
there was one person but two supposits or hypostases in Christ, and offers
this concluding summation of what it means to say that «the Word became
flesh»: «If you ask how the Word is man, it must be said that he is man
in the way that anyone is man, namely, as having human nature. Not that
the Word is human nature itself, but he is a divine suppositum united to a
human nature»46.
Now Thomas turns to the second half of the verse, «and made his
dwelling among us», and offers two lines of interpretation on how this
shows the manner in which the Word came to exist as a man. First, it deflects
us from thinking that the Word was converted into flesh, and so ceased to be
fully God. Instead, Aquinas maintains that the Word remained God while
becoming a man. But he warns us against equating this «dwelling among
us» with the indwelling of the Spirit in the saints. The Word did not come
to dwell in a man, as Nestorius thought, says Thomas. Rather, the person of
the Word took on human nature, all the while remaining God47. The second
line of interpretation identifies «making his dwelling among us» with the
Word adopting our manner of life, living among us and showing himself to
be truly a human being: «For he not only willed to be like men in nature,
but also in living with them on close terms without sin, in order to draw to
himself men won over by the charm of his way of life»48.
How does Aquinas’s commentary on this classic text compare with
his treatment of Christology in the two Summae? The most significant
distinction is in the order of the investigation. In the Summae the order is
defined by a topic or question; in the commentary the order of investigation
is defined by the biblical text itself. But the striking feature is found in
the remarkable similarities: the use of christological errors to arrive at a
true meaning, the practice of interrogating the text in order to discover
45
In Ioh., 170, p. 70.
46
In Ioh., 172, p. 70.
47
In Ioh., 173-176, pp. 71-72.
48
In Ioh., 178, p. 72.
what it means, and the use of an array of other biblical texts to witness to
and support the conclusions Aquinas reaches. Given the different ordering
principle, the surprising feature of his commentary on John 1:14 is the
close similarity it bears in terms of method and content to his treatment of
the Incarnation in the Summae.
Commentary on Philippians 2:5-1149
Aquinas identifies Philippians 2:5-11 as an exhortation to humility

following the example of Christ himself. He divides the text into three
parts: (1) Christ’s majesty (vv. 5-6); (2) his humility (vv. 7-8); and (3)
his exaltation (vv. 9-11). Regarding Christ’s majesty, Thomas sees two
things proposed: the truth of Christ’s divine nature and his equality with
the Father50. The problem Thomas faces is the language of «form». What
does this mean? He concludes: «To be in the form of God is to be in the
nature of God. By this is understood that he is true God». And he cites 1
John 5:20 in support of this conclusion51.
Aquinas then «interrogates» the text one stage further. Why did Paul
say «form» rather than «nature» if «nature» is what «form» means here?
Thomas offers a threefold answer, arguing that «form» is appropriate to
Christ in virtue of his being the Son, Word, and Image of the Father. And
he calls upon Hebrews 1:3 in support of this conclusion, that the Son is
the «form» or «character» of the Father. Next he argues that «not counting
equality» must pertain to the divine nature the Son shares with the Father,
and because God’s nature is not susceptible of greater or lesser, the Son
must have full equality with the Father as divine. Here he calls two passages
to witness to the truth of this conclusion (Jn 5:18, Is 14:14)52.
Thomas now turns his attention to the second part of the text concerning
Christ’s humility (vv. 7-8), distinguishing two stages of this humility: the
49
Aquinas’s commentary on Phil 2:5-11 appears in English translation in
Commentary on St. Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians and the Letter to the
Philippians, F. LARCHER and M. DUFFY (trans.), Magi Books, Albany NY 1969, pp.
77-88, and comprises two lectures (lectures two and three of the second chapter).
References to this text (In Phil.) will be given according to lecture and page number
of the English translation.
50
In Phil., Lect. 2.2, p. 78.
51
52
Incarnation and the Passion. A question immediately arises about the

meaning of the «emptying»: Did Christ in emptying himself put off his
divinity? Aquinas answers in the negative: «For just as he descended from
heaven, not that he ceased to exist in heaven, but because he began to
exist in a new way on earth, so he also emptied himself, not by putting off
his divine nature, but by assuming a human nature»53. Aquinas then offers
the following theological reflection on the implication of «emptying» that
points to the deep humility of the divine Son:
How beautiful to say that he “emptied himself”, for the empty is

opposed to the full! For the divine nature is sufficiently full, because
every perfection of goodness is there. But human nature and the
soul are not full, but capable of fullness, because it was made as a
slate not written upon. Therefore, human nature is empty. Hence he
says, he “emptied himself”, because he assumed a human nature54.
Thomas now interrogates the text one stage further: Why did Paul
not simply say «servant», but used the phrase, «form of a servant»? This
was done, Thomas argues, to avoid the impression that the Son assumed a
human person (or hypostasis). The Word did not assume a man but assumed
human nature to himself55. In quick succession, Thomas then glosses the
phrases of the text, showing that «being born in the likeness of men» shows
that he assumed our specific nature in every respect (Heb 2:17 given in
support), and that «being found in human form» indicates that Christ
assumed human nature with all the defects and properties associated with
the human species, sin excepted (with Rom 8:3 called upon for support)56.
At this point Aquinas steps aside from direct commentary on the text
and observes that some have fallen into error regarding the meaning of
«being found in human form». He points to the specific errors in the history
of christological speculation: the error of Photinus who saw in Christ only
a human being; the error of Arius who claimed that Christ was less than the
Father; the error of Nestorius who understood the union as an indwelling,
and posited two sons; the error of Rabanus who claimed that in the emptying
the Father and the Spirit were also emptied; the error of Eutyches who said
53
54
55
56
that one nature results from the two; the error of Valentinus who said that
he took a body from heaven; and the error of Apollinarius who denied
that Christ had a human soul. Aquinas assumes that all these heresies are
refuted by a true understanding of this passage57.
Next, Thomas moves to the humility of Christ in his Passion, calling
upon Sirach 3:18 and Matthew 11:29 to illuminate the humility of Christ.
But then comes the interrogation of the text: Was Christ’s obedience in
his divine will? Aquinas answers negatively, showing instead that this
obedience is of Christ’s human will (with Matt 26:39 witnessing to this).
This obedience fittingly undoes the sin of disobedience in the first Adam
that led to the fall58.
Finally, Thomas turns to the third section of this text dealing with
Christ’s exaltation, the reward for his humility. The problem here, as
Thomas sees it, is how to understand Christ receiving the divine name only
in his exaltation. He offers two alternate explanations. The first, coming
from Ambrose, concludes that the name Christ receives is the divine name
that he had as the divine Son from all eternity. The second, coming from
Augustine, sees the name pertaining to Christ’s assumed humanity, not
because his human nature becomes divine in the resurrection, but because
through the grace of union Christ is at once both God and man (and
Thomas astutely cites Rom 1:4 and Acts 2:36 to confirm the giving of the
divine name to the resurrected Christ). Aquinas then further queries both
conclusions and asks how it can be that only after the resurrection Christ
obtained this name. He answers that he had it before (on both counts,
divine and human), but that this was the time, following the resurrection,
that it was manifested to all for adoration. Aquinas concludes by stating
that Christ will be honored with the same glory as the Father, and that he
who always was in the form of God is now fittingly honored in this way
following his humility and exaltation (pointing to Jn 17:5 in support)59.
What conclusions can we draw from Aquinas’s commentary on this
classic christological text? First, he follows the biblical ordering closely,
taking up each phrase in turn, paying close attention to internal context and
the meaning of terms. Second, he manifests the practice of interrogating
the text at every point, asking hard questions in order to draw out potential
57
In Phil., Lect. 2.2, pp. 81-82.
58
In Phil., Lect. 2.2, pp. 82-83.
59
In Phil., Lect. 2.3, pp. 84-86.
false conclusions and to arrive more securely at a true understanding.

Third, he constantly calls upon other texts of Scripture to support and
confirm the conclusions he reaches –they serve as primary witnesses
to the right meaning of the text at hand. Finally, we see once again the
catalogue of christological errors that show the typical ways that Christ’s
Incarnation has been wrongly understood. In summary, despite different
ordering principles we find a strikingly similar methodological approach
in Thomas’s commentary on Philippians 2:5-11, his commentary on John
1:14, and his treatment of the Incarnation is the two Summae.
Exegesis and Christology Today
This study began by asking how Thomas Aquinas uses the scripture
to display his view of Christ. We found that biblical revelation functions
in a variety of ways within his account of Christology: as the load-
bearing authority for a given question, as a support and buttress for a
position already reached, and as illuminative of positions fully secure. The
scripture functions in a sense at every level of investigation: providing the
foundation, strengthening the arguments, and illuminating the conclusions.
Moreover, Aquinas feels secure in simply citing a text in brief to make the
point, because he knows that his readers share a common understanding of
the biblical texts that would have been gained through extensive teaching
on the main books of the Bible. Once we recognize this, the charge of
«proof-texting» no longer suffices for what Aquinas is doing. He is not
making facile and shallow references to a text without comment to prove
a point, but drawing on a deep understanding of the text, shared by his
readers, to establish, support and illuminate the argument.
When we compare accounts of the Incarnation in the Summa Contra
Gentiles and the Summa Theologiae with commentary on John 1:14 and
Phil 2:5-11, the chief difference is the order of investigation. In the Summa
Contra Gentiles, the question is first answered by means of arguments from
reason; the scripture normally enters at the very close of each question to
confirm and strengthen the conclusion. In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas
adopts a systematic ordering of the material, asking questions in a logical
and sequential manner to investigate the doctrine of Christ. Here the role of
scripture varies widely, playing a crucial part in questions concerning Christ
being and life, but only a tangential role when questions of definition and
conciliar tradition are under consideration. In the biblical commentaries,

the scriptural text provides the order of investigation –and Aquinas stays
close to the text throughout.
But despite this different order of investigation in the respective texts,
Aquinas employs a strikingly similar set of common elements. First, he
invariably «interrogates» the biblical text to determine its meaning. He
does not simply explain the text, but places it under interrogation, asking
hard questions about its meaning. This is consistent with his scholastic
heritage that probed the meaning of Christian truth through objection and
interrogation. Second, Aquinas determines the meaning of a given biblical
text primarily by calling upon other biblical texts to act as witnesses. This
is clear evidence of a canonical interpretation of scripture, where one text
is confidently called upon to illumine another. Third, Aquinas incorporates
a catalogue of christological errors that appeared in history, as a tool to
show wrong-turnings and point to right understandings. This typology of
christological errors is a characteristic mark of his account of Christ, found
in his systematic treatments and his biblical commentaries.
In a particular way, the teaching on Christ reached at the Council
of Chalcedon functions for Aquinas as the hermeneutical guide for his
Christology. He is the first scholastic to quote the Chalcedonian definition
directly60, and his core teaching can be seen as an explanation and expansion
of what Chalcedon confessed. According to Brian Davies, «Everything he
has to say about Christ is an attempt to explore the sense and significance
of what he takes to be the teaching of Chalcedon»61. Following Leo the
Great, he sees the two primary christological errors as Nestorianism
(denying the unity of person in Christ) and Eutychianism (denying the
two complete natures in Christ), and the burden of his Christology is to
demonstrate how the union of the divine and human natures in the one
person of the divine Son ensured a full and complete humanity. There is,
in fact, a kind of dialectic or hermeneutical circle between the revelation
of Christ in scripture and the canonical definition of Christ enshrined at
Chalcedon in Aquinas’s account of Christ. The doctrine of Chalcedon
functions as the guide for what is a true and right understanding of the
scripture, but at the same time the scripture genuinely reveals a picture of
60
WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas D’Aquino, p. 164. Aquinas cites the text of Chalcedon
in ST III, q. 2, a. 2.
61
The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992, p. 298.
Christ that anchors the teaching found in Chalcedon. The Bible provides
the uniquely inspired teaching on Christ for Aquinas, but Chalcedon and
the authoritative christological tradition supply the correct interpretation of
the revealed truths of scripture62.
What, if anything, does Thomas Aquinas have to offer us for crafting an
exegetically-grounded Christology today? When exploring christological
questions and issues in a systematic fashion, Thomas provides an impressive
and canonically rich use of scripture both to anchor and illuminate teaching
about Christ. In contrast to some systematic christologies today, Aquinas
is rarely far from the biblical text and has constant recourse to it in such
a way that the discussion always has biblical revelation in view. And he
ranges over the whole of the Bible in all of its parts in a way that few today
have competence to equal. And for Aquinas, the scripture is not just the
«data» that we work from, but provides revealed truth to which we must
adhere. It is not just a «source» for his theology but a bedrock authority
that he can stand upon. While we (like Aquinas) need to labor «in the heat
of the day» to grasp what the biblical revelation is, we have much to gain
from his confidence in the reliability of the scriptural revelation and his
skill in linking biblical texts to display the teaching about Christ.
Aquinas’s manner of referring to the biblical text, however, is not
sufficient for our context today. He could rely upon a generally understood
and agreed upon view of scripture in the medieval university, and his
method of citation builds upon this general consensus. Today, much more
groundwork in, and explanation of, the biblical text itself is required. In
short, systematic studies of Christology today require a deeper and fuller
explication of the scriptural revelation than Aquinas needed to furnish in
his day.
What value can be found in the various elements, exegetical and
historical, that Aquinas employs in service of the teaching about Christ?
Certainly his approach to «interrogating» the text is still essential. We face
62
M. LEVERING, «Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas», in Th. WEINANDY – D.
KEATING – J. YOCUM (edd.), Aquinas on Scripture, op. cit., p. 126, describes the rationale
behind Aquinas’s use of conciliar statements and the catalogue of christological
errors to expound the scripture: «Aquinas employs the doctrinal determinations of
the Church, as well as the errors that the Church has excluded […] as guideposts for
interpretation, since these doctrinal judgments, guided by the Holy Spirit who inspired
Scripture, indicate the true content of God’s teaching and expose where interpreters
can go astray».
questions today that Aquinas did not need to address, but the method of
interrogation continues to be of great use in underlining core questions
and contrasting possible responses. Further, Aquinas’s use of the catalogue
of historical errors remains immensely valuable, though we need to use
more refined and historically nuanced accounts of these errors than served
in his day (for example, the use of «Nestorianism» and «Arianism» as
general categories require more nuance today). Still, Christology benefits
from a historical narrative that shows how various inadequate views were
reached, wrestled with, and eventually discarded by the church.
We face new challenges because of the array of critical approaches to
the Bible that have surfaced since the Enlightenment, requiring of us a keen
awareness of the historical method and the critical questions that have been
posed to the Bible in the modern era. We have a more complicated task than
Aquinas did and so need to work more diligently to master a historically
aware canonical reading of Scripture that nonetheless maintains the
conviction of its divine inspiration and authority for Christian teaching63.
In this effort, Aquinas remains a model and inspiration. Though we cannot
simply repeat his approach in every respect, we can gain lasting instruction
on how to use scripture in teaching about the Incarnation, and at the same
time learn about the content of Christology from this master of the sacred
page.
63
The three-volume work by POPE BENEDICT XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City 2007, 2011, 2012, is an example of how an exegetically-
grounded study of Christ, sensitive to the issues of modern biblical criticism, can be
carried out in impressive fashion.
CHRISTOPHER T. BAGLOW*
THE PRINCIPLE(S) OF ECCLESIAL NATURE.

THE CHURCH IN THE EPHESIANS COMMENTARY OF ST.
THOMAS AQUINAS
Introduction
It is not surprising that St. Thomas Aquinas’ commentary on the

epistle to the Ephesians1 is not among his most celebrated works. Its theme
is tantalizing enough to modern readers who have been intoxicated by
the ecclesiological and ecumenical ferment of the last century; according
to Thomas’ schematization of the Pauline epistles (to be found in the
prologue of his Romans commentary) Ephesians is Paul’s treatment «of the
institution of ecclesial unity» (de institutione ecclesiasticae unitatis)2. But
it does not seem to deliver what it promises. First, Thomas does not bother
to repeat the topic in his prologue to the Ephesians commentary itself,
which seems to lessen its importance. As it unfolds chapter by chapter,
the Church is considered explicitly by Thomas from time to time when
mentioned by Paul but seems to disappear from sight through much of the
work. Finally, the origination of the Church as an event occupies only one
lecture out of forty-four3.
These anomalies and the fact that modern readers have been
taught to expect Thomas’ ecclesiological vision to be widely diffused
*
Notre Dame Seminary, 2901 S. Carrollton Avenue, New Orleans LA, 70118,
USA, cbaglow@nds.edu
1
Thomas Aquinas, Lectura super Epistolam ad Ephesios, in Thomas Aquinas,
Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (Latin-English
Edition), Ed. J. MORTENSEN and E. ALARCÓN, transl. by F.R. LARCHER and M.L. LAMB,
vol. 39 of Latin/English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas Institute,
Lander WY 2012. This volume contains the Turin-Marietti edition of the Latin text and
Lamb’s English translation, both of which I will use throughout. The number of the
Turin-Marietti edition will be given in future references.
2
Thomas Aquinas, Lectura super Epistolam ad Romanos Prol., no. 11, in Thomas
Aquinas, Commentary on the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans (Latin-English Edition),
Ed. J. MORTENSEN and E. ALARCÓN, transl. by F.R. LARCHER, vol. 37 of Latin/English
Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas Institute, Lander WY, 2012.
3
In Eph. 2:14-18, no. 110-121.
532 CHRISTOPHER T. BAGLOW
throughout his gigantic corpus4 may explain why modern Thomistic

and ecclesiological scholarship have not favored a holistic reading of
the commentary according to the theological topic Thomas attributes to
the epistle. Rather, the commentary has often been mined for its many
ecclesiological gems, sought naturally enough in the places where
metaphors of the Church are offered by the epistle. A great deal can
be discovered through such an approach and some excellent works on
Thomas’ ecclesiology have been produced in this way that are essential
reading for understanding Thomas’ vision of the Church5. But it may be
that there is a largely unexploited advantage to taking a more holistic
approach, guided by the main topic that Thomas attributes to the epistle.
In this essay I hope to demonstrate that for Thomas this topic is
clearly and masterfully developed throughout the epistle by St. Paul, but
not in ways we might expect. Ephesians as read by Thomas is not simply
a narrative account of events that mark the start of the New Testament
Church as a social reality, as the word «institution» seems to suggest, but a
metaphysico-theological account of what the Church is established to be,
then, now and always, in the divine intention. «The institution of ecclesial
unity» is not so much an account of the nativity of the Church (although
this is included) but of the nature of the Church, an account of how Christ
the Head and the Holy Spirit (whom Thomas refers to together as virtually
one principle) cause the Church to be in an analogons way to how a human
soul causes a human body to be a living body. It is about Christ and the
Holy Spirit vivifying the Church by causing the Church to be, to have
a certain essence and operations, to remain one and the same through
4
Y. CONGAR, «The Idea of the Church in St. Thomas Aquinas», Thomist, 1 (1939),
331-359. In this widely influential article Congar argued that Thomas does not have an
explicit ecclesiology because his ecclesiology is coextensive with the entire dynamism
of the return of rational creatures to God. I largely agree with Congar on this point,
but do not receive his insight as an admonition against seeking some comprehensive
treatment that is more explicit than he suggests.
5
See J. TI-TI CHEN, «La unidad de la Iglesia según el Comentario de Santo
Tomás a la Epístola a los Efesios», Scripta Theologica, 8 (1976) 111-230;
M. CUÉLLAR, La Naturaleza de la Iglesia según Santo Tomás. Estudio del Tema en
el Comentario al «Corpus Paulinum», Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona
1979; W. SWIERZAWSKI, «Christ and the Church: Una Mystica Persona in the Pauline
Commentaries of St. Thomas Aquinas», in A. PIOLANTI (ed.), S. Tommaso teologo:
ricerche in occasione dei due centenari accademici, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città
del Vaticano 1995, pp. 239-250.
THE PRINCIPLE(S) OF ECCLESIAL NATURE 533
change, and by giving the Church’s members and the Church as a whole
their respective, related teleologies.
It is true that Thomas never produced a systematic De ecclesia. But
for him Ephesians is Paul’s De ecclesia, and so the Ephesians commentary
stands alone as a comprehensive ecclesiology among Thomas’s works. It
is an exegetical De ecclesia.
1. The Institution of Ecclesial Unity and the Principles of Ecclesial

Nature
A challenge to my interpretation of Thomas’ theme must be faced from

the outset. The word institutione is never used by Thomas to describe the body/
soul relationship in any of his works; why does he use it here? Why doesn’t
he use a more suitable expression, such as de generatione ecclesiasticae
unitatis? It must be admitted that the word “generation”, his favored term for
the origination of the soul/body relationship, does not appear anywhere in
the Ephesians lectura. But this may be because the soul/body relationship is
analogical to the Christ-Spirit/Church relationship, and the word “generation”
leaves no analogical space between the things being compared.
This becomes clearer when we consider the fact that Thomas uses
the terms “generation” and “institution” interchangeably in reference to
a different social body than the Church in a commentary he performed
several years after the Ephesians commentary, i.e. his commentary on
the Politics of Aristotle. There the generation of a living human being is
offered as an apt analogy for «the institution of a city» (de institutione
civitatis)6 out of smaller social groups:
We call the nature of each thing that which belongs to it when its
generation is perfect; for example, the nature of man is that which
he possesses once his generation is perfect […] But the disposition
that a thing has by reason of its perfect generation is the end of all the
things that precede its generation. Therefore, that which is the end of
the natural principles from which something is generated is the nature
of a thing. And thus, since the city is generated from the previously
mentioned societies, which are natural, it will itself be natural7.
6
Thomas Aquinas, In I Politica. 1, no. 31, transl. by E. FORTIN, P. O’NEILL and
J. MACFARLAND, in R. LERNER and M. MAHDI (eds.), Medieval Political Philosophy:
A Sourcebook, Free Press, Toronto 1963, pp. 287-313.
7
In I Pol. 1, no. 31.
In his theme for Ephesians we see a similar pairing of “institution”

and “generation”; the generation of the ecclesial body is called «the
institution of ecclesial unity» because the city is also an apt analogy for
the Church. It is not a coincidence that in the Ephesians commentary the
second most important ecclesiological metaphor is the Church as city.
Since the “generation” of the mystical body is at one and the same time the
institution of «something like a city» (sit sicut civitas),8 Thomas uses this
term to refine and qualify his overarching analogy. In fact, he will move
effortlessly back and forth between describing the Church as a living body
and as a social body throughout the commentary.
To understand Thomas’ application of the soul/body relationship to the
Church we should begin with a summary of his theory of that relationship.
In Thomas’ account of life every living body has a soul as its substantial
form, as «the principle that explains the determination, the nature, the
operation and the unity of the composite [living] thing»9. It is soul that, in
the coming-to-be of a living thing, unites all the elements of the body into
a single living composite substance. This is a process that often involves
a prior corruption; «that into which corruption is terminated is the very
same as that out of which generation proceeds»10. Soul as intelligible form
overcomes the chaos of corruption and brings about the ordering of the
body to itself – «the soul is not only the form and mover of the body but
also its end»11. The body thus exists for the sake of the soul, but also serves
the soul’s completion and perfection; in a way, the body fulfills the soul. We
will see shortly that all of these elements of his Aristotelian hylomorphism
are called upon by Thomas in his interpretation of Ephesians.
The soul/body analogy for the Church is not unique to the Ephesians
lectura. The most important (and most difficult) example in the Thomistic
corpus occurs in the 1 Corinthians lectura in reference to 1 Cor 12:12-31.
8
In Eph. 4:5, no. 197.
9
N. AUSTRIACO, «Substantial Forms, Living Networks and Natural Ends:
Recovering the Teleology of St. Thomas Aquinas in Biology» (unpublished),
Providence College, Providence (Rhode Island) 2014, 11.
10
Thomas Aquinas, In librum Aristotelis De generatione et corruptione expositio,
Bk. 1.9, no. 4, in Thomas Aquinas, On Generation and Corruption, transl. by
P. CONWAY and W.H. KANE, St. Mary of the Springs, Columbus OH 1963-1964,
available at http://www.dhspriory.org/thomas/GenCorrup.htm.
11
Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae De Anima q. 8 resp., in Thomas
Aquinas, The Soul, transl. by J. ROWAN, Herder, St. Louis 1949.
This is a commentary that was performed shortly before the Ephesians

commentary, in fact within the same academic course, and so it has light
to shed on the issue as it is treated in the latter work. Thomas notes the
likeness between the distinction/integration of the graces of the members
of the Church and the distinction/integration of the members of the human
body. In both cases, that of the Church and of the human body, this
harmony between diverse members with various powers is a characteristic
of each body’s perfection. Each member exists in the unity of the body
instrumentally in regard to the soul, which makes these diverse members
one in such a way that their diversity does not subtract from, but rather
completes, that unity. In this commentary, the close association between
Christ and the Holy Spirit show them to be virtually one principle, with
only a distinction of reason between them:
Then when he says: ‘so also is Christ’, the adaptation of the

likeness begins. First, he adapts the likeness, saying: ‘So also is
Christ’, namely, He is one, as it says above (8:6): ‘Our one Lord
Jesus through whom are all things’. Yet he has many and diverse
members, namely, all the faithful, as it says in Rom (12:5): ‘Though
many we are one body in Christ.’
[…] One reason for this unity is the Holy Spirit: ‘one body and one
spirit’ (Eph 4:4)12.
Later in the same lecture, when Thomas comments on 12:27, which in

his Vulgate text reads «Now you are the body of Christ and members of a
member», the dual attribution to Christ and the Spirit of ecclesial unity is
explained by reference to their common divinity. Due to his humanity Christ
is himself a member of the Church, the Head; but according to his divinity
he cannot be a member. So as cause of the unity of the Church Christ in
his divine nature and the Holy Spirit are a single principle. This does not
diminish the importance of Christ’s humanity, which is the instrument of
his divinity in causing the Church to be a living body –«‘now you’, who
are assembled in the unity of faith, ‘are the body of Christ’: ‘he made him
12
Thomas Aquinas, In 1 Corinthians. 12:12-13, no. 732-733 in Thomas Aquinas,
Commentaries on the Letters of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Ed. J. MORTENSEN and E.
ALARCÓN, transl. by F.R. LARCHER, B. MORTENSEN and D. KEATING, vol. 38 of Latin/
English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas Institute, Lander WY
2012.
head over all things for the Church, which is his body’ (Eph. 1:22) … you
are members depending on the member, Christ, who is called member in
virtue of his human nature»13. In his human nature he is the Head, the one
to whom all must be united, but as God he is, with the Holy Spirit, the
power and form of unity. It is significant that Thomas quotes Eph 1:22 in
support of this interpretation, because in the Ephesians commentary the
same verse will be the occasion for him to compare Christ’s relationship to
the Church to the relationship between the soul and the body.
Now we are well-positioned to appreciate Thomas’ interpretation of
Ephesians as an account of the institution of ecclesial unity. The commentary
compares Christ as Head of the Church to the human soul, identifying
Christ as the «cause and principle» of the Church’s members (In Eph. 1:22-
23, no. 71). It describes the corruption of humanity into disparate elements
– Jews and Gentiles, both dead in their sins and separated from each other
(In Eph. 2:1-3, no. 72-83) as the lifeless material elements to be united in
one body, the matter to be informed. Having invoked the analogy of soul/
substantial form and having identified the matter to be vivified, Thomas
carries the idea throughout his commentary, showing divine mercy as
manifested in Christ and the Holy Spirit’s indwelling as:
a) The cause and principle of the Church’s unified existence (In Eph.
1:19-2:18, no. 56-121);
b) The Church’s nature as holy, catholic and apostolic (In Eph. 2:19-
22, no. 122-132);
c) The Church’s endurance as one and the same through change (In
Eph. 3:1-4:6, no.133-203); and
d) The teleology of the Church’s members towards Christ according to
their “personal and specific” states (In Eph. 4:7-4:16, no. 204-229),
according to the moral pattern of ecclesial unity pertaining to all
members (In Eph. 4:17-5:21, no. 230-315), according to particular
precepts pertaining to specific “classes” of members (In Eph. 5:22-6:9,
no. 316-350), and back to the grace of Christ who offers the power by
which these precepts can be carried out (In Eph. 6:10, no. 351-377).
We may now chart Thomas’ journey of interpretation through

Ephesians and appreciate the ecclesiology he finds there.
13
In 1 Cor. 12:27, no. 753.
2. From Death to Life, Corruption to Institution: Christ/Spirit as

Cause and Principle of the Church’s Existence
Thomas begins his account of the institution of ecclesial unity with his
commentary on Eph. 1:19-21, the seventh lecture on the first chapter (C. 1,
L. 7) of the epistle. Here Christ is referred to as the «form and exemplar»
(forma et exemplar) of the blessings the faithful receive: his life is form and
exemplar of our justice, his glory and exultation is the form and exemplar
of our glory and exultation. Most significantly for the overall theme, Christ
is form and exemplar «in his transition from death to life»14.
While the resurrection of Christ is only discussed with reference to
his own bodily resurrection in C. 1, L. 7, the ecclesiological implications
become apparent in the next lecture, which is the most important for
understanding the institution of ecclesial unity. The significance of L. 7
is found in the fact that it serves as a necessary prelude to the conclusions
of L. 8. In the former Paul is «speaking of Christ inasmuch as he is man»
who is raised from the dead and receives from the Father «an elevation
to the greatest of power»15. In L. 8, the focus changes to the nature of
that power, «his [Christ’s] power in relation to the Church»,16 comprised
in Christ’s headship of the Church. In this discussion of the Church we
encounter the characteristics of a living human body: it has a preeminent
member to which all other members are subject, it has members that have
their own powers which flow from it, its members all have the same nature
as the preeminent member17. This power of the head in the relation of the
Church to Christ is like that of soul to body, and here Thomas undertakes
an interpretation of Eph 2:23: «Which is his body and the fullness of him
who is filled all in all»:
He explains ‘which is his body’ by adding ‘the fullness of him’.

To one asking why there are so many members in a natural body
-hands, feet, mouth, and the like- it could be replied that they are
to serve the soul’s variety of activities. [The soul] itself is the cause
and principal of these, and what they are, the soul is virtually. For
the body is made for the soul, and not the other way around. From
14
In Eph. 1:19-20, no. 56-59.
15
In Eph. 1:20, no. 58; see also no. 64.
16
In Eph. 1:22, no. 65.
17
In Eph. 1:22, no. 69-70.
this perspective, the natural body is a certain fullness of the soul;

unless the members exist with an integral body, the soul cannot fully
exercise its activities.
This is similar in the relation of Christ and the Church. Since the
Church was instituted on account of Christ, the Church is called the
fullness of Christ. Everything which is [truly] in Christ is, as it were,
filled out in some way in the members of the Church. For all spiritual
understanding, gifts, and whatever can be present in the Church - all
of which Christ possesses superabundantly - flow from him into the
members of the Church, and they are perfected in them18.
Here the analogy is made directly. The soul is cause and principle of
the many members, in whom the soul performs its activities, and these
activities are perfected in the members not as if they are imperfect in the
soul, but through the superabundance of the soul. It is the perfection of
Christ as Head that makes the headship metaphor incomplete; Christ must
be not simply the source but the very form of the activities of the other
members, causing them to be just, or wise, or to possess whatever good
thing they possess; as Thomas says in another place, «as many effects exist
virtually in a cause, as conclusions in a principle, and as bodily members
in seed»19. But there is a reciprocity here, for these bodily members make
the “soul” capable of exercising its activities. That which is virtually in
Christ is actually perfected in them, and so what Thomas says in other
places applies analogously here: «For through form, which actualizes
matter, matter becomes an actual being and this particular thing»;20 «Now
it is the nature of substantial form to give to matter its existence without
qualification. For the form is that through which a thing is the very thing
that it is»21.
Thomas has thus considered the institution of the Church from the
perspective of its head/soul, following the order of the epistle. Now he
completes this consideration by considering the Church’s members prior
18
In Eph. 1:23, no. 70.
19
Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate q. 20.4 resp., in Thomas
Aquinas, Truth. vol. 2, transl. by J. MCGLYNN, Henry Regnery, Chicago 1953.
20
Thomas Aquinas, De ente et essentia, c. 4, no. 3, in Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas
on Being and Essence, transl. by A. MAURER, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
Toronto 1968 (Medieval Sources in Translation, 1).
21
De Anima q.9.
to their union with their head/soul, in the first lecture on Eph. 2, the first
verse of which begins «And you, when you were dead in your offences
and sins.» The relationship between soul and body is one instance of the
relation between form and matter. Matter considered in itself is a non-
thing, non-being considered as a passivity for receiving form. It has in this
an intrinsic likeness to the privation of sin, which leaves one spiritually
lifeless. So, Thomas points out: «the Apostle sets [the blessings of God
on the human race in general] in relief by comparing them to mankind’s
former condition»22. The Ephesians were once spiritually dead, and kept
up «their pace in going from bad to worse»23. This is true of those who
were once in paganism; but at 2:3 «the Apostle [also] recalls the sinful
state of the Jews»24. At this point it might seem that Thomas is referring
only to this local Church, but he is referring to all of redeemed humanity,
and this becomes clear in his interpretation of 2:3b: «and we were by
nature children of wrath». Here he considers original sin, passed on to
all humanity, gentiles and Jews, affecting human nature itself and not just
individual human beings: «Thus he says ‘we were by nature’, that is, from
the earliest beginning of nature—not of nature as nature since this is good
and from God, but of nature as vitiated—‘children of’ an avenging ‘wrath’,
aimed at punishment and hell»25. The power of Christ in causing the Church
is revealed in what it overcomes: the separation of humanity into Jews and
Gentiles, both of whom are dead «with the worst type of death»26. Sinful
humanity is like a corpse –without unity, corrupted in nature («children
of wrath»), utterly changeable, without direction («children of despair»)27.
But in nature all generation begins with corruption, and L. 2-4 on
Ephesians 2 relate Thomas’ account of the «quickening» (convivificavit
–literally “vivifying together”) (Eph 2:5) of this lifeless matter by Christ
and the Spirit. L. 2 interprets Eph 2:4-7 as treating «the divine blessing of
justification», which gives the whole relationship of Christ and the Spirit
to the Church in the mode of individual justification28. L. 3 interprets Eph
22
In Eph. 2:1, no. 72.
23
In Eph. 2:1, no. 74.
24
In Eph. 2:3, no. 80.
25
In Eph. 2:3, no. 83.
26
In Eph. 2:1, no. 74.
27
In Eph. 2:2-3, no. 83, 78.
28
In Eph. 2:4-7, no. 84-91, esp. no. 84-87.
2:8-10 as proving that this blessing occurs through the grace of Christ29.
L. 4 interprets Eph 2:11-12 as a recapitulation, with further details, of Eph
2:1-330, and ends with identifying the love of Christ, represented by his
blood shed on the Cross, as that which draws the disparate non-members
near to each other31.
The overwhelming stress on God’s work in informing the Church,
uniting and quickening its members, drawing them, etc., may give the
impression that human activity has no place in this work, that there is
no human element in the fashioning of the Church –God seems to be the
only one at work in its construction. But in L. 3 of Chapter Two, Thomas
interprets Eph 2:10: «For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
in good works, which God has prepared that we should walk in them», in
a way that shows good works to be both God’s and ours, albeit in different
ways: «Lest anyone imagine that good works are prepared for us by God
in such a way that we do not cooperate in their realization through our free
will, he annexes ‘that we should walk in them’. As though he said: Thus
has he prepared them for us, that we might perform them for ourselves
through our free will. ‘For we are God’s coadjutors’ (1 Cor 3:9)»32.
L. 5 of Chapter Two on Eph 2:14-18 is the pinnacle of Thomas’
treatment of the actualization of the Church by Christ and the Spirit. This
is signaled by the way he begins his exposition in L. 5; so far, Paul has
only recounted the blessings given to the Ephesians «in a general way»;
now, «he recounts them in greater detail»33. According to Thomas, Paul
performs this more precise treatment of the blessings of the Ephesians by
showing how the Ephesians have «converged» (appropinquaverunt) with
the Jewish people and then how they are drawn close to God34. In regard to
the first, «Christ is the cause of this drawing together»; hence Paul says ‘he
is our peace’»35. The word «peace» allows Thomas to specify the kind of
unity that is created by the union of the members of the Church with their
“soul”; it is a willed unity, one that is not imposed but that is offered as a
possibility that requires their free action in response.
29
In Eph. 2:8-10, no. 92-100.
30
In Eph. 2:11-12, no. 101-108.
31
In Eph. 2:13, no .109.
32
In Eph. 2:10, no. 100.
33
In Eph. 2:14, no. 110.
34
In Eph. 2.5, no. 110.
35
In Eph. 2:14, no. 110-111.
What is effected by the action of Christ is appropinquationis,

«convergence», a word which occurs 5 times in this lecture and only one
other place in all of Thomas’ works36. Convergence and peace are used
in conjunction with each other to describe the work of Christ: «whatever
peace we possess is caused by Christ and, as a result, whatever convergence
men have with one another»37. In this vein Thomas gives an account of the
dilemma of the human race in sin:
The manner of convergence is revealed when he states ‘and

breaking down the middle barrier of partition’. The method, then,
consists in removing what is divisive. To understand the text we
should imagine a large field with many men gathered on it. But
a high barrier was thrown across the middle of it, segregating the
people so that they did not appear as one people but two. Whoever
would remove the barrier would unite the crowds of men into one
multitude, one people would be formed.
What is said here should be understood this way. For the world
is likened to a field, ‘and the field is the world’ (Mt 13:38); this
field of the world is crowded with men, ‘Increase and multiply and
fill the earth’ (Gn 1:28). A barrier, however, runs down the field,
some are on one side and the rest on the other. The Old Law can
be termed such a barrier, its carnal observances kept the Jews
confined: ‘Before the faith came, we were kept under the Law shut
up, unto that faith which was to be revealed’ (Gal 3:23). Christ was
symbolized through the Old Law: ‘Behold, he standeth behind our
wall’ (Cant 2:9). Christ, however, has put an end to this barrier and,
since no division remained, the Jews and the Gentiles became one
people. This is what he says: I affirm that he ‘hath made both one’
by the method of ‘breaking down the middle barrier’38.
What stands out in this passage is the dilemma that the Law poses to
the unity of the human race within the body of Christ. «To break down
this barrier of partition is to destroy the hostility between the Jews and
36
Thomas Aquinas, Super Librum De Causis expositio l.18, in Thomas Aquinas,
Commentary on «The Book of Causes», trans. by V. GUAGLIARO, C. HESS and R. TAYLOR,
The Catholic University of America Press Washington 1996 (Thomas Aquinas in
Translation). By contrast, the verb root appropinquare (to approach) is fairly common.
37
In Eph. 2:14, no. 111.
38
In Eph. 2:14, no. 112.
Gentiles […] from which anger and jealousy had sprung up between
them».
The axis of Thomas’ interpretation is the phrase medium parietem
maceriae, «the middle barrier of partition». Thomas contrasts this term
with murus («wall»). According to Thomas, the reason the division is
described as a barrier of partition and not a wall is because it was not meant
to be permanent: «A barrier of partition is one in which the stones are
not mortared together with cement; it is not built to last permanently but
only for a specified time.» It was a temporary barrier «because it was not
mortared together with charity, the cementum which unites people together
and to Christ. A «law of fear», it was persuasive by way of «punishments
and threats» unlike «the New Testament which is the law of love»39.
But the Old Law was not entirely divisive; its observance was a matter
both moral and religious, and Thomas identifies the latter as the place
where division obtains:
The Old Law contained both moral and ceremonial precepts. The
moral commandments were not destroyed by Christ but fulfilled in
the counsels he added and in his explanations of what the Scribes
and Pharisees had wrongly interpreted. He abolished the ceremonial
precepts with regard to what they were in themselves, but he
fulfilled them with regard to what they prefigured, applying what
was symbolized to the symbol40.
This ceremonial law is also called «the carnal law» by Thomas; it is

the aspect of the law where the division is located. Presupposed in all of
this seems to be an important point, though one not stated directly. The
carnal precepts of the Old Law, seen from the perspective of faith in Christ,
are a prophecy of his own perfect sacrifice. But for the Jews, who (as we
were previously informed) were dead in sin just as were the gentiles41,
these precepts were a matter of alienation from the rest of the human race
and a cause of enmity on both sides. Rather than taking away sin and
39
In Eph. 2:14, no. 113-114.
40
In Eph. 2:14, no. 114. This interpretation is not unique to Thomas among 13th
century theologians; compare Durandus of Mende, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, lib.
4, co. 13. For the critical edition cf. Guillelmus Durantus, Rationale divinorum officiorum
I-IV, Ed. by A. DAVRIL – T.M. THIBODEAU, Brepols, Turnhout 1995 (CCCM, 140).
41
In Eph. 2:3, no. 80.
unifying, they were observed without faith and charity and were therefore
an obstacle to unity. Thomas does not use the word “city” here, but the
dynamics are all of a civic unity.
And just as it is the carnal law that divides, so Christ abolishes the
animosity it created «in his flesh» (in carne sua). That is, the sacrifice of
his flesh puts an end to any need for further carnal sacrifices and therefore
the enmities they created; he quotes Heb 10:14: «For by a single offering
he has perfected forever those who are sanctified» in support of this
conclusion. The sacrifice of Christ makes the carnal observance of the Old
Law void «as the imperfect is made void by the perfect and the shadow
by the truth»42. The death of the Lord on the Cross marks the moment of
quickening, the event of the institution of the Church:
He reveals the purpose of the convergence when he states ‘that he

might make the two in himself’. The end is that the aforementioned
two peoples would be formed into one people. [Whatever is to be
united] must come together in some unity, and since the law divided
they could not be united in that law. But Christ took the place of the
law, and faith in him, as the truth of those symbols, made them one
in himself […] This is ‘into one new man, making peace’43.
This reference to the new man is taken not as a reference to the Church
as distinct from Christ, but to the Church as the body of Christ himself, an
interpretation clearly dictated by the upcoming reference to «one body» in
2:16. His newness, stemming from the new manner of his conception, the
novelty of his grace and his new commands, is transferred to the Church
by way of its union with him; a new body has been generated out of the
corruption of human alienation caused by sin.
Now that Thomas has explored the ways in which the two peoples are
made into one, he moves to discuss how both draw near to God. Thomas
focuses on love of neighbor, manifested in peace, as a means to this
movement toward the divine.
It should be realized that love of neighbor is the way to peace

with God; for as is mentioned in 1 Jn 4:20: ‘He that loveth not his
brother whom he seeth, how can he love God whom he seeth not?’
42
In Eph. 2.15, no. 115.
43
In Eph. 2.15, no. 116.
Let no one pretend he has peace with Christ, Augustine asserts,

if he quarrels with another Christian. Hence, he first mentions
the peace among themselves Christ brought to men and then the
peace of men with God. For this reason he says that ‘he might
reconcile both’ the united peoples ‘in one body’ of the Church,
namely, in Christ. Then he reconciles us ‘to God’ through faith
and charity44.
Here Thomas reinforces his use of the soul and body, form and matter
metaphor. Before these members can be united with God they must be
brought together, made into one body. They must be, together with Christ
and the Spirit, one composite so that they can be united to God. The ‘one
new man’ is the totius Christus, head and members, vivified by the Spirit.
«He indicates the cause and form of peace by saying ‘For by him we have
access both’, that is, the two peoples, ‘in one Spirit’, meaning we are joined
by the union of the Holy Spirit»45.
Thomas has thus completed a full-scale consideration of the event of
the institution of the Church, the bringing into existence of the Church by
its formal cause. He has described the formal cause in itself, the matter that
the formal cause informs, and the action of the formal cause in bringing
the various components of the ecclesial body into unity with itself. But it
is significant that when he describes the ecclesial quickening he does so in
political terms; it is a living body paradoxically generated through a social
alienation resolved.
3. Catholic, Apostolic, Holy: Christ/Spirit as Cause of the Ecclesial

Nature
According to Thomas, «the form is the constituent principle of the

nature of [a] thing»46; «the same form which gives existence to matter is also
a principle of operation»47. In L. 6 on Ephesians 2, Thomas’ consideration
of the institution of ecclesial unity in Eph 1:19-2:18 becomes an exposition
of some of the marks of the Church. Here the second way in which soul
44
In Eph. 2.16, no. 118.
45
In Eph. 2:18, no. 121.
46
De ente c. 4, no. 4.
47
De anima q. 9.
causes body, not only causing it to be but to be a particular kind of thing,

of a certain nature with certain kinds of operations, is applied. Though the
purpose he assigns to the passage is the demonstration of the Gentiles’
equal access to the blessings of Christ48, Thomas sees this demonstration
as a description of the one ecclesial body now formed by the reconciliation
of the two peoples to God and each other. He uses three metaphors for the
Church provided by the text to describe the nature of the ecclesial body. In
regard to 2:19 he utilizes and compares two metaphors, city and household;
in regard to 2:20-22 he explores a third, the Church as temple. Through
these he shows us the nature of the Church as holy (by reference to Eph
2:19), apostolic (by reference to Eph 2:20) and catholic (by reference to
Eph 2:21).
In his exposition of the first pair of metaphors, Thomas emphasizes
that both peoples are, in their ecclesial unity, reconciled to God: «…they
both have access in one Spirit to the Father. Together they are conformed
to the whole Trinity; to the Father whom they approach, to the Son through
whom, and to the Holy Spirit in whom they have access to spiritual unity.
Hence, they in no way lack a share in spiritual goods»49. Thought of as a
city, they are citizens sharing in particular acts of faith, hope and charity;
as a household, they have God as their Father50. In his explanation of the
Creed, Thomas identifies similar characteristics as elements of the Church’s
holiness: «The faithful are made holy because of the Trinity who dwells in
the Church; for wherever God dwells, that place is holy […] the faithful
are sanctified because God is invoked in the Church»51. In other words, the
ecclesial body is holy in the common holiness of the members.
When he moves to consider 2:20, «Built upon the foundations of
the apostles and prophets», and the metaphor of the Church as a temple
building, Thomas considers another characteristic of the ecclesial body –it
is apostolic. It is the teaching of the Apostles and Prophets, themselves
founded upon Christ, that serves as the foundation of the Church. «[T]
hey proclaimed Christ alone, and not themselves. To accept their doctrine
is to accept Christ crucified […] they are referred to the foundations to
48
In Eph. 2.19, no. 122.
49
In Eph. 2:19, no. 123.
50
In Eph., 2:19, no 124-125.
51
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, art. 9, in Thomas
Aquinas, The Apostle’s Creed, in The Catechetical Instructions of St. Thomas,
pp. 3-66, transl. by J. COLLINS, Wagner, New York 1939, pp. 35-127.
the degree that their doctrine proclaims Christ»52. This corresponds with
Thomas’ exposition of the Creed, where the idea of a foundation is also
used to explain the apostolic nature of the Church:
The Church is firm. A house is said to be firm if it has a solid

foundation. The principal foundation of the Church is Christ: ‘For
other foundation no men can lay but that which is laid, which is
Christ Jesus’ [1 Cor 3:11]. The secondary foundation, however, is
the Apostles and their teaching […] From this the Church is called
Apostolic53.
Finally, Thomas offers a striking interpretation of the building

metaphor. Since the foundation is Christ and the Apostles, the building has
a foundation not in the earth but in the heavens:
The foundation of a spiritual edifice contrasts with that of a

material building. For a material building rests on a foundation in
the earth, the more important the foundation is, the deeper it must
be. A spiritual structure, on the other hand, has its foundation in
heaven; as a result, the more principal the foundation, the higher
it necessarily is. Thus we could imagine a city, as it were, coming
down from heaven with its foundation in heaven and the building
itself appearing to come downwards towards us below54.
The Church’s dynamism seems reversed; whereas the dynamism of

the Church is most often portrayed by Thomas as moving toward heaven,
here it is coming down to earth. This is the Church as it is seen by the
world, a missionary Church that is heaven invading earth. It is the Church
as catholic, progressing in its construction by God through the adding
of members and the sanctification of those who already form part of its
edifice: «this happens when the number of those saved increases. It also
grows when a man makes progress in good works, and he grows in grace
to the degree that he becomes a holy temple»55. Charity is the indispensible
element to both, and here Thomas considers the increase of the Church
to be a function of the initial reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles, the
52
In Eph. 2:20, no. 127-128
53
Super Credo, art. 9
54
In Eph. 2:20, no. 130.
55
In Eph. 2:21, no. 131.
continuation of the institution of ecclesial unity56. Thus the construction of

the temple is continuous with the whole history of the Church, reaching
back to Abel and forward to the end of the world.57
In summary, as the Church is, so the Church does. It is one living body
informed by Christ and the Spirit, and so it engages in holy actions, rests
securely upon the teaching of the Apostles, and vigorously adds members.
Although considered here under different images than mystical body,
nevertheless these metaphors are helpful variations on a central theme.
They provide a shift in perspective that brings characteristic operations
to the fore. The words of Gerard Manley Hopkins come to mind: «Selves
- goes itself, myself it speaks and spells, Crying ‘What I do is me: for
that I came’»58. But Aquinas’ own adage, operatio sequitur esse, «activity
is consequent upon being», is even more appropriate: the nature of the
Church as constituted by Christ and the Spirit is known by its operations.
4. «The Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace»: Christ/Spirit as

Enduring Cause of the Oneness of the Church
In Thomas’ Aristotelian account of the soul as substantial form of

the body, the soul does not simply cause the body to be and to be of a
certain nature with characteristic operations; its enduring union with the
body causes the latter to remain one and whole through the many changes
it undergoes: «Nothing is absolutely one except by one form, by which
a thing has existence: because a thing has from the same source both
existence and unity»59.
The five lectures on Ephesians 3 form an important moment in
Thomas’ commentary in which he considers Paul as returning to the
overarching theme of Romans: the grace of Christ secundum se, as it is in
itself; it is the way in which ecclesial unity is maintained (conservatur)60.
Already Thomas is speaking of the Church along the lines of this third way
56
In Eph. 2:22, no. 132.
57
Super Credo, art. 9.
58
G. HOPKINS, «As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies dráw flame» in W.H.
GARDNER and N.H. MACKENZIE (eds.), The Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins, 4th ed.,
rev. and enl., Oxford University Press, Oxford 1967, p. 90.
59
Thomas Aquinas, ST I, q. 76, a. 3 resp.
60
Cf. In Eph. 4:1, no. 187, where Thomas summarizes the contents of Eph 1-3.
in which soul explains, is principle of, the enduring unity of the body. He
begins his commentary on Ephesians 4 by specifying this focus: «Now he
admonishes the Ephesians to remain within […] ecclesial unity»61. These
final chapters are taken as an admonishment, therefore, and it is interesting
that in his opening comments Thomas begins by designating ecclesial unity
as something to be dwelt in. The reason becomes clear as Thomas again
invokes the notion of soul and body to describe the Church and introduces
a distinction:
Now in man there is a twofold unity. The first is the ordered structure
of the organs among themselves, the second is the union of the body
and the soul constituting a third substance. Because the Apostle
speaks of the Church’s unity in the mode of the unity found in man,
he adds ‘one body’ as if to say: be united in the bond of peace that
you may be one body –regarding the first type of unity, that all the
faithful should be ordered among themselves as members making
up a single body. […] ‘And one spirit’ –referring to the second type
of unity, that you might possess a spiritual consensus through the
unity of faith and charity62.
This specifies the kind of unity that is caused in the Church by Christ
and the Spirit, one that unites all members to the soul through a corporate
faith and charity, and thus unites them to one another in a well-ordered
way amongst themselves. In a masterstroke Thomas has positioned us to
understand both the expansiveness and the limits of his analogy. It is broad
enough to encompass the teleology of each of the members considered in
their ordering among themselves, as well as their ordering to their soul
itself (see next section). Yet it shows this to be not an automatic ordering
as we see in the human body, but one that must be freely willed, freely
conserved, by the members themselves. Therefore they must be taught the
pattern of ecclesial unity, and so the metaphor of a city is reintroduced in
L. 2 (Eph 4:5-6) to explain the common acts that make them a body: «One
Lord, one faith», etc.:
Since the Church of God is likened to a city, it is one and distinct,

although this unity is not uncomposed but composed of different
61
In Eph. 4:1, no. 187.
62
In Eph. 4:4, no. 195.
parts. […] The solidarity of any city demands the presence of four
common elements: one governor, one law, the same symbols, and
a common goal. The Apostle affirms that these are present in the
Church also63.
In each case, these elements are interpreted according to the unity

they make possible. One leader (Christ) suppresses conflicts; one law
(the Catholic faith) allows for numeric unity in what is believed and
specific unity in the habit of faith; common insignia (the sacraments) unite
them in worship, and a common goal (the Father) maintains their unity
in via64. Regarding common insignia, we might recall that just as it was
the ceremonial precepts of the old, superseded law which was the main
issue of contention between the Jews and Gentiles according to Thomas,
so now in Christ rites have a unitive function rather than a divisive one.
In Thomas’ metaphysical system, being and oneness are convertible, and
accordingly «each individual being is one on the same basis on which it
is a being… through a form»65. In regard to the Church, a real pattern of
unity exists created by a spiritual principle. So soul and body remains a fit
analogy for the union of Christ and the Holy Spirit to the Church, but one
whose difference is as instructive as its likeness. Christ and the Spirit make
the Church one, but the unity is no less that of the free cooperation of the
members with the Church’s formal principle than it is the work of Christ
and the Spirit in them. This is reminiscent of Thomas’ understanding of
God as transcendent cause even of natural effects: «It is also apparent that
the same effect is not attributed to a natural cause and to divine power in
such a way that it is partly done by God, and partly by the natural agent;
rather, it is wholly done by both, according to a different way, just as the
same effect is wholly attributed to the instrument and also wholly to the
principal agent»66.
63
In Eph. 4:5, no. 197.
64
In Eph. 4:5-6, no. 198-202.
65
Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae de Spiritualibus Creaturis q. 3,
in Thomas Aquinas, On Spiritual Creatures, transl. and intro. by M. FITZPATRICK,
Marquette University, Milwaukee 1949 (Medieval Philosophical Texts in Translation).
66
Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles III.70.8, in Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Contra Gentiles: Book Three, Providence, Part I transl. by V. BOURKE, Univ. of Notre
Dame, Notre Dame 1975.
5. «Lovely in limbs and in eyes not his»: Christ/Spirit as the Ecclesial

Principle of Finality
At the beginning of L. 3 on Ephesians 4:7-10 Thomas signals another

transition: «Previously, the Apostle dealt with ecclesial unity as regards
what is common in the Church, and now he shows this same unity from
the viewpoint of what is personal and specific to each of the faithful
members of the Church»67. As we saw above, Thomas has already offered
an explanation of how the shift in the epistle from a corporate pattern of
unity to the activities of individual members remains within the analogy of
soul and body, is equally ecclesiological. On the basis of this, Thomas will
spend the rest of the commentary focusing on the teleology of the members
of the Church.
Here he is drawing on the fourth quality of soul as substantial form of
the body, namely soul as the final cause of the living body as a whole and
the directedness of the activities of its component parts that subserve the
teleology of the whole. «If the soul is the living body’s form, it must also
be its final cause»68; «a soul is not only the form and mover of its body, but
also its end»69. When a gazelle springs into action, or when a man kneels
and prays, all the component parts of each respective living being are at
work in their own ways, but in each case an overall directedness animates
them as a whole being, a living composite. The parts have their teleology,
and to them the overall finality of the living being can be considered a
meta-teleology.
So in regard to the individual members of the ecclesial body,
Thomas (in L. 3 and L. 4 on Ephesians 4: 7-13) deals with different
states and functions in the Church, but always (with Paul) in reference
to this meta-teleology, that of the Church as one body: «At ‘until we all
meet’, he [Paul] goes on to discuss the ultimate fruit of the Church’s
preaching […]» –i.e. the resurrection of the saints in which they will be
made «unto a perfect man», that is when they will reach the perfection
67
In Eph. 4:7, no. 204.
68
Thomas Aquinas, Sententia Libri De anima, Bk. 2.4, no. 321, in Aristotle,
Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle’s De Anima in the Version of William of Moerbeke and
the Commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas, transl. by K. FOSTER and S. HUMPHRIES, Yale
University, New Haven 1951.
69
De anima, q. 8.
of «the exemplar of [the] mystical body», namely Christ70. We attain

to that state by attaining spiritual maturity as members, growing into
Christ the head. When he reaches 4:16, «From whom the whole body
being compacted and fitly jointed together, by what every joint supplies,
according to the operation in the measure of every part, makes increase
of the body», Thomas describes the structured unity of the components
of a living body «which take their initiative from the body’s head», and
he notes that «the spiritual counterparts of these flow from Christ, our
head, into his body, the Church»71. Therefore there can be growth in the
body in which the parts are active in mutual help between members:
«Therefore, the body not only grows through the faith which compacts
it into a structured whole and through charity’s mutual assistance, but
also through the actual binding force which flows out from each member
according to the degree of grace given him, and also through the actual
impulse to act which God effects in us»72.
So Thomas shows, by analogy to the actual binding force that
effluviates from members of a living body, that moral instruction can and
must be included in any treatment of ecclesial unity, and therefore has a
mode of interpretation which will serve him in understanding the rest of
the epistle. The remaining verses are all about the way for members to
remain in ecclesial unity on the basis of precepts73 and also by relying on
divine assistance attained through sound prayer74. The responsibility for
the unity of the ecclesial body is thus translated from the Head Christ, and
the Soul, the Holy Spirit, to the members, who must walk in «newness»
(novitatem), i.e. who must be conformed to the form and principle of their
ecclesial existence: «Adam introduced sin into all men, and thus became
for everything the primary source of oldness. Likewise, the primary source
of newness and renovation is Christ. In Adam all die and in Christ all will
be brought back to life»75. For Thomas there is no real distinction between
ecclesiology and moral/spiritual theology, only a distinction of reason.
They form two approaches to the same reality.
70
In Eph. 4:11-13, no. 211.
71
In Eph. 4:16, no. 225.
72
In Eph. 4:16, no. 228.
73
In Eph. 4:17-6:17, no. 230-367.
74
In Eph. 6:18-24, no. 368-377.
75
In Eph. 4:24, no. 245.
«A soul is not only the form and mover of its body, but also its end»76.
Thomas’ vision of the finality of the Church’s members, caused in them by
their soul in animating their free cooperation, once again calls to mind the
poem of Hopkins, especially its ending:
Í say móre: the just man justices;
Kéeps gráce: thát keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God’s eye what in God’s eye he is –
Chríst– for Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men’s faces.77
This succinct summary demonstrates how Thomas applies his

Aristotelian hylomorphism to the epistle to the Ephesians. How then,
should one appraise this exegetical maneuver? Is Thomas a good interpreter
of Ephesians? We do well to make this appraisal in the light of one great
theologian’s critique of Aquinas’ exegesis.
Evaluation and Conclusion
The Swiss Protestant theologian T.F. Torrance left to posterity an

important article on the biblical exegesis of St. Thomas Aquinas78. His
exhaustively researched appraisal of Thomas as an interpreter of Sacred
Scripture concludes with the negative judgment that he ultimately fails to
bring the proper assumptions to the biblical text. Making quick work of
Thomas’ commentaries on more than 23 books of the Bible79, Torrance ‘s
final word is that «the meaning is inevitably schematized [by Thomas] to
the philosophical thought-forms brought to its understanding»80. Thomas,
much like his apostolic namesake who would not believe without seeing,
was tempted by all-too-human reason, and succumbed:
76
De anima, q. 8.
77
HOPKINS, «As kingfishers».
78
T. TORRANCE, «Scientific Hermeneutics according to St. Thomas Aquinas»,
Journal of Theological Studies, 13 (1962) 259-289.
79
This enumeration includes the incomplete Postilla super Psalmos. For a
succinct account of Thomas’ biblical commentaries see Th. PRÜGL, «Thomas Aquinas
as Interpreter of Scripture», in R. VAN NIEUWENHOVE – J. WAWRYKOW (edd.), The
Theology of Thomas Aquinas, Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame 2005, pp. 387-391.
80
TORRANCE, «Scientific Hermeneutics», p. 281.
St. Thomas had a giant mind, to which there have been few equals,
but his own immense intellectual powers laid him open to great
temptations. His prior understanding of human experience, of the
intellect and the soul, his masterful interpretation of Aristotelian
physics, metaphysics and psychology, proved too strong and rigid
a mould into which to pour the Christian faith. It is philosophy that
tends to be the master, while theology tends to lose its unique nature
as a science in its own right in spite of the claims advanced for it81.
In my appraisal of Thomas’ merit as an interpreter of Ephesians

I would like to adopt one of Torrance’s assertions but also counter a
second. First, Torrance’s claim that Thomas uses «philosophical thought-
forms» for schematizing scriptural texts not only cannot be contested,
but is actually verified, by the present analysis of Thomas’ Ephesians
commentary. But his second assertion, that Thomas’ «prior understanding
of soul» and «his masterful interpretation of Aristotelian metaphysics”»
doom him to exegetical failure, is itself «too strong and rigid a mould» into
which to insert the Ephesians commentary. Without trenching on issues
that separate him from Thomas, the Ephesians lectura give us warrant to
question Torrance’s assumption that a thoroughly applied philosophical
idea must always be seen as a hindrance to biblical interpretation. At least
in the present case, the claim that the mold is «master», that the meaning
of Scripture is obscured by Thomas’ use of a hylomorphic schema, cannot
be maintained, and this strongly indicates that all such sweeping claims are
to be avoided. For as I hope I have demonstrated, Thomas’ use of the idea
fits the text beautifully, does not obscure its order, and offers penetrating
access to the important ecclesiological doctrine of the epistle. The words
of Martin Yaffe concerning Thomas’ commentary on the Book of Job are
equally true in this case:
Thomas’ “literal” approach resembles that of an architect or builder.

His finished exposition may be compared to a Gothic cathedral,
whose massive earthbound structure points heavenward. What
is most awesome here is not its massiveness, however, but its
artfulness. The whole sublime facade may be seen to consist of units
carefully fitted and bonded together in accordance with the artisan’s
design. In the case of Thomas’ exposition the design is no ordinary
81
Ibid., p. 289.
product of art, but is dictated by that of the [biblical text] itself, as

Thomas reads it82.
Following Yaffe rather than Torrance, another “mold” analogy is

conceivable that yields a very different evaluation than the latter’s. Thomas
is a molder, but not one who creates a plaster cast into which an inspired text
is poured. Rather, he is a molder who works with the text as a pre-existing
frame or mesh upon which final materials (such as plaster or papier-mâché)
are applied. His choice of that material, in this case his application of an
Aristotelian, hylomorphic account of the soul/body relationship, draws out
the contours of Ephesians while maintaining its details and symmetry, in
which the product is a fresh perspective that is thoroughly faithful to the
epistle. As such the Ephesians commentary can be understood as a brilliant
and truly biblical De Ecclesia, giving a complete (though not exhaustive)
account of the Church’s nature while remaining thoroughly faithful to the
biblical text. Philosophy is not master, but servant, in Thomas’ impressive
accomplishment.
82
M. YAFFE, «Interpretive Essay and Notes», in St. Thomas Aquinas, The Literal
Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, transl. by A.
DAMICO, Scholars Press, Atlanta 1989, p. 12 (Classics in Religious Studies).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
EDITIONS OF THE WORKS OF THOMAS AQUINAS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Sent. = Scriptum super libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi

episcopi Parisiensis, t. 1. Ed. P. MANDONNET, Lethielleux, Parisiis
1929; Scriptum super libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi
episcopi Parisiensis, t. 2. Ed. P. MANDONNET, Lethielleux, Parisiis
1929; Scriptum super libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi
episcopi Parisiensis, t. 3. Ed. M. F. MOOS, Lethielleux, Parisiis 1956 ;
Scriptum super libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi episcopi
Parisiensis, t. 4. Ed. M. F. MOOS, Lethielleux, Parisiis 1947.
ScG = ed. Leonina, t. XIII-XV, Roma 1918, 1926, 1930.
= Liber de veritate catholicae Fidei contra errores infidelium seu Summa
contra Gentiles. Edd. P. MARC – C. PERA – P. CARAMELLO, Marietti,
Roma, t. 2-3, 1961, t. 1, 1967.
ST = Summa Theologiae, ed. Leonina, t. IV-XII, Roma 1888-1906.
In Iob = Expositio super Iob ad litteram, [ed. A. DONDAINE], ed. Leonina,
t. XXVI, Roma 1965.
In Is. = Expositio super Isaiam ad literam, [ed. H.F. DONDAINE – L. REID],
ed. Leonina, t. XXVIII, Roma 1974.
In Ier. = In Jeremiam prophetam expositio, ed. Parma, t. XIV, Parmae 1863.
In Threnos = In Threnos Jeremiae expositio, ed. Parma, t. XIV, Parmae
1863.
In Psalmos = In psalmos Davidis expositio, ed. Parma, t. XIV, Parmae 1863.
= Opera omnia ut sunt in Indice thomistico additis 61 scriptis ex aliis
Medii Aevi auctoribus, t. 6, codex 084: In Psalmos, n. 52-54,
Ed. R. BUSA, Frommann-Hoolzbog, Stuttgart – Bad Cannstadt 1980,
pp. 127-130.
In Matt. = Super Evangelium S. Matthaei lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti,
Taurini – Romae 1951, 5a ed.
In Ioh. = Super Evangelium S. Ioannis lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini
– Romae 1972, 7a ed.
Catena in Matt. = Catena aurea in quatuor Evangelia, t. 1: Expositio in
Matthaeum. Ed. A. GUARENTI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 2a ed.
Catena in Mc. = Catena aurea in quatuor Evangelia, t. 2: Expositio in
Marcum. Ed. A. GUARENTI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 2a ed.
556 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Catena in Lc. = Catena aurea in quatuor Evangelia, t. 3: Expositio in

Lucam. Ed. A. GUARENTI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 2a ed.
Catena in Ioh. = Catena aurea in quatuor Evangelia, t. 4: Expositio in
Iohannem. Ed. A. GUARENTI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 2a ed.
Ad Rom = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 1: Super Epistolam ad
Romanos lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 8a ed.
In I Cor. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 1: Super primam Epistolam ad
Corinthios lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 8a ed.
In II Cor. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 1: Super secundam Epistolam
ad Corinthios lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 8a ed.
In Gal. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 1: Super Epistolam ad Galatas
lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 8a ed.
In Eph. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 2: Super Epistolam ad
Ephesios lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 8a ed.
In Phil. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 2: Super Epistolam ad
Philipenses lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 8a ed.
In Col. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 2: Super Epistolam ad
Colossenses lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 8a ed.
In I Thess. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 2: Super primam Epistolam
ad Thessalonicenses lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae
1953, 8a ed.
In II Thess. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 2: Super secundam
Epistolam ad Thessalonicenses lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini
– Romae 1953, 8a ed.
In I Tim. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 2: Super primam Epistolam
ad Timotheum lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 8a
ed.
In II Tim. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 2: Super secundam Epistolam
ad Timotheum lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 8a ed.
In Tit. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 2: Super Epistolam ad Titum
lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 8a ed.
In Philem. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 2: Super Epistolam ad
Philemonem lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 8a ed.
In Heb. = Super Epistolas S. Pauli lectura, t. 2: Super Epistolam ad
Hebraeos lectura. Ed. R. CAI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1953, 8a ed.
Rigans monte = Opuscula theologica, t. 1: Breve principium fratris Thomae
de commendatione Sacrae Scripturae. Ed. R. A. VERARDO, Marietti,
Taurini – Romae 1954.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 557
Hic est liber = Opuscula theologica, t. 1: Principium fratris Thomae de

commendatione et partitione Sacrae Scripturae. Ed. R. A. VERARDO,
Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1954.
De Ver. = Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, ed. Leonina, t. XII, 1-3,
Roma 1972-1976.
De Pot. = Quaestiones disputatae, t. 2: Quaestiones disputatae de potentia.
Ed. P. M. PESSION, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1965, 10a ed.
De unione Verbi = Quaestio disputata ‘De unione verbi incarnati’, Ed.
W. SENNER – B. BARTOCCI - K. OBENAUER, Frommann – Holzboog,
Stuttgart 2011.
= ed. Parma, t. VIII, 1856, pp. 533-544.
De Malo = Quaestiones disputatae de malo, ed. Leonina, t. XXIII, Roma
– Paris 1982.
De virt. = Quaestiones disputatae de virtutibus in communi, Ed. E. ODETTO,
Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1965, 10a ed.
Quodl. = Quaestiones de quolibet, [ed. R.-A. GAUTHIER], ed. Leonina, t.
XXV, 1-2, Roma – Paris 1996.
In Meta. = In duodecim libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis expositio. Ed.
M. R. CATHALA – R.M. SPIAZZI, Marietti, Taurini – Romae 1971, 2a ed.
In Phys. = Commentaria in octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis, ed. Leonina,
t. III, Roma 1884.
In De An. = Sentencia libri De anima, [ed. R.-A. GAUTHIER], ed. Leonina
XLV, 1, Roma – Paris 1984.
SLE = Sententia libri Ethicorum, [ed. R. A. GAUTHIER], ed. Leonina XLVII,
1-2, Roma 1969.
De Causis = Super librum De Causis expositio. Ed. H. D. SAFFREY, Société
Philosophique – Nauwelaerts, Fribourg [Suisse] – Louvain 1954.
BDT = Super Boetium De Trinitate, [ed. P. GILS], ed. Leonina, t. L, Roma
– Paris 1992.
Comp. Theol. = Compendium theologiae seu Brevis compilatio theologiae
ad fratrem Raynaldum, ed. Leonina, t. XLII, Roma 1979.
De ente = De ente et essentia, ed. Leonina, t. XLIII, Roma 1976.
Sermones = Sermones, Ed. L. J. BATAILLON – G. BERCEVILLE – M. BORGO
– I. COSTA – A. OLIVA – P. KRUPA – M. MILLAIS – J. C. DE NADAL –
Z. PAJDA, ed. Leonina, t. XLIV, 1, Roma – Paris 2014.
558 BIBLIOGRAPHY
OTHER EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
Busa, R., Index Thomisticus, Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart-Bad

Cannstatt 1974-1980.
Opera omnia S. Thomae, subsidia studii ab Enrique ALARCÓN collecta et
edita, Pampilonae ad Universitatis Studiorum Navarrensis aedes ab
A.D. MM. www.corpusthomisicum.org
Thomas Aquinas, In librum Aristotelis De generatione et corruptione
expositio: On Generation and Corruption, Translated by P. CONWAY
– W.H. KANE, St. Mary of the Springs, Columbus OH 1963-1964,
available at http://www.dhspriory.org/thomas/GenCorrup.htm.
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum: The Apostle’s
Creed, in The Catechetical Instructions of St. Thomas, pp. 3-66,
Translated by J. B. COLLINS, Wagner, New York 1939.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Translated by the Fathers of
the English Dominican Province, Benzinger Bros, New York
1947.
Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae de Anima: The Soul, Translated
by J. P. ROWAN, Herder, St. Louis 1949.
Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae de Spiritualibus Creaturis: On
Spiritual Creatures, Translated by M. C. FITZPATRICK – J. J. WELLMUTH,
Marquette University Press, Milwaukee 1949.
Thomas Aquinas, Sententia Libri De anima: Aristotle’s De Anima in the
Version of William of Moerbeke and the Commentary of St. Thomas
Aquinas. Translated by K. FOSTER – S. HUMPHRIES, Yale University
Press, New Haven 1951.
Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate: Truth, Translated by
J. V. MCGLYNN, Henry Regnery, Chicago 1953.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles: On the Truth of the Catholic
Faith, Translated by A. C. PEGIS – V. J. BOURKE, Doubleday, New York
1955-1957.
Thomas Aquinas, Sententia libri Politicorum: Commentary on Aristotle’s
Politics, Translated by E. L. FORTIN – P. D. O’NEILL, In Medieval
Political Philosophy: A Sourcebook, Ed. by R. LERNER – M. MAHDI,
Free Press, Toronto ON 1963.
Thomas Aquinas, De ente et essentia: Aquinas on Being and Essence,
Translated by A. MAURER, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
Toronto 1968.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 559
Thomas Aquinas, Lectura super Epistolam ad Ephesios: Commentary on

St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, Translated with introduction by M.
L. LAMB, Magi Press, Albany 1966.
Thomas Aquinas, Super Iob: The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural
Commentary Concerning Providence, Translated by A. DAMICO,
Inter-pretive Essay and Notes by M.D. YAFFE, Scholars Press, Atlanta
1989.
Thomas Aquinas, Super Librum De Causis expositio: Commentary on
The Book of Causes. Translated by V.A. GUAGLIARO – C.A. HESS –
R.C. TAYLOR, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington
D.C. 1996.
Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea, trans. by J. H. Newman, Cosimo Classics,
New York 2007 [1845].
Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans,
Translated by F. R. LARCHER, Editec by J. MORTENSEN and E. ALARCÓN,
The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, Lander WY
2012.
Thomas Aquinas, Lectura super Epistolam ad Romanos: Commentary
on the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans (Latin-English Edition),
Translated by F.R. LARCHER, The Aquinas Institute for the Study of
Sacred Doctrine, Lander WY 2012.
Thomas Aquinas, Lectura super Epistolas I-II ad Corinthios: Commentary
on the Letters of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (Latin-English Edition),
Translated by F.R. LARCHER – B. MORTENSEN – D. KEATING, The Aquinas
Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, Lander WY 2012.
Thomas d’Aquin, Commentaire sur les Psaumes, Trad., introd., notes par
J.-É. STROOBANT DE SAINT-ÉLOY, Cerf, Paris 1996.
Thomas d’Aquin, Commentaire de l’Épître aux Romains, Trad. par J.-É.
STROOBANT DE SAINT-ÉLOY, Annot. par J. BORELLA – J.-É. STROOBANT
DE SAINT-ÉLOY, Avant-propos par G. BERCEVILLE, Cerf, Paris 1999.
Thomas d’Aquin, Commentaire de la Première Épître aux Corinthiens.
Complété par La Postille sur la première Épitre aux Corinthiens (chap.
7, 10b au chap.10, 33) de Pierre de Tarentaise, Introd. par G. DAHAN,
Trad. par J.-É. STROOBANT DE SAINT-ÉLOY, Annot. par J. BORELLA – J.-É.
STROOBANT DE SAINT-ÉLOY, Cerf, Paris 2002.
Thomas d’Aquin, Commentaire de la Deuxième Épître aux Corinthiens,
Introd. par G. DAHAN, Trad. par J.-É. STROOBANT DE SAINT-ÉLOY, Annot.
par J. BORELLA – J.-É. STROOBANT DE SAINT-ÉLOY, Cerf, Paris 2005.
560 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Thomas d’Aquin, Commentaire de l’Épître aux Galates. Préf. par J.-P.

TORRELL, Introd. par G. DAHAN, Trad. par J.-É. STROOBANT DE SAINT-
ÉLOY, Annot. par J. BORELLA – J.-É. STROOBANT DE SAINT-ÉLOY, Cerf,
Paris 2008.
Thomas d’Aquin, Commentaire de l’Épître aux Éphésiens. Préf. Par G.
COTTIER, Introd. par G. DAHAN, Trad. par J.-É. STROOBANT DE SAINT-
ÉLOY, Annot. par J. BORELLA – J.-É. STROOBANT DE SAINT-ÉLOY, Cerf,
Paris 2012.
Thomas de Aquino, Divi Thomae Aquinatis Expositio in Iob et in primam
Davidis quinquagenam, Typ. Virgiliana, Naples 1857.
ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL AUTHORS
Alcuinus Eboracensis, Commentaria in s. Joannis Evangelium, P.L., vol.

100, Paris 1851, col. 743-1008.
Alexander Halensis, Summa Theologica, Ed. by COLLEGIUM SANCTI
BONAVENTURAE, Collegium S. Bonaventurae, Quaracchi 1924-1979.
Anonymus, Liber de Causis, Ed. by A. PATTIN, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie,
Louvain 1967.
Anonymi magistri Artium (ca. 1245-1250), Lectura in librum de anima a
quodam discipulo reportata. Ed. by R.-A. GAUTHIER, Ed. Collegii S.
Bonaventurae Ad Claras Aquas, Grottaferrata 1985.
Albertus Magnus, Commentarii in Iob: Additamentum ad opera omnia.
Primum ex V codicibus manuscriptis, Ed. by M. WEISS, Herder,
Freiburg im Breisgau 1904.
—, Super Iohannem, Ed. by A. BORGNET, Vivès, Paris 1890 (Opera omnia,
t. 24).
Augustinus Hipponensis, Contra Faustum, Ed. by J. ZYCHA, Vindobonae
Tempsky, Wien 1892 (CSEL, 25).
—, De doctrina Christiana, Ed. and transl. by M. MOREAU, notes by I.
BOCHET and G. MADEC, Institut d’études augustiniennes, Paris 1997.
—, De doctrina Christiana, Ed. by J. MARTIN, Brepols, Turnhout, 1962
(CCSL, 32).
—, De Genesi ad litteram libri XII, Ed. by J. ZYCHA, Vindobonae Tempsky,
Wien 1894 (CSEL, 28.1).
—, In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus, Ed. by R. WILLEMS, Brepols,
Turnhout 1954 (CCSL, 36).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 561
Avicenna, De Anima, Ed. by S. VAN RIET, Peeters, Louvain 1968-1972

(Avicenna Latinus).
Bonaventura, Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis, Ed. by COLLEGIUM
SANCTI BONAVENTURAE, Collegium S. Bonaventurae, Quaracchi 1893
(Opera omnia, t. 6).
Burgundus de Pisa, ‘Prologus’, Explanatio Euuangelii sancti Iohannis
Euuangeliste a beato Iohanne Crisostomo, mss. Arras, Bibliothèque
municipale 1083, f. 1ra; Paris, BnF lat. 1782, f. 1ra; Biblioteca
apostolica vaticana, Ottob. lat. 227, f. 1ra.
Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, P.G., vol. 3, Paris 1857.
Gregorius Magnus, Moralia in Iob libri I-X, Ed. by M. ADRIAEN, Brepols,
Turnhout 1979 (CCSL, 143).
—, Moralia in Iob libri XI-XXII, Ed. by M. ADRIAEN, Brepols, Turnhout
1979 (CCSL, 143A).
—, Moralia in Iob libri XXIII-XXXV, Ed. by M. ADRIAEN, Brepols, Turnhout
1985 (CCSL, 143B).
Guilelmus Altissiodorensis, Summa aurea, Ed. by J. RIBAILLIER, Centre
national de la recherche scientifique – Collegium S. Bonaventurae,
Paris – Roma 1980-1986.
Guillelmus Durantus, Rationale divinorum officiorum I-IV, Ed. by A.
DAVRIL - T.M. THIBODEAU, Brepols, Turnhout 1995 (CCCM, 140).
Hieronymus, Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, Ed. by P. DE
LAGARDE, Brepols, Turnhout 1959 (CCSL, 72).
Hugo de Sancto Victore, Didascalicon. De Studio Legendi, Ed. by
H. Buttimer, Catholic University of America Press, Washington,
DC 1939.
Hugo de Sancto Victore, De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris, P.L., vol. 175,
Paris 1854.
Joannes Duns Scotus, A Treatise on God as First Principle (1983). Ed. A.
WOLTER, Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago 1983.
Joannes Scottus Eriugena, Commentaire sur l’Évangile de Jean,
Introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes et index par É. JEAUNEAU,
Cerf, Paris 1999 (SC, 180).
—, Commentarius in Evangelium Iohannis, Ed. by É. JEAUNEAU, Brepols,
Turnhout 2008 (CCCM, 166).
Origenes, Commentariorium in Evangelium Joannis, P.G., vol. 14, Paris
1857, col. 21-830.
Petrus Abelardus, Sic et Non, P.L., vol. 178, Paris 1855, col. 1339-1610.
562 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rupertus Tuitiensis, Commentaria in euangelium sancti Iohannis, Ed. by

R. HAACKE, Brepols, Turnhout 1999 (CCCM, 9).
MODERN AUTHORS
Erasmus, Desiderius, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum, in Idem,

Opera omnia, Ed. JOANNES CLERICUS, 10 vols. (cura et impensis Petri
Vander AA, Lugduni Batavorum 1703-1706) [facsimile reprint =
Olms, Hildesheim 1962]
Erasmus Desiderius, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. Pars tertia,
Ed. P. F. HOVINGH, E.J. Brill, Leiden 2011 (Editio Amstelodamensis,
VI,7).
Varenius, Augustus, De Columba super capita Christi Iordane visa …
disputatio philolologico-theologica, Kilia, Rostochiensis 1671.
Luther, Martin, Luthers Vorlesung über den Hebräerbrief nach der
vatikanischen Handschrift, Ed. by E. HIRSCH – H. RUCKERT, De
Gruyter, Berlin 1929.
Teresa de Jesús, Libro de la vida, in EFRÉN DE LA MADRE DE DIOS - OTGER
STEGGINK (edd.). Obras completas de Santa Teresa de Jesús, Biblioteca
de autores cristianos, Madrid, 1976, 5a ed.
Teresa de Jesús, The collected works of St. Theresa of Avila. Transl. by K.
KAVANAUGH – O. RODRIGUEZ, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1976.
CONTEMPORARY AUTHORS
AILLET, M., Lire la Bible avec S. Thomas, Éditions universitaires, Fribourg

(Suisse) 1993.
ANATOLIOS, K., Athanasius. The Coherence of his Thought, Routledge,
ANDRÉE, A., «The Glossa ordinaria on the Gospel of John: A Preliminary
Survey of the Manuscripts with a Presentation of the Text and its
Sources», Revue bénédictine, 118 (2008), 109-134, 289-333.
—, «Anselm of Laon Unveiled: the Glosae super Iohannem and the Origins
of the Glossa ordinaria on the Bible», Mediaeval Studies, 73 (2011),
217-240.
ANZULEWICZ, H., «Zwischen Faszination und Ablehnung: Theologie und
Philosophie im 13. Jahrhundert in ihrem Verhältnis zueinander», in
BIBLIOGRAPHY 563
M. OLSZEWSKI (ed.), What is “theology” in the Middle Ages?, Aschen-

dorff Verlag, Münster 2007, pp. 129-166 (Archa Verbi. Subsidia, 1).
ARIAS REYERO, M., Thomas von Aquin als Exeget, Johannes Verlag,
Einsiedeln 1971.
AUSTRIACO, N., «Substantial Forms, Living Networks and Natural Ends:
Recovering the Teleology of St. Thomas Aquinas in Biology»,
Unpublished, Providence College, Providence, RI 2014.
AYRES, L., «“There is fire in that rain”: On reading the letter and reading
allegorically», Modern Theology, 28 (2012), 616-634.
BACCI, M., Lo spazio dell’anima. Vita di una chiesa medievale, Editori
Laterza e Figli, Roma – Bari 2005.
BAMMAN, D. – PASSAROTTI, M. – CRANE, G. – RAYNAUD, S., «Guidelines for
the Syntactic Annotation of Latin Treebanks», Tufts University Digital
Library (2007). Available from http://hdl.handle.net/10427/42683.
BACKUS, I., Die Christologie des hl. Thomas von Aquin und die griechischen
Kirchenväter Schöningh, Paderborn 1931.
BARTH, M., Ephesians. Translation and commentary, Doubleday, New
York 1974.
BARTHES, R. – BOVON, F. (eds), Analyse structurale et exégèse biblique,
Delachaux et Niestlé, Genève 1971.
BATAILLON, L.-J., «Approaches to the Study of Mediaeval Sermons», Leeds
Studies in English, 9 (1980) 19-35.
—, «De la ‘lectio’ à la ‘praedicatio’. Commentaires bibliques et sermons
au XIIIe siècle», Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques,
70 (1986) 559-575.
—, «Les textes théologiques et philosophiques diffusées à Paris par
exemplar et pecia», in L.-J. BATAILLON – B. G. GUYOT – R. H. ROUSE
(edd.), La production du livre universitaire au Moyen Âge: exemplar
et pecia, CNRS, Paris 1991, pp. 155-163.
—, «La diffusione manoscritta e stampata dei commenti biblici di Tommaso
d’Aquino», Angelicum, 71 (1994) 579-590.
—, «Problèmes d’authenticité des réportations», in Sermones, Sancti
Thomae de Aquino Opera Omnia, ed. Leonina, t. XXXXIV/1, Paris –
Roma 2014, pp. 15-17.
BAUERSCHMIDT, F.C., Thomas Aquinas: Faith, Reason, and Following
Christ, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013.
BÉCHARD, D., The Scripture Document, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville
MN 2002.
564 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BELLAMAH, T., The Biblical Interpretation of William of Alton, Oxford

University Press, New York 2011.
—, «Tunc scimus, cum causas cognoscimus: Some Medieval Endeavors
to Know Scripture in Its Causes», in M. LAMB (ed.), Philosophy in
Theological Education. Essays in Honor of Ralph McInerny, The
Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. (in press).
BELMANS, T.G., Der objektive Sinn menschlichen Handelns: zur Ehemoral
des hl. Thomas, Patris Verlag, Vallendar-Schönstatt 1984.
BENEDICT XVI, Saint Paul, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2009.
—, Verbum Domini. Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation 2010.
—, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to
the Resurrection. Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2011.
—, Holy Men and Women of the Middle Ages and Beyond, Ignatius Press,
San Francisco, 2012.
—, Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican
City 2007, 2011, 2012.
—, Joseph Ratzinger in Communio, Vol. 1, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI
2010.
—, Joseph Ratzinger in Communio, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI 2013.
BERCEVILLE, G., «Les commentaires évangéliques de Thomas d’Aquin et
Hugues de Saint-Cher», in L.-J. BATAILLON – G. DAHAN – P.-M. GY
(edd.), Hugues de Saint-Cher, bibliste et théologien, Brepols, Turnhout
2004, pp. 173-196.
—, «L’autorité des Pères selon Thomas d’Aquin», Revue des Sciences
Philosophiques et Théologiques, 91 (2007) 129-144.
BÉRIOU, N., L’avènement des maîtres de la Parole. La prédication à Paris
au XIIIe siècle, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, Paris 1998.
BIANCHI, L., «1277: A Turning Point in Medieval Philosophy?», in
J. A. AERTSEN – A. SPEER (edd.), Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter?,
De Gruyter, Berlin – New York 1998, pp. 90-110 (Miscellanea
Mediaevalia, 26).
BLANKENHORN, B., «Aquinas on Paul’s Flesh/Spirit Anthropology in
Romans», in M. LEVERING – M. DAUPHINAIS (edd.), Reading Romans
with St. Thomas Aquinas, The Catholic University of America Press,
Washington D.C. 2012, pp. 1-38.
BLICK, S. – TEKIPPE, R. (edd.), Art and Architecture of Late Medieval
Pilgrimage in Northern Europe and the British Isles, E.J. Brill, Leiden
2005.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 565
BOGULAWSKI, S.C., Thomas Aquinas on the Jews: Insights into his

commentary on Romans 9-11, Paulist Press, New York 2008.
BOILEAU, N., Satires, Epîtres, Art poétique, Gallimard, Paris 1985.
BOUGEROL, J.G., «Bonaventure as Exegete», in J. M. HAMMOND –
J. A. WAYNE HELLMANN – J. GOFF (edd.), A Companion to Bonaventure,
E.J. Brill, Leiden-Boston 2014, pp. 167-188 (Brill’s Companions to
Christian Tradition, 48).
BOUHOT, J.-P., «Les traductions latines de Jean Chrysostome du Ve au XVIe
siècle», in G. CONTAMINE (ed.), Traductions et traducteurs au Moyen
Âge, CNRS, Paris 1989, pp. 31-39.
BOULNOIS, O. (ed.), Philosophie et théologie au Moyen Age. Anthologie, II,
Cerf, Paris 2009.
—, Métaphysiques rebelles: Genèse et structures d’une science au Moyen
Age, PUF, Paris 2013.
BOURG, D. (ed.), L’être et Dieu, Cerf, Paris 1986.
BOYLE, J.F., «St Thomas Aquinas and Sacred Scripture», Pro Ecclesia, 4
(1995) 92-104.
—, «The Theological character of the Scholastic ‘Division of the Text’
with Particular Reference to the Commentaries of St Thomas
Aquinas», in J. DAMMEN – B.D. WALFISH – J.W. GOERING (edd.), With
Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003,
pp. 276-291.
BRAGUE, R., La infraestructura metafísica. Assaig sobre el fonament de la
vida humana, Cruïlla, Barcelona 2011.
—, Les ancres dans le ciel. L’infrastructure métaphysique de la vie
humaine, Flammarion, Paris 2013.
BROWN, R., The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy
Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Doubleday, New
York, rev. ed. 1993.
CANALS, F., Sobre la esencia del conocimiento, PPU, Barcelona 1987.
—, «Introducción», in TOMÀS D’AQUINO, Antologia Metafísica, Edicions
62, Barcelona 1991, pp. 15-30.
CAPARELLO, A. (ed.), La conoscenza sensibile. Commenti ai libri di
Aristotele De sensu et sensato, De memoria et reminiscentia, ESD,
Bologna 1997.
CAPELLE, Ph., Philosophie et théologie dans la penseé de Martin Heidegger,
Cerf, Paris 1998.
566 BIBLIOGRAPHY
CARROLL, J. – BRISCOE, T. – SANFILIPPO, A., «Parser Evaluation: a Survey

and a New Proposal», in A. RUBIO – N. GALLARDO - R. CASTRO –
A. TEJADA, Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 1998). May 28-30, 1998,
ELRA, Granada 1998, pp. 447-454.
CASTELNUOVO, E., «L’artista», in J. LE GOFF (ed.), L’uomo medievale,
Editori Laterza, Roma – Bari 1993, pp. 238-269.
CASTRONOVO, A., La “cogitativa” in S. Tommaso, Pontificia Universitas
Gregoriana, Romae 1966.
CENTI, T., «La Somma contro i Gentili: indole dell’opera», in G. GRASSO –
S. SERAFINI (edd.), “Vita quaerens intellectum”. Tommaso d’Aquino e
ricerca filosofica, Millennium Romae, Roma 1999, pp. 37-44.
CERCLE LINGUISTIQUE DE PRAGUE, «Thèses présentées au Premier Congrès des
philologues slaves», in Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague 1:
Mélanges linguistiques dédiés au Premier Congrès des philologues slaves
Jednota Československých matematiků a fysiků, Prague 1929, pp. 5-29.
CESSARIO, R., «Scripture as the Soul of Moral Theology: Reflections on
Vatican II and Ressourcement Thomism», The Thomist, 76 (2012)
165-188.
CHARDONNENS, D., L’homme sous le regard de la providence. Providence
de Dieu et condition humaine selon l’Exposition littérale sur le Livre
de Job de Thomas d’Aquin, Vrin, Paris 1997.
CHENU, M.-D., «‘Involucrum’. Le mythe selon les théologiens mediévaux»,
Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge, 22 (1955),
75-79.
—, Toward Understanding Saint Thomas, Herny Regnery Company,
Chicago 1964.
—, La théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle, Vrin, Paris 1969, 3rd ed.
—, Introduction à l’étude de Saint Thomas d’Aquin, Institut d’études
Médiévales – Vrin, Montréal – Paris 1993, 5th ed.
CHILDS, B., The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture,
Eerdman, Grand Rapids MI 2004.
CIBAKA CIKONGO, A., «La grâce et la gloire. La doctrine de la justification
selon l’Ad Romanos de Saint Thomas d’Aquin», Excerpta e
Dissertationibus in Sacra Theologia, 43 (2002) 269-333.
CLASSEN, P., Burgundio von Pisa: Richter, Gesandter, Übersetzer,
Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Philos.-hist. Klasse 1974, 4, Carl Winter Verlag, Heidelberg 1974.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 567
COGGI, R., «Le caratteristiche fondamentali dell’esegesi biblica di S.

Tommaso», Sacra Doctrina, 35 (1990) 533-544.
—, «La Catena aurea di S. Tommaso d’Aquino», Sacra Doctrina, 49
(2004), 49-61.
COLLINS, J., «Rabbinic exegesis and Pauline exegesis. 1. Rabbinic
exegesis», Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 1 (1941) 15-26.
CONGAR, Y., «The Idea of the Church in St. Thomas Aquinas», The Thomist,
1 (1939), 331-359.
CONTICELLO, C., «San Tommaso ed i padri: La Catena aurea super
Ioannem», AHDLMA, 65 (1990) 31-92.
COTÉ, A., «Intellection and Divine Causation in Aristotle», Southern
Journal of Philosophy, 43 (2005) 25-39.
CROSS, R., The Medieval Christian Philosophers, Tauris, London 2014.
CUDDEBACK, J., «Law, Pinckaers, and the Definition of Christian Ethics»,
Nova et Vetera (English Edition), 7 (2009) 301-25.
CUÉLLAR, M., La Naturaleza de la Iglesia según Santo Tomas. Estudio
del Tema en el Comentario al Corpus Paulinum, Eunsa, Pamplona
1979.
CULLEN, C.M., The Semiotic Metaphysics of Saint Bonaventure, Catholic
University of America, Washington D.C. 2000 (unpublished
dissertation).
—, Bonaventure, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006 (Great Medieval
Thinkers).
—, «Bonaventure’s philosophical method», in J. M. HAMMOND – J. A.
WAYNE HELLMANN – J. GOFF (edd.), A Companion to Bonaventure,
E.J. Brill, Leiden – Boston 2014, pp. 121-166 (Brill’s Companions to
DAHAN, G., Les intellectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge, Cerf, Paris
1990.
—, «Saint Thomas d’Aquin et la métaphore. Rhétorique et herméneutique»,
Medioevo, 18 (1992), 85-117.
—, L’exégèse chrètienne de la Bible en Occident Medieval, XIIe-XIVe
siècle, Cerf, Paris 1999.
— (ed.), Le brûlement du Talmud à Paris: 1242-1244, Cerf, Paris 1999.
—, «Genres, Forms and Various Methods in Christian Exegesis of the
Middle Ages», in M. SAEBO (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The
History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1, part 2, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
Göttingen 2000, pp. 196-236.
568 BIBLIOGRAPHY
—, «Les prologues des commentaires bibliques (XIIe-XIVe s.)», in J.

HAMESSE, Les Prologues mediévaux, Brepols, Turnhout 2000, pp. 427-
470 (Textes et Études du Moyen Âge, 15).
—, «Ex imperfecto ad perfectum: le progrès de la pensée humaine chez les
théologiens du XIIIe siècle», in E. BAUMGARTNER – L. HARF-LANCNER,
Progrès, réaction, décadence dans l’Occident médiéval, Droz, Genève
2003, pp. 171-184.
—, «L’allégorie dans l’exégèse chrétienne de la Bible au moyen âge»,
in G. DAHAN – R. GOULET (edd.), Allégorie des poètes, allégorie des
philosophes. Études sur la poétique et l’herméneutique de l’allégorie
de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Vrin, Paris 2005, pp. 205-229.
—, «Les éditions des commentaires bibliques de Saint Thomas d’Aquin.
Leur apport à la connaissance du texte de la Bible au XIIIe siècle»,
Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 89 (2005)
9-15.
—, «Les quatre sens de l’Écriture dans l’exégèse mediévale», in M. ARNOLD
(ed.), Annoncer l’évangile (XVe-XVIIe s.). Permanences et mutations
de la prédication, Cerf, Paris 2006, pp. 17-40.
—, «Les Pères dans l’exégèse médiévale», Revue des Sciences
Philosophiques et Théologiques, 91 (2007) 109-126.
—, Lire la Bible au moyen âge. Essais d’herméneutique mediévale, Droz,
Genève 2009.
—, «Les commentaires bibliques d’Étienne Langton: exégèse et hermé-
neutique», in L.-J. BATAILLON – N. BÉRIOU – G. DAHAN – R. QUINTO,
Étienne Langton, prédicateur, bibliste, théologien, Brepols, Turnhout
2010, pp. 201-239.
—, «Le schématisme dans l’exégèse mediévale», in C. HECK (ed.), Qu’est-
ce que nommer? L’image légendée entre monde monastique et pensée
scolastique, Brepols, Turnhout 2010, pp. 31-40.
—, «L’influence des victorins dans l’exégèse de la Bible jusqu’à la fin
du XIIIe siècle», in D. POIREL (ed.), L’École de Saint Victor de Paris.
Influence et rayonnement du Moyen Âge à l’époque moderne, Brepols,
Turnhout 2010, pp. 153-178.
—, «Symbole et exégèse mediévale de la Bible», PRIS-MA. Recherches
sur la littérature d’imagination au Moyen Âge, 26 (2010) 3-31.
—, «Théologie et politique aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles. Quelques ré-
flexions», Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses, 91 (2011)
507-523.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 569
DANEŠ, F., «A three-level approach to syntax», in J. VACHEK (ed.), Travaux

linguistiques de Prague 1: L’École de Prague d’aujourd’hui, Éditions
de l’Académie Tchécoslovaque des Sciences, Prague 1964, pp. 225-
240.
DAUPHINAIS, M. – LEVERING, M. (edd.), Reading John with Thomas Aquinas.
Theological Exegesis and Speculative Theology, The Catholic
University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2005.
DAVIES, B., The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, Clarendon Press, Oxford
1992.
DEHART, P., Aquinas and Radical Orthodoxy: A Critical Inquiry, Routledge,
DELIO, I., «Theology, Metaphysics, and the Centrality of Christ»,
DE GHELLINK, J., «Le traité de Pierre Lombard sur les sept ordres
ecclésiastiques: ses sources, ses copistes», Revue d’histoire
ecclésiastique, 10 (1909) 290-302, 720-728 ; 11 (1910) 28-46.
DEMAN, T., «Le Liber de Bona Fortuna dans la théologie de S. Thomas
d’Aquin», Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 17
(1928) 38-58.
DEMATS, P., Fabula. Trois études de mythographie antique et mediévale,
Droz, Genève 1973.
DE SANTIS, L., «L’esegesi biblica di Tommaso d’Aquino nel contesto
dell’esegesi biblica medievale», Angelicum, 71 (1994) 509-536.
DESTREZ, J., «La pecia dans les manuscrits du moyen âge», RSPT, 13
(1924) 182-197.
DEVREESSE, R., «Notes sur les chaînes grecques de Saint Jean», Revue
Biblique, 36 (1927), 92-215.
DODDS, M.J., «The Teaching of Thomas Aquinas on the Mysteries of the
Life of Christ», in Th. WEINANDY – D. KEATING – J. YOCUM, Aquinas on
Doctrine: A Critical Introduction, T&T Clark International, London –
New York 2004, pp. 91-115.
DOMANYI, T., Der Römerbriefkommentar des Thomas von Aquin: Ein
Beitrag zur Untersuchung seiner Auslegungsmethode, Peter Lang,
Bern 1979.
DOMET DE VORGES, M., La perception et la psychologie thomiste, A. Roger
et F. Chernoviz, Paris 1892.
DONDAINE, H.F., «Les scolastiques citent-ils les pères de première main?»,
Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 36 (1952) 231-243.
570 BIBLIOGRAPHY
DONNEAUD, H., «Histoire d’une histoire. M.-D. Chenu et La théologie com-

me science au XIIIème siècle», Mémoire dominicaine, 4 (1994) 139-175.
—, «Le sens du mot theologia chez Bonaventure: Étude critique à propos
d’un ouvrage récent», Revue Thomiste, 102 (2002) 271-295.
DRONKE, P., Fabula. Explorations into the Uses of Myth in Medieval
Platonism, E.J. Brill, Leiden 1974.
ECO, U., The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge 1988.
—, Art et beauté dans l’esthétique médiévale, Grasset, Paris 1997.
ELDERS, L.J., «Aquinas on Holy Scripture as the Medium of Divine
Revelation», in L.J. ELDERS (ed.), La doctrine de la révélation divine
de saint Thomas d’Aquin. Actes du Symposium sur la pensée de saint
Thomas d’Aquin tenu a Rolduc, les 4 et 5 novembre 1989, Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1990, pp. 132-152.
—, The Philosphy of Nature of St. Thomas Aquinas, Peter Lang, Frankfurt
am Main 1997.
—, «Tomás de Aquino, comentador de San Pablo», Scripta Theologica, 38
(2006) 941-963.
—, Conversaciones teológicas con Santo Tomás de Aquino, Ediciones del
Verbo Encarnado, San Rafael (Mendoza) 2008.
—, Sur les traces de saint Thomas d’Aquin: Étude de ses commentaires
bibliques. Thèmes théologiques, Parole et Silence – Les Presses
Universitaires de l’IPC, Paris 2009.
—, Thomas d’Aquin. Une introduction à sa vie et à sa pensée, Les Presses
Universitaires de l’IPC, Paris 2013.
EMERY, G., «Biblical Exegesis and the Speculative Doctrine of the Trinity
in St. Thomas Aquinas’s Commentary on St. John», in M. DAUPHINAIS
– M. LEVERING (edd.), Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas.
Theological Exegesis and Speculative Theology, Catholic University
of America Press, Washington D.C. 2005, pp. 23-61.
—, The Trinitarian Theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Oxford University
Press, Oxford 2007.
EMERY, K. – SPEER, A., «After the Condemnation of 1277: New evidence,
new perspectives and grounds for new interpretations», in J. A. AERTSEN
– A. SPEER (edd.), Nach der Verurteilung von 1277: Philosophie
und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im letzten Viertel des
13. Jahrhunderts, De Gruyter, Berlin – New York 2001, pp. 1-19
(Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 28).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 571
FABRO, C., La nozione metafisica de partecipazione secondo S. Tommaso

d’Aquino, Milano 1939; 2d revised ed., Società editrice internazionale,
Torino 1950.
FAITANIN, P. S., «A dignidade de ensinar e aprender a Teologia segundo Tomás
de Aquino, a partir do texto ‘Rigans montes’», Aquinate, 5 (2007) 221-240.
FALQUE, E., «Le contresens du mot theologia chez Bonaventure: Réponse
au frère Henry Donneaud», Revue Thomiste, 102 (2002) 615-624.
FARKASFALVY, D., Inspiration and Interpretation: A Theological
Introduction to Sacred Scripture, The Catholic University of America
Press, Washington D.C. 2010.
FEINERER, I. – HORNIK, K., tm: Text Mining Package. R package version
0.5-9 (2007), http://CRAN.R-project.org/ package=tm.
FEINERER, I. – HORNIK, K. – MEYER, D., «Text Mining Infrastructure in R»,
Journal of Statistical Software, 25 (2008) 1-54.
FEUILLET, A., «Le symbolisme de la colombe dans les récits évangéliques
du Baptême», Recherches de science religieuse, 46 (1958) 524-544.
FIRBAS, J., Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken
Communication, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1992.
FIRTH, J.R., Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951, London University Press,
Cambridge 1957.
FLYNN, G. – MURRAY, P.D. (edd.), Ressourcement: A Movement for Renewal
in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology, Oxford University Press,
Oxford 2012.
FORMENT, F., «La Escuela Tomista de Barcelona», Verbo, 267-268 (1988)
1119-1134.
—, Historia de la Filosofía Tomista en la España contemporánea,
Ediciones Encuentro, Madrid 1998.
FOUCAULT, M., Les Mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences
humaines, Gallimard, Paris [1966] 1979².
FREDE, D., «Aquinas on Phantasia», in D. PERLER (ed.), Ancient And
Medieval Theories of Intentionality, E.J. Brill, Leiden – Boston – Köln
2001, pp. 155-183.
FREDE, M., «La théorie aristotélicienne de l’intellect agent», in C. VIANO (ed.),
Corps et Âme. Sur le De anima d’Aristote, Vrin, Paris 1996, pp. 376-390.
FRIEDMANN, R., Medieval Trinitarian Theology, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 2010.
—, Intellectual Traditions at the Medieval University. The Use of
Philosophical Psychology in Trinitarian Theology among the
572 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Franciscans and Dominicans, 1250-1350, I-II, E.J. Brill, Leiden –

Boston 2012 (Texte Zur Geistesgeschichte Des Mittelalters, 108).
GADAMER, H.-G., «Wer bin Ich und wer bist Du?», in H.-G. GADAMER,
Gesammelte Werke, Band 9, Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen 1993.
—, Gadamer on Celan, ‘Who Am I and Who are You?’ And other Essays,
transl. and ed. by R. HEINEMANN – B. KRAJEWSKI, States University of
New York Press, New York 1997.
GARCÍA GUILLÉN, D., ‘Padre es nombre de relación’: Dios Padre en
la teología de Gregorio Nacianceno, GBP, Roma 2010 (Analecta
Gregoriana, 308).
GARDNER, W.H. – MACKENZIE, N.H. (edd.), The Poems of Gerard Manley
Hopkins, 4th ed., rev. and enl., Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1967.
GARLAND, D.M., «St. Thomas, Doctor Graecus? A Rapprochement Between
Irenaeus and Aquinas on Salvation», Heytrop Journal, DOI: 10.1111/
heyj.12047.
GEENEN, G., «En marge du Concile de Chalcédoine. Les textes du Quatrième
Concile dans les œuvres de Saint Thomas», Angelicum, 29 (1952) 43-
59.
—, «Le fonti patristiche come ‘autorità’ nella teologia di S. Tomasso»,
Sacra Doctrina, 20 (1975) 7-67.
GEIGER, B., La participation dans la philosophie de S. Thomas d’Aquin,
Vrin, Paris 1942.
GHISALBERTI, A., «L’esegesi della scuola domenicana del secolo XIII», in
G. CREMASCOLI (ed.), La Biblia nel Medio Evo, EDB, Bologna 1996,
pp. 291-304.
GILSON, É., Introduction à la philosophie chrétienne, Vrin, Paris 1960.
—, Elements of Christian Philosophy, New American library, New York
1963.
—, Les tribulations de Sophie, Vrin, Paris 1967.
—, Il Tomismo. Introduzione alla filosofia di san Tommaso d’Aquino, Jaka
Book, Milano 2011.
GLORIEUX, P., «L’enseignement au Moyen Âge. Techniques et méthodes
en usage à la Faculté de Théologie de Paris au XIIIe siècle», Archives
d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge, 35 (1968) 65-186.
GORDIS, R., «Quotations as a Literary Usage in Biblical, Oriental and
Rabbinic Literature», Hebrew Union College Annual, 22 (1949) 157-
219.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 573
GREENACRE, M., Biplots in Practice, Fundación BBVA, Madrid – Bilbao

2010.
GREISCH, J., «La contrée de la sérénité et l’horizon de l’espérance», in R.
KEARNEY (ed.), Heidegger et la question de Dieu, Grasset, Paris 1980,
pp. 168-193.
GUREVICH, A., Historical Anthropology of the Middle Ages, Polity Press,
Cambridge 1992.
GY, P. M., «La documentation sacramentaire de Thomas d’Aquin: quelle
connaissance S. Thomas a-t-il de la tradition ancienne et de la
patristique?», Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 80
(1996) 425-431.
GIERTYCH, R., Rozruch wiary, Bernardinum, Pelplin 2012.
HADOT, P. (ed.), Dieu et l’être. Exégèses d’Exode 3. 14 et de Coran 20,
11-24, Centre d’études des religions du Livre, Études augustiniennes,
Paris 1978.
HAJIČ, J. – BÖHMOVÁ, A. – HAJIČOVÁ, E. – VIDOVÁ HLADKÁ, B., «The
Prague Dependency Treebank: A Three-Level Annotation Scenario»,
in A. ABEILLÉ (ed.), Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora,
Kluwer, Amsterdam 2000, pp. 103-127.
HAJIČ, J. – PANEVOVÁ, J. – BURÁNOVÁ, E. – UREŠOVÁ, Z. – BÉMOVÁ, A.,
Annotations at Analytical Level. Instructions for annotators, Institute
of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Prague 1999. Available from http://
ufal.mff. cuni. cz/pdt2.0/doc/manuals/en/a-layer/pdf/a-man-en.pdf.
HALÁCSY, P. – KORNAI, A. – ORAVECZ, C., «HunPos – an open source trigram
tagger», in S. ANANIADOU (ed.), Proceedings of the ACL 2007 Demo
and Poster Sessions, ACL, Prague 2007, pp. 209-212.
HAMESSE, J., Les Auctoritates Aristotelis: un florilège médiéval. Étude
historique et édition critique, Publications Universitaires de Louvain,
Louvain 1974.
—, «Approaches to the Study of Mediaeval Sermons», Leeds Studies in
English, 9 (1980) pp. 19-35.
—, «Reportatio et transmission des Textes», in M. ASZTALOS (ed.), The
Editing of Theological and Philosophical Texts from the Middle Ages,
Almquist and Wiksell International, Stockholm 1986, pp. 11-34.
—, «La méthode de travail des reportateurs», Medioevo e Rinascimento, 3
(1989) 51-67.
— (ed.) Les prologues médiévaux, Brepols, Turnhout 2000 (Textes et
Études du Moyen Âge, 15).
574 BIBLIOGRAPHY
HAMMELE, M., Das Bild der Juden im Johannes-Kommentar des Thomas von
Aquin: Ein Beitrag zu Bibelhermeneutik und Wissenschaftsgeschichte
im 13. Jahrhundert, Katholisches Bibelwerk, Stuttgart 2012.
HAMPHSIRE, S., Innocence and Experience, Allen Lane, London 1989.
HANKEY, W.J., God in himself. Aquinas’ Doctrine of God as Expounded in
the Summa Theologiae, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1987.
HARRIS, Z. S., «Distributional structure», Word, 10 (1954) 146-162.
HARVEY, W.Z., «Maimonides and Aquinas on Interpreting the Bible»,
Proceedings of American Academy for Jewish Research, LV, Jerusalem
– New York 1988, pp. 60-77.
HASKINS, C.H., Studies in the History of Medieval Science, Harvard
University Press, Oxford 1927².
HAUG, D. -.JØHNDAL, M., «Creating a Parallel Treebank of the Old Indo-
European Bible Translations», in K. RIBAROV - C. SPORLEDER (edd.),
Proceedings of the Language Technology for Cultural Heritage Data
Workshop (LaTeCH 2008), ELRA, Marrakech 2008, pp. 27-34.
HAUSMANN, M., «Wesen und Ziel der Thomaskommentare zu Aristoteles.
Status quaestionis der Interpretationen», Euntes Docete, 65 (2012)
149-180.
HAYES, Z., «Christology and Metaphysics in the Thought of Bonaventure»,
The Journal of Religion, Supplement, 58 (1978) 82-96.
HEALY, M., «Aquinas’s Use of the Old Testament in His Commentary on
Romans», in M. LEVERING – M. DAUPHINAIS (edd.), Reading Romans
with St. Thomas Aquinas, The Catholic University of America Press,
Washington D.C. 2012, pp. 183-195.
HEALY, N. M., «Introduction», in Th. WEINANDY – D. KEATING – J.
YOCUM (eds), Aquinas on Scripture. An Introduction to his Biblical
Commentaries, T&T Clark International, London – New York 2005,
pp. 1-20.
HEIDEGGER, M., Die Technik und die Kehre, Neske, Pfullingen 1962.
—, Nietzsche, Neske, Pfullingen 1961.
—, Identität und Differenz, (bi-lingual edition Spanish-German),
Anthropos, Barcelona 1990.
HISSETTE, R., Enquête sur les 219 articles condamnés à Paris le 7 mars
1277, Publications Universitaires de Louvain, Louvain – Paris 1977
(Philosophes médiévaux, 22).
HOLMES, J., «Aquinas’ “Lectura in Matthaeum”», in Th. WEINANDY – D.
KEATING – J. YOCUM (edd.), Aquinas on Scripture. An Introduction to
BIBLIOGRAPHY 575
his Biblical Commentaries, T&T Clark International, London – New

York 2005, pp.73-98.
HOOKWAY, C., Truth, Rationality and Pragmatism: Themes From Peirce,
Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004.
HUDSON, R., Word grammar, Blackwell, Oxford, 1984.
HÜTTER, R., Dust bound for Heaven. Explorations in the Theology of
Thomas Aquinas, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 2012.
IZQUIERDO LABEAGA, I., La vita intellettiva. Lectio Sancti Thomae Aquinatis,
Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1994 (Studi Tomistici, 55).
JAUSS, H. R., Ästhetische Erfahrung und literarische Hermeneutik. Band
1: Versuche im Feld der ästhetischen Erfahrung, Fink, München 1977
(French translation: Pour une herméneutique littéraire, Gallimard,
Paris 1988).
JANSEN, L., «Thomas von Aquin liest Maimonides: eine argumen-
tationstheoretische Analyse», Kirche und Israel, 19 (2004) 121-138.
JENKINS, J., «Expositions of the Text: Aquinas’s Aristotelian Commentaries»,
Medieval Philosophy and Theology, 5 (1996) 39-62.
JEAUNEAU, É., «L’usage de la notion d’integumentum à travers les gloses de
Guillaume de Conches», Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littérairer
du Moyen Âge, 24 (1957), 35-100.
JOHNSON, M.D., «Another Look at St. Thomas and the Plurality of the
Literal Sense of Scripture», Medieval Philosophy and Theology, 2
(1992) 118-142.
JOHNSON, R.A. – WICHERN, D.W., Applied multivariate statistical analysis,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ 2002.
JORDAN, M.D., «Thomas Aquinas’s Disclaimers in the Aristotelian
Commentaries», in R. J. LONG, Philosophy and the God of Abraham:
Essays in Memory of James A. Weisheipl, O.P., Pontifical Institute of
Mediaeval Studies, Toronto 1991, pp. 99-112.
KACZOR, C., «Thomas Aquinas’s Commentary on the Ethics: Merely
an Interpretation of Aristotle?» American Catholic Philosophical
Quarterly, 78 (2004) 353-376.
KEATING, D., «Thomas Aquinas and the Epistle to the Hebrews: “The
Excellence of Christ”», in J. C. LAANSMA – D. J. TREIER (edd.),
Christology, Hermeneutics, and Hebrews: Profiles From the History
of Interpretation, T&T Clark, London 2012, pp. 84-100.
KENNY, A., Aquinas on Mind, Routledge, London – New York 1993.
KERR, F., Theology after Wittgenstein, Blackwell, Oxford 1986.
576 BIBLIOGRAPHY
—, «Recent Thomistica 1», New Blackfriars 83 (2002), 245-251.

KILBY, K., Karl Rahner: Theology and Philosophy, Routledge, London –
New York 2004.
KLIMCZAK, P., Christus Magister: le Christ Maître dans les commentaires
évangéliques de saint Thomas d’Aquin, Academic Press, Fribourg 2013.
KOCH, A., «Interpreting God’s truth: a postmodern interpretation of
medieval epistemology», International Social Science Review, 3-4
(2002) 47-60.
KOTERSKI, J.W., «The Doctrine of Participation in Aquinas’s Commentary
on St. John», in J. M. HACKETT – W. E. MURNION – C. N. STILL
(edd.), Being and Thought in Aquinas, Global Academic Publishing,
Binghamton – New York 2004, pp. 108-121.
LADRIÈRE, J., «Discours théologique et symbole», Revue des sciences
religieuses, 49 (1975) 116-141.
LAMB, M.L., «Eternity and Time in St. Thomas Aquinas’s Lectures on
St. John’s Gospel», in M. LEVERING – M. DAUPHINAIS (edd.), Reading
Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas, The Catholic University of America
Press, Washington D.C. 2012, pp. 127-139.
LANAVE, G., «Bonaventure Theological Methode», in J. M. HAMMOND –
J. A. WAYNE HELLMANN – J. GOFF (edd.), A Companion to Bonaventure,
E.J. Brill, Leiden – Boston 2014, pp. 81-120 (Brill’s Companions to
LARCHER, C., «Les livres sapientiaux. Introduction», in L’ÉCOLE BIBLIQUE
DE JÉRUSALEM, La Bible de Jérusalem, Cerf, Paris 1998, pp. 799-862.
LE GOFF, J., Tempo della Chiesa e tempo del mercante. E altri saggi sul
lavoro e sulla cultura, Einaudi, Torino 19773.
LE GUERN, M., «Parabole, allégorie et métaphore», in J. DELORME (ed.),
Parole – figure – parabole, Presses Universitaires, Lyon 1987, pp. 23-35.
LEINSLE, U.G., Introduction to Scholastic Theology, The Catholic University
of America Press, Washington D.C., 2010.
LE PIVAIN, D.-D., L’action du Saint-Esprit dans le commentaire de
l’Évangile de saint Jean par saint Thomas d’Aquin, Téqui, Paris
2006.
LEVERING, M. – DAUPHINAIS, M. (edd.), Reading John with St. Thomas
Aquinas. Theological Exegesis and Speculative Theology, The
Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2005.
—, Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas, The Catholic University of
America Press, Washington D.C. 2012.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 577
LEVERING, M., Christ’s Fulfillment of Torah and Temple: Salvation

according to Thomas Aquinas, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre
Dame 2002.
—, Scripture and Metaphysics. Aquinas and the renewal of Trinitarian
theology, Blackwell, Malden 2004.
—, «Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas», in Th. WEINANDY – D.
KEATING – J. YOCUM, J. (edd.), Aquinas on Scripture. An Introduction
to his Biblical Commentaries, T&T Clark International, London –
New York 2005, pp. 99-126.
—, Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation,
University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame 2008.
—, «A Note on Scripture in the Summa Theologiae», New Blackfriars, 90
(2009) 652-658.
—, «Aquinas», in S. WESTERHOLM, The Blackwell Companion to Paul,
Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford 2011, pp. 361-374.
—, Predestination: Biblical and Theological Paths, Oxford University
Press, Oxford 2011.
—, «Aquinas on Romans 8: Predestination in Context», in M. LEVERING
– M. DAUPHINAIS (edd.), Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas,
The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2012, pp.
196-215.
—, Paul in the Summa Theologiae, Catholic University of America Press,
Washington D.C. 2014.
LEZIUS, W., «TIGERSearch - Ein Suchwerkzeug für Baumbanken», in
S. BUSEMAN (ed.), Proceedings der 6. Konferenz zur Verarbeitung
natürlicher Sprache (KONVENS 2002), DFKI GmbH, Saarbrücken
2002. Available from http://konvens2002.dfki.de/cd/inhalt/index.
html.
LIBERA, A. DE, Raison et foi: Archéologie d’une crise d’Albert le Grand à
Jean-Paul II, Seuil, Paris 2003.
LIBERA, A. DE – ZUM BRUNN, E. (edd.), Celui qui est. Interprétations juives
et chrétiennes d’Exode 3, 14, Cerf, Paris 1986.
LOBATO, A., «Santo Tomás, Magister in Sacra Theologia. El Principium de
su Magisterio», Communio, 21 (1988) 49-70.
LOBRICHON, G., «Les éditions de la Bible latine dans les universités du
XIIIe siècle», in G. CREMASCOLI – F. SANTI (edd.), La Biblia del XIII
secolo. Storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi, Galluzzo, Firenze 2004,
pp. 15-34.
578 BIBLIOGRAPHY
LOHR, C.H., «The Medieval Reception of Aristotle. The Arts and Sciences
in the 12th and 13th Centuries», in U. KÖPF – D. R. BAUER (edd.),
Kulturkontakte und Rezeptionsvorgänge in der theologie des 12. und
13. Jahrhunderts, Aschendorff Verlag, Münster 2011, pp. 157-171
(Archa Verbi. Subsidia, 8).
LOWE, E., The Contested Theological Authority of Thomas Aquinas:
The Controversies Between Hervaeus Natalis and Durandus of St.
Pourcain, 1307-1323, Routledge, New York 2003.
LUBAC, H. DE, Exégèse Médiévale. Les Quatre sens de l’Écriture, 4 vol.,
Aubier, Paris 1959-1964.
MACINTYRE, A., Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, University of
Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame IN 1990.
—, Dependent Rational Animals. Why Human Beings Need the Virtues,
Carus Publishing Company, Chicago, 1999.
MARANESI, P., Verbum Inspiratum: Chiave ermeneutica dell’Hexaemeron
di San Bonaventura, Istituto Storico dei Cappuccini, Roma 1996.
MARCUS, M. – SANTORINI, B. – MARCINKIEWICZ, M. A., «Building a Large
Annotated Corpus of English: the Penn Treebank», Computational
Linguistics, 19 (1993) 313-330.
MARENBON, J., Oxford Handbook of Medieval Philosophy, Oxford
University Press, Oxford 2012.
MARION, J.-L., Dieu sans l’être, Fayard, Paris 1982.
—, «Saint Thomas et l’ontothéologie», Revue thomiste, 95 (1995)
31-66.
MARTENS, S., «‘Tündra’: A web application for treebank search and
visualization», in S. KÜBLER – P. OSENOVA – M. VOLK, Proceedings of
The Twelfth Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT12),
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia 2013, pp. 133-144.
MARTIN, F., Sacred Scripture: The Disclosure of the Word, Sapientia Press,
Naples FL 2006.
MARTINELLI, M., Thomas d’Aquin et l’analyse linguistique, Vrin – Institut
d’études médiévales, Paris – Montréal 1963.
MAURER, A., Being and Knowing. Studies in Thomas Aquinas and Later
Medieval Philosophers, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
Toronto 1990.
MCGILLIVRAY, B. – PASSAROTTI, M. – RUFFOLO, P., «The Index Thomisticus
Treebank Project: Annotation, Parsing and Valency Lexicon»,
Traitement Automatique des Langues, 50 (2009) 103-127.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 579
MCGINNIS, C.M., «Stumbling over the Testaments: On Reading Patristic

Exegesis and the Old Testament in Light of the New», Journal of
Theological Interpretation, 1 (2010) 15-31.
MEYER, D. – BUCHTA, C., Proxy: Distance and Similarity Measures.
R package version 0.4-10 (2013), http://cran.r-project.org/web/
packages/proxy/index.html.
MICHEL, A., Théologiens et mystiques au moyen âge: la poétique de Dieu,
Ve-XVe siècles, Gallimard, Paris 1997.
MIGUEL, J. J. DE, «Los padres de la Iglesia en la criteriología teológica de
Santo Tomás de Aquino», Scripta Theologica, 7 (1975) 125-161.
MIKULOVÁ, M., BÉMOVÁ, A., HAJIČ, J., HAJIČOVÁ, E., HAVELKA, J., KOLÁŘOVÁ,
V., KUČOVÁ, L., LOPATKOVÁ, M., PAJAS, P., PANEVOVÁ, J., RAZÍMOVÁ,
M., SGALL, P., ŠTĚPÁNEK, J., UREŠOVÁ, Z., VESELÁ, K., ŽABOKRTSKÝ, Z.,
Annotation on the Tectogrammatical Layer in the Prague Dependency
Treebank, Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Prague 2006.
Available from http://ufal.mff.cuni. cz/pdt2.0/doc/manuals/en/t-layer/
html/index.html.
MILBANK, J. - PICKSTOCK, C., Truth in Aquinas, Routledge, London – New
York 2000.
MINNIS, A. J., Medieval Theory of Authorship, 2nd ed., Wildwood House,
Aldershot 1988.
MONTAGNES, B., La doctrine de l’analogie de l’être d’après saint Thomas
d’Aquin, Publications Universitaires – Nauwelaerts, Louvain – Paris 1963.
MORARD, M., «Thomas d’Aquin lecteur des conciles», Archivum
franciscanum historicum, 98 (2005) 211-365.
MORRISON, K.F., «Interpreting the fragment», in P. J. GALLACHER –
H. DAMICO (edd.), Hermeneutics and medieval culture, State University
of New York, Albany 1989), pp. 27-37.
MRÓZ, M., «Poznanie Boga a zrozumienie tajemnicy światła. Kilka uwag
na kanwie myśli św. Tomasza z Akwinu», Filozofia religii, 3 (2007)
85-105.
—, «Transzendenz-Immanenz und Entfernung-Gottesnähe im Zusam-
menhang mit Thomas von Aquins Auffassung von der Tugend der
Hoffnung», in H. GORIS – H. J. RIKHOF – M. SCHOOT (edd.), Divine
Transcendence and Immanence in the Work of Thomas Aquinas (A
Collection of Studies presented at the Third Conference of the Thomas
Instituut te Utrecht, December 15-17, 2005), Peeters, Leuven –
Walpole MA 2009, pp. 231-254.
580 BIBLIOGRAPHY
MURANO, G., Opere diffuse per ‘exemplar’ e ‘pecia’, Brepols, Turnhout 2005.
MURPHY, R.E., «Patristic and Medieval Exegesis - Help or Hindrance?»,
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 43 (1981) 505-516.
MUZZARELLI, M.G., Pescatori di uomini. Predicatori e piazze alla fine del
Medioevo, Il Mulino, Bologna 2005.
NARVÁEZ, M. R., Thomas d’Aquin lecteur. Vers une nouvelle approche
de la pratique herméneutique au Moyen Âge, Peeters, Leuven 2012
(Philosophes Médiévaux, 57).
NORRIS CLARKE, W., «The Meaning of Participation in St. Thomas»,
Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 26
(1952) 147-160.
O’CALLAGHAN, J., Thomist Realism and the Linguistic Turn. Toward a
More Perfect Form of Existence, University of Notre Dame Press,
Notre Dame 2003.
OCKER, C., «Medieval Exegesis and the Origin of Hermeneutics», Scottish
Journal of Theology, 3 (1999) 328-345.
OEXLE, O.G., «Tria genera hominum. Zur Geschichte eines Deutungsschemas
der sozialen Wirklichkeit in Antike und Mittelalter» in L. FENSKE –
W. RÖSNER – T. ZOTZ (edd.), Institutionen, Kultur und Gesellschaft
im Mittelalter. Festschrift für Josef Fleckenstein zu seinem 65.
Geburtstag, Thorbecke, Sigmaringen 1984, pp. 483-500.
OLIVA, A., Les Débuts de l’enseignement de Thomas d’Aquin et sa
conception de la «sacra doctrina», Vrin, Paris 2006.
OSUNA FERNÁNDEZ-LARGO, A., «La edición leonina del Opus Thomisticum.
Un modelo y guía para la crítica textual de manuscritos medievales»,
Ciencia Tomista, 135 (2008) 5-102.
PACHECO, M. C. (ed.), Le vocabulaire des écoles des Mendiants au moyen
ȃge, Brepols, Turnhout 1999.
PAJAS, P. - ŠTĚPÁNEK, J., «System for querying syntactically annotated
corpora», in G. G. LEE – S. SCHULDE IM WALDE (edd.), Proceedings
of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Software Demonstrations, World Scientific
Publishing Co Pte Ltd, Singapore 2009, pp. 33-36.
PALUCH, M., La prédestination dans l’œuvre de saint Thomas d’Aquin,
Vrin, Paris 2004.
—, Dlaczego Tomasz, IT – W drodze, Poznań 2012.
PANEVOVÁ, J., «On verbal Frames in Functional Generative Description»,
Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 22 (1974) 3-40, 23
(1975) 17-52.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 581
PANOFKSY, E., Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism, Archabbey Press,

Latrobe (Pa.) 1951.
PARETSKY, A., «The Influence of Thomas the Exegete on Thomas the
Theologian: The Tract on Law (Ia-IIae, qq. 98-108) as a Test Case»,
Angelicum, 71 (1994) 549-577.
PASNAU, R., «Mind and Hylomorphism», in J. MARENBON (ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Medieval Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford
2012, pp. 486-504.
PASSAROTTI, M., «Leaving Behind the Less-Resourced Status. The Case of
Latin through the Experience of the Index Thomisticus Treebank», in
K. SARASOLA – F. TYERS – M. FORCADA (edd.), 7th SaLTMiL Workshop
on Creation and Use of Basic Lexical Resources for Less-Resourced
Languages, LREC 2010, La Valletta, Malta, 23 May 2010, ELRA,
Malta 2010, pp. 27-32.
PASSAROTTI, M. – DELL’ORLETTA, F., «Improvements in Parsing the Index
Thomisticus Treebank. Revision, Combination and a Feature Model
for Medieval Latin», in N. CALZOLARI – K. CHOUKRI – B. MAEGAARD,
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language
Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010). May 19-21, 2010, La Valletta,
Malta, ELRA, Malta 2010, pp. 1964-1971.
PATFOORT, A., Saint Thomas d’Aquin, les clés d’une théologie, FAC-
éditions, Paris 1983.
—, La Somme de saint Thomas et la logique du dessein de Dieu, Saint-
Maur, Parole et Silence, 1998.
PELIKAN, J., Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of
Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism, Yale
University Press, Yale 1995.
PEPLIŃSKI, M., «Wartości epistemiczne wiary w świetle Logiki religii Józefa
Marii Bocheńskiego», Filo-Sofija, 21 (2012), 53-70.
PÉREZ DE LABORDA, M., «Il progresso nella conoscenza di Dio secondo san
Tommaso», Acta Philosophica, 18 (2009) 309-334.
PETERSEN, W., «Patristic Biblical Quotations and Method: Four Changes to
Lightfoot’s Edition of Second Clement», Vigiliae Christinae, 4 (2006)
389-419.
PEVSNER, N., «The term “architect” in the middle ages», Speculum, 17
(1942), 549-562.
PINCKAERS, S., Le renouveau de la morale. Études pour une morale fidèle à
ses sources et à sa mission présente, Téqui, Paris 1978.
582 BIBLIOGRAPHY
—, The Sources of Christian Ethics, Catholic University of America Press,

—, The Pinckaers Reader: Renewing Thomistic Moral Theology, ed. by
J. BERKMAN – C. S. TITUS, The Catholic University of America Press,
POPEL, M. - ŽABOKRTSKÝ, Z., «TectoMT: Modular NLP Framework», in H.
LOFTSSON, E. RÖGNVALDSSON – S. HELGADÓTTIR, Proceedings of IceTAL,
7th International Conference on Natural Language Processing,
Reykjavík, Iceland, August 17, 2010, Springer, Berlin – Heidelberg –
New York 2010, pp. 293-304.
POPPER, K. – ECCLES, J.C., The self and its brain. An argument for
interactionism, Springer Verlag, Berlin – Heidelberg – London – New
York 1977.
PROUVOST, G., Thomas d’Aquin et les thomismes, Cerf, Paris 1996.
PRÜGL, Th., «Thomas Aquinas as Interpreter of Scripture», in R. VAN
NIEUWENHOVE – J. WAWRYKOW (edd.), The Theology of Thomas Aquinas,
Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame 2005, pp. 386-415.
QUINTO, R., «Stefano Langton e i quattro sensi della Scrittura», Medioevo,
15 (1989), 107-109.
RADDING, M. – CLARK, W.W., Architettura e sapere nel medioevo. Cos-
truttori e maestri tra Romanico e Gotico, Vita e Pensiero Milano 1997.
RAHNER, K. – RATZINGER, J., Revelation and Tradition, Herder, New York
1966.
RAMAGE, M., Dark Passages of the Bible: Engaging Scripture with
Benedict XVI and Thomas Aquinas, Catholic University of America
Press, Washington 2013.
RATZINGER, J., Der Gott und der Gott des Glaubens der Philosophen. Ein
Beitrag zum Problem der Theologia Naturalis, Schnell & Steiner,
Regensburg 1960.
—, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Paulist Press, New York 1966.
—, Theology of History in St. Bonaventure, Franciscan Herald Press,
Chicago 1971.
—, «Zur theologischen Grundlegung der Kirchenmusik», in F. FLECKENSTEIN
(ed.), Gloria Deo – Pax hominibus. Festschrift zum 100jährigen
Bestehen der Kirchenmusikschule Regensburg, Sekretariat d. ACV,
Bonn 1974, pp. 29-62.
—, «Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations
and Approaches of Exegesis Today», in R. J. NEUHAUS (ed.), Biblical
BIBLIOGRAPHY 583
Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and

Church, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI 1989, pp. 1-23.
—, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation
and the Fall, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI 1995.
—, The Nature and Mission of Theology: Approaches to Understanding
Its Role in Light of the Present Controversy, Ignatius Press, San
Francisco, 1995.
—, Salt of the Earth, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1997.
—, A New Song for the Lord. The Crossroad Publishing Company, New
York 1998.
—, Milestones, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1998.
—, God and the World, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2002.
—, Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, Ignatius
Press, San Francisco 2004.
—, Daughter Zion, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2005.
—, «Biblical Interpretation in Conflict: On the Foundations and the Itinerary
of Exegesis Today», in J. GRANADOS – C. GRANADOS – L. SÁNCHEZ-
NAVARRO (edd.), Opening Up the Scriptures: Joseph Ratzinger and the
Foundations of Biblical Interpretation, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI
2008, pp. 1-29.
—, Theologie der Liturgie. Die sakramentale Begründung christlicher Exis-
tenz, Herder, Freiburg 2008, pp. 201-526 (Gesammelte Schriften, 11).
—, Offenbarungsverständnis und Geschichtstheologie Bonaventuras.
Habilitationsschrift und Bonaventura-Studien, Herder, Freiburg –
Basel – Wien 2009 (JRGS, 2).
—, Dogma and Preaching, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2011.
RAUSER, R., Theology in Search of Foundations, Oxford University Press,
Oxford 2009.
R DEVELOPMENT CORE TEAM, R: A language and environment for statistical
computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Wien 2012.
Available from http://www.R-project.org/.
RÉGNON, Th. DE, Études de théologie positive sur la Sainte Trinité, II,
Retaux, Paris 1892.
REINHARDT, E., La dignidad del hombre como imagen de Dios. Tomás de
Aquino ante sus fuentes, Eunsa, Pamplona 2005.
RENARD, J. P., «La Lectura super Matthaeum V, 20-48 de Thomas
d’Aquin», Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale 50
(1983), 145-190.
584 BIBLIOGRAPHY
REVENTLOW, E., History of Biblical Intepretation, II, From Late Antiquity

to the End of the Middles Ages, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta
2009.
RICŒUR, P., La métaphore vive, Seuil, Paris 1975.
—, «Narrativité, phenomenologie et herméneutique», in Encyclopédie
philosophique universelle, vol. 4, L’univers philosophique, Presses
Universitaires de France, Paris 1989, pp. 63-71.
ROMERA, L., Pensar el ser. Análisis del conocimiento del “actus essendi”
según C. Fabro, Peter Lang, Bern 1994.
ROMERO CARRASQUILLO, F.J. –TROYER DE ROMERO, H.K., «Aquinas on the
Inferiority of Woman», American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly,
87 (2013) 685-710.
ROREM, P., Hugh of Saint Victor, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2009.
ROSSI, M. M., «La divisio textus nei commenti scritturistici di S. Tommaso
d’Aquino: un procedimento solo esegetico?», Angelicum, 71 (1994)
537-548.
—, «La divisio textus: indizio di un genere letterario?», in D. LORENZ –
S. SERAFINI (edd.), Studi 1995, Angelicum University Press, Roma
1995, pp. 183-203 (Studia Pontificiae Universitatis a S. Thoma Aq. in
Urbe, 2, n.s.).
—, «L’attenzione a Tommaso d’Aquino esegeta», Angelicum, 76 (1999)
73-104.
—, «Conversazioni medioevali: associazioni sul tema della Bibbia nel
medioevo», Divus Thomas, 35 (2002), 184-198.
—, «La “Expositio super Isaiam ad litteram” immagine speculativa e
speculare dell’esegesi tomasiana», in T. ROSSI (ed.), Liber Viator.
Grandi Commentari del pensiero cristiano, Angelicum University
Press, Roma 2005, pp.197-216.
—, «Methodological Guide to Interpreting the Texts of Saint Thomas
Aquinas», in Angelicum, 85 (2008) 519-537.
ROSSI, M. M. – ROSSI, T., L’anima tomista di Benedetto XVI. L’impronta
di San Tommaso nei temi chiave di Papa Ratzinger: un’eredità per la
Chiesa del futuro, Angelicum University Press, Roma 2013.
ROSZAK, P., «Collatio sapientiae. Dinámica participatorio-cristológica de
la sabiduría a la luz del Super Psalmos de santo Tomás de Aquino»,
Angelicum, 89 (2012) 749-769.
—, «Between Dialectics and Metaphor: Dynamics of the Exegetical
Practice of Thomas Aquinas», Angelicum, 90 (2013) 507-534.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 585
ROUSE, R. – ROUSE, M., «The Book Trade at the University of Paris, ca.
1250-1350», in L.-J. BATAILLON – B. G. GUYOT – R. H. ROUSE (edd.),
La production du livre universitaire au Moyen Âge: exemplar et pecia,
CNRS, Paris 1991, pp. 41-114.
ROWLAND, T., Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI,
Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008.
RUDOLPH, C., Artistic Change at St-Denis: Abbot Suger’s Program and the
Early Twelfth-Century Controversy Over Art, Princeton University
Press, Princeton 1990.
RYAN, R., «Revisiting affective knowing and connaturality in Aquinas»,
SABATHÉ, M., La Trinité rédemptrice dans le Commentaire de l’Évangile de
saint Jean par Thomas d’Aquin, Vrin, Paris 2011.
SALIJ, J., Eseje tomistyczne, W drodze, Poznań 1995.
SANGUINETI, J.J., «La persona humana en el orden del ser», in DOMENICANE
ITALIANE (ed.), Tommaso d’Aquino nel suo settimo centenario (Atti del
Congresso Internazionale, Roma-Napoli, 17-24 aprile 1974, Edizioni
Dominicane Italiane, Napoli 1978, vol. 7, pp. 340-345.
SANTI, F., «L’esegesi biblica di Tommaso d’Aquino nel contesto dell’esegesi
biblica medievale», Angelicum, 71 (1994) 509-536.
SCHAEFFER, J.-M., Pourquoi la fiction?, Seuil, Paris 1999.
SCHYNDLER, L., «Zagadnienie verbum cordis w ujęciu Tomasza z Akwinu»,
in A. GÓRNIAK (ed.), Wokół średniowiecznej filozofii języka, Wydział
Filozofii i Socjologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa 2002,
pp. 21-115.
SENNER, W., «Thomas von Aquin und die Kirchenväter - eine quantitative
Übersicht», in Th. PRÜGL – M. SCHLOSSER, Ekklesiologie und Spiritualität,
Festschrift Ulrich Horst, Ferdinand Schönigh, Paderborn 2007, pp. 22-39.
SARANYANA, J.-I., Sobre Duns Escoto y la continuidad de la Metafísica.
Con un epílogo de gramática especulativa, Eunsa, Pamplona 2014.
SGALL, P. – HAJIČOVÁ, E. – PANEVOVÁ, J., The Meaning of the Sentence in its
Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects, D. Reidel, Dordrecht 1986.
SHOONER, H. V., «La Lectura in Matthaeum de S. Thomas (Deux fragments
inédits et la Reportio de Pierre d’Andria)», Angelicum, 33 (1956)
121-142.
—, «La production du livre par la pecia», in L.-J. BATAILLON – B. G. GUYOT
– R. H. ROUSE (edd.), La production du livre universitaire au Moyen
Âge: exemplar et pecia, CNRS, Paris 1991, pp. 17-37.
586 BIBLIOGRAPHY
SLATER, T.R. – ROSSER, G. (edd.), The Church in the Medieval Town,

Ashgate Publishing Company, Aldershot 1998.
SMALLEY, B., «Stephen Langton and the Four Senses of Scripture»,
Speculum, 6 (1931), 60-76.
—, Lo studio della Bibbia nel Medievo, Il Mulino, Bologna 1972.
—, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, Oxford University Press,
Oxford 1940, 3rd ed. Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame 1983.
—, The Gospels in the Schools c. 1100 – c. 1280, Hambledon, London 1985.
SMITH, L., The «Glossa Ordinaria». The making of a medieval Bible
commentary, E.J. Brill, Leiden – Boston 2009.
SNEDDON, C. R., «The ‘Bible du XIIIe siècle’: its Medieval Public in the
Light of its Manuscript Tradition», in W. LOURDAUX – D. VERHELST
(edd.), The Bible and medieval culture, Leuven University Press,
Leuven 1984, pp. 127-140.
SPICQ, C., Esquisse d’une histoire de l’exégèse latine au Moyen Âge Vrin,
Paris 1944.
—, «Saint Thomas d’Aquin Exégète», in Dictionnaire de Théologie
Catholique, Vol. 15/1, ed. A. VACANT – E. MANGENOT – E. AMANN,
Libraire Letouzey et Ané, Paris 1946, col. 694-738.
STEINER, G., Real Presences, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1989.
STRUBEL, A., «Allegoria in factis et allegoria in verbis», Poétique, 23
(1975), 342-357.
STUMP, E., «The Non-Aristotelian Character of Aquinas’s Ethics: Aquinas
on the Passions», Faith & Philosophy, 28 (2011) 29-43.
SULAVIK, A.T., «Principia and Introitus in Thirteenth Century Christian
Biblical Exegesis, with Related Texts», in G. CREMASCOLI – F. SANTI
(edd.), La Biblia del XIII secolo. Storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi,
Galluzzo, Firenze 2004, pp. 269-321.
ŚWIERZAWSKI, W., Egzegeza biblijna i teologia spekulatywna, Wydawnictwo
Wrocławskiej Księgarni Archidiecezjalnej, Wrocław 1984.
—, «Christ and the Church: Una Mystica Persona in the Pauline Commen-
taries of St. Thomas Aquinas», in A. PIOLANTI (ed.), S. Tommaso
Teologo: ricerche in occasione dei due centenari accademici, Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1995, pp. 239-250.
SYNAVE, P., «La doctrine de S. Thomas d’Aquin sur le sens littéral des
Ecritures», Revue Biblique, 35 (1926), 40-65.
SYNAVE, P. – BENOIT, P., Prophecy and Inspiration: a Commentary on the Summa
Theologica II-II, Questions 171-178, Desclee Co., New York 1961.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 587
SZUTTA, N., «Jedność cnót jako warunek normatywności cnoty», Ethos, 10

(2010) 78-93.
— (ed.), Współczesna etyka cnót: możliwości i ograniczenia, Wydawnictwo
Naukowe Semper, Warszawa 2010.
TÁBET, M., «La perspectiva sobrenatural de la hermenéutica bíblica de
Santo Tomás», Scripta theologica, 18 (1986) 175-196.
—, «I preludi dei moderni trattati sulla natura e interpretazione della Sacra
Scrittura nel periodo medievale’, Annales theologici, 15 (2001) 3-79.
—, Le trattazioni teologiche sulla Bibbia. Un approccio alla storia
dell’esegesi, San Paolo, Milano 2003.
TEEUWEN, M., The Vocabulary of the Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages,
Brepols, Turnhout 2003.
TE VELDE, R.A., «Evil, Sin and Death: Thomas Aquinas on Original Sin»,
in R. VAN NIEUWENHOVE – J. WAWRYKOW (edd.), The Theology of
Thomas Aquinas, Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame 2005,
pp. 143-166.
TI-TI CHEN, J., «La unidad de la Iglesia según el Comentario de Santo
Tomás a la Epístola a los Efesios», Scripta Theologica, 8 (1976)
111-230.
TOMARCHIO, J. «Four Indices for the Thomistic Principle ‘Quod recipitur
in aliquo est in eo per modum recipientis’», Mediaeval Studies, 60
(1998) 315-367.
TORRANCE, T.F., «Scientific Hermeneutics according to St. Thomas
Aquinas», Journal of Theological Studies, 13 (1962) 259-289.
TORRELL, J.-P., Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol 1, The Person and his Work,
Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 1996.
—, «Le Christ dans la “spiritualité” de saint Thomas», in K. EMERY,
JR. – J. WAWRYKOW (eds), Christ among the medieval Dominicans:
representations of Christ in the texts and images of the Order of
Preachers, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame 1998, pp.
197-208.
—, Initiation à Saint Thomas d’Aquin. Sa personne et son œuvre, 2ème
Édition revue et augmentée, Éditions universitaires de Fribourg - Cerf,
Fribourg – Paris 2002.
—, «Situation actuelle des études thomistes», Recherches de Science
religieuse, 91 (2003) 343-371.
—, «Le côté historien de Thomas d’Aquin», Memoire Dominicaine, 20
(2006) 11-27.
588 BIBLIOGRAPHY
—, Nouvelles recherches thomasiennes, Vrin, Paris 2008.

—, Saint Thomas d’Aquin. L’homme et son œuvre, Cerf, Paris 2012.
URS VON BALTHASAR, H., The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetic,
II, Studies in Theological Style. Clerical Styles, Ignatius Press, San
Francisco 1984.
VALKENBERG, W., Words of the Living God. Place and Function of Holy
Scripture in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, Peeters, Leuven
2000.
—, «Aquinas and Christ’s Resurrection: the Influence of the Lectura super
Ioannem 20-21 on the Summa theologiae», in M. DAUPHINAIS – M.
LEVERING (edd.), Reading John with Thomas Aquinas. Theological
Exegesis and Speculative Theology, The Catholic University of
America Press, Washington D.C. 2005, pp. 277-289,
VAN DEN HOEK, A., «Techniques of quotation in Clement of Alexandria.
A view of ancient literary working methods», Vigiliae Christianae, 3
(1996) 223-243.
VAN DIJK, G.-J., Ainoi, Logoi, Mythoi: Fables in Archaic, Classical, and
Hellenistic Greek Literature, E.J. Brill, Leiden 1997.
VAN LIERE, F., An Introduction to the Medieval Bible, Cambridge University
VAN STEENBERGHEN, F., Maître Siger de Brabant, Publications Univer-
sitaires de Louvain, Louvain – Paris 1977, (Philosophes médiévaux,
21).
VENARD, O.T., «Note de poétique théologique, saint Thomas d’Aquin et
la métaphore», in D. MILLET-GÉRARD (ed.), Le lis et la langue: Actes
de la Journée d’étude du Centre de recherche “Poésie, Poétique
et Spiritualité”, en Sorbonne le samedi 17 mai 1997, Presses de
l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris 1998, pp. 113-147.
—, «Croire en savant. Saint Thomas bibliste», in S.-T. BONINO (ed.),
Thomistes ou de l’actualité de saint Thomas d’Aquin, Parole et
Silence, Paris 2003, pp. 37-47.
VIJGEN, J., «Did St. Thomas attribute a Doctrine of Divine Providence to
Aristotle», Doctor Angelicus VII (2007) 53-76.
—, The status of Eucharistic accidents “sine subiecto”: An Historical
Survey up to Thomas Aquinas and selected reactions, Akademie
Verlag, Berlin 2013.
VON SIMSON, O., The Gothic Cathedral. Origins of Gothic Architecture and
the Medieval Concept of Order, Pantheon, New York 1956.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 589
WALZ, A., Compendium historiae Ordinis Praedicatorum, Angelicum,

Roma 1930.
WÉBERT, J., «L’image dans l’œuvre de saint Thomas et spécialement dans
l’exposé doctrinal sur l’intelligence humaine», Revue Thomiste, 9
(1926) 427-445.
WEINANDY, Th. – KEATING, D. – YOCUM, J. (edd.), Aquinas on Scripture. An
Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries, T&T Clark International,
WEINANDY, Th., «Aquinas: God IS Man: The Marvel of the Incarnation»,
in Th. WEINANDY – D. KEATING – J. YOCUM, Aquinas on Doctrine: A
Critical Introduction, T&T Clark International, London – New York
2004, pp. 67-89.
WEISHEIPL, J. A., Friar Thomas d’Aquino: his life, thought and works,
Blackwell, Oxford 1974.
—, «Albert the Great and Medieval Culture», The Thomist, 44 (1980)
481-501.
—, «Introduction», in Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St.
John, Magi, Albany 1980.
WENHAM, G. J., Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically Baker
Academic, Grand Rapids MI 2012.
WIELOCKX, R., «Au sujet du commentaire de saint Thomas sur le ‘Corpus
Paulinum’: critique littéraire», Doctor Communis, Nova Series 13
(2009), 150-184.
WILKEN, R. L., «Interpreting the Bible as Bible», Journal of Theological
WIPPEL, J.F., «Did Thomas Aquinas Defend the Possibility of an Eternally
Created World? (The De aeternitate mundi Revisited)», Journal of the
History of Philosophy, 19 (1981) 21-37.
—, Metaphysical themes in Thomas Aquinas, Catholic University of
America Press, Washington D.C. 1984.
—, «Thomas Aquinas and Participation», in J. F. WIPPEL (ed.), Studies
in Medieval Philosophy, Catholic University of America Press,
Washington 1987, pp. 117-158.
—, The metaphysical thought of Thomas Aquinas: from finite being to
uncreated being, Catholic University of America Press, Washington
D.C. 2000.
—, Metaphysical Themes in Thomas Aquinas II, The Catholic University
of America Press, Washington D.C. 2005.
590 BIBLIOGRAPHY
WRIGHT, Chr., Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, IVP Academic,
Downers Grove IL 2004.
WOŹNIAK, R. J., Primitas et plenitudo: Dios Padre en la teología trinitaria
de San Buenaventura, Eunsa, Pamplona 2007.
YUEN, A.H., Barth’s Theological Ontology of Holy Scripture, Pickwick,
Eugene 2014.
ZAGZEBSKI, L.T., Virtues of the Mind. An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue
and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge, Cambridge University
—, On Epistemology, Wadsworth, Belmont CA 2009.
ZOFFOLI, E., Ed io che sono?, Editrice Il Crivello, Cittadella (Pd) 1972.
INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS
Amiens Leipzig
Bibliothèque municipale 78: 233, Universitätsbibliothek 161: 237,
237 238
Arras Oxford
Bibliothèque municipale 1083: 230 Merton College Library
M.3.7 (158): 238
Brugge
Stadsbibliotheek 75: 237 Paris
Bibliothèque Mazarine 801: 238
Bruxelles Bibliothèque nationale de France
Bibliothèque Royale 1966: 237, lat. 614: 55
238 lat. 1782: 230
Kraków Vaticano
Biblioteka Jagiellońska 1593: 238 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
Ottob. lat. 227: 230
INDEX OF ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL NAMES
This index lists all persons mentioned in the essays, apart from Thomas
Aquinas, who were born before 1500. The names of Latin and Greek
authors are entered in their Latin form, according to their first names.
Adenulfus de Anania: 232 285, 314, 321, 330, 351, 353,

Aimeric de Veire: 74 355, 367, 388, 394, 395, 403,
Alanus ab Insulis: 55 431, 439, 442, 444, 463, 467,
Alcuinus Eboracensis: 230, 235 469-472, 474, 477, 489, 491-
Alexander Halensis: 174, 231, 460 494, 517, 518, 522, 526, 544
Anselmus Laudunensis: 230 Avicenna, 290, 322, 327, 332, 336-
Anonymus, Lectura in librum de 337, 439
anima a quodam discipulo Basilius Caesariensis: 260, 271
reportata: 289 Beda Venerabilis: 81, 363
Liber de causis, 234, 242, 316, 541 Bernardo Gui, 470, 477,
Albertus Magnus: 72, 153, 155, 167, Boethius, Anicius: 92, 201, 288,
231, 304, 306, 307, 353, 431 467
Ambrosius: 208, 260, 262, 267, Boethius de Dacia: 288
268, 271, 280, 281, 282, 285, Bonaventura, VI, XV, 119, 231
403, 408, 526 Burgundius de Pisa: 229, 230, 235,
Apollinarius: 509, 510, 522, 526 258
Aristoteles: IX, XIV, XVI, 47, 56, Cicero, Marcus Tullius: 9 260, 290,
74, 83, 111, 145, 146, 148, 296, 339
174, 179, 189, 190, 193, 199, Clemens Alexandrinus: 63, 119, 477
201, 204, 205, 207, 211, 213, Cyrillus Alexandrinus: 260, 378
214, 220, 234, 239, 241, 242, Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus: 260
255, 260, 287-346, 353, 360, Desiderius Erasmus: VIII, 115,
370, 390, 419, 421, 436, 463, 484, 485, 490
483, 533, 534, 547, 550 Dionysius Areopagita: 56, 65, 70,
Arius: 277, 282, 478, 509, 522, 525 76, 78, 90, 136, 202, 205, 260,
Augustinus Hipponensis: VII, 51, 53, 446, 447, 460
69, 78, 79, 85, 89, 94, 103-107, Eutyches: 509, 522, 525
112, 208, 209, 221, 230, 233- Franciscus Assisiensis: 419
235, 241, 246, 247, 249, 250, Gregorius Magnus: 152, 167, 186,
258, 260-266, 268-280, 283- 260, 267, 270, 271, 274, 275,
594 INDEX OF ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL NAMES
277, 280, 281, 282, 285, 303, Macarius Antiochensis: 509

487 Moses Maimonides: 63, 70, 118,
Gregorius Nazianzenus: 260, 431 478, 480
Gregorius Nyssenus: 260 Nestorius: 509, 522, 523, 525
Guerricus de Sancto Quintino: 231, Ovidius: 8
233, 235 Origenes: 103, 235, 236, 244, 246,
Guillelmus de Conchis: 65 254, 260-262, 266-267, 269,
Guillelmus Durantus: 542 271, 278, 282-284, 390, 410,
Guillelmus de Altona: 231, 233, 468, 477, 509
235, 238, 239, 248 Petrus Abelardus: 174, 509, 523
Guillelmus de Lexovio: 233 Petrus Cantor: 239
Guillelmus de Moerbeka: 316, 550 Petrus Comestor: 230, 239
Hieronymus: VIII, 9, 79, 80, 87, Ptrus de Scala: 259, 261, 264, 265,
158, 241, 258, 260-263, 266, 267, 330
268-270, 284, 477 Petrus de Tarantasia: 233
Hilarius Pictaviensis: 260, 262, Petrus Lombardus: 258, 260, 261,
268, 270, 271, 276, 277, 280, 419, 424
281, 282, 381 Petrus Pictaviensis: 51
Hugo de Sancto Caro: 87, 231, Philo Alexandrinus: 457, 478
234, 235 Photinus: 509, 510, 525
Hugo de Sancto Victore: VII, VIII, Plato: 98, 206, 260, 290, 306, 309,
50, 53, 174, 182, 185-189, 193 336, 337, 459
Joachim de Fiore: 231 Ptolomaeus Lucensis: 232
Johannes a Sancto Thomas: 247 Rabanus Maurus: 260
Johannes Chrysostomos: 225, 229, Reginaldus Piperno: 74, 231-232
230, 235, 254, 259, 260, 261, Robertus Grosseteste: 288
265, 266, 268, 270-273, 275, Rufinus: 258
277-280, 282, 285, 328, 379, Rupertus Tuitiensis: 230
450, 522 Sigerus de Brabantia: 288
Johannes Damascenus: 258, 260, Simon Tornacensis: 51
460, 476-477 Stephen Langton: 50, 51, 231, 239
Johannes Duns Scotus: 461, 463, Theodorus de Mopsuestia: 102,
465, 467 248, 249
Johannes Scotus Eriugena: 235 Thomas de Chobham: 51
Caesar, Gaius Julius: 9, 309, 310 Thomas de Vio Cajetanus: 247, 354
Leodegarius Bisuntinus: 259, 330, Valentinus: 509, 526
334, 341
INDEX OF MODERN AND CONTEMPORARY NAMES
Abeillé, A.: 7, 573 Berceville, G.: 84, 234, 259, 557,

Adriaen, M.: 47, 152, 303, 561 559, 564
Aertsen, J.A.: 289, 564, 570 Bériou, N.: 50, 233, 564, 568
Aillet, M.: 46, 247, 562 Berkman, J.: 25, 582
Alter, R.: 59 Bianchi, L.: 289, 564
Amann, E.: 288 Blankenhorn, B.: X, 564
Ananiadou, S.: 9, 573 Blick, S.: 14, 564
Anatolios, K.: 431, 562 Bogulawski, S.C.:334, 565
Andrée, A.: 230, 235 Böhmová, A.: 7, 573
Anzulewicz, H.: 418, 562 Boileau, N.: 203, 565
Arias Reyero, M.: X, 46, 563 Bonino, S.-T.: 588
Arnold, M.: 51, 568 Borgnet, A.: 306, 307
Asztalos, M.: 233, 573 Bougerol, J.G.: 424, 425
Austriaco, N.: 534, 563 Bouhot, J.-P.: 230
Ayres, L.: 417, 431, 563 Boulnois, O.: 415, 418
Bacci, M.: 183, 563 Bourg, D.: 457
Backus, I.: 259, 563 Bovon, F.: 59, 563
Bamman, D.: 10, 563 Boyle, J.F.: 138, 173
Bañez, D.: 247 Brague, R.: 434, 460
Barth, K.: 428, 593 Briscoe, T.: 5, 566
Barth, M.: 115, 563 Brown, R.: 101-102
Barthes, R.: 59, 563 Brunet, E.: 74
Bataillon, L.-J.: 50, 193, 232, 233, Buchta, C.: 29, 579
234, 237, 238, 557, 563, 564, Buránová, E.: 10, 573
568, 585 Busa, R.: XII, 3, 10, 26, 28, 44, 14,
Bauer, D.R.: 288, 578 144, 148, 176
Bauerschmidt, F.C.: 287, 563 Buseman, S.: 21, 577
Baumgartner, E.: 49, 568 Buttimer, H.: 50, 561
Béchard, D.: 495, 563 Calzolari, N.: 9, 581
Belmans, T.G.: 304, 564 Canals, F.: 375, 387
Bémová, A.: 10, 573, 579 Caparello, A.: 193
Benedict XVI: X, XV, 138, 465, Capelle, Ph.: 465
466, 481-505, 530, 564 Carroll, J.: 5, 566
Benoit, P.: 49, 488, 586 Castelnuovo, E.: 180, 182-184
Castro, R.: 5, 566
596 INDEX OF MODERN AND CONTEMPORARY NAMES
Castronovo, A.: 194, 566 Dauphinais, M.: X, XI, 91, 116,

Centi, T.: 195, 566 287, 312, 323, 422, 564, 569,
Cercle linguistique de Prague: 6, 7, 570, 574, 576, 577, 588
566 Davies, B.: 528, 569
Cessario, R.: 349-350, 359, 372- Davril, A.: 542, 561
373, 566 De Ghellink, J.: 258, 569
Chardonnens, D.: 153, 566 Delorme, J.: 63, 576
Chenu, M.-D.: X, 45, 65, 141, 142, Derrida, J.: 210
151, 172, 206, 227, 232, 245, De Santis, L.: 133, 569
566 DeHart, P.: 433, 569
Childs, B.: 110, 566 Delio, I.: 433, 569
Choukri, K.: 9, 581 Dell’Orletta, F.: 9, 581
Cibaka Cikongo, A.: 566 Deman, T.: 322, 569
Clark, W.W.: 178, 582 Demats, P.: 65, 569
Classen, P.: 230, 566 Destrez, J.: 237, 569
Code, L.: 435 Devreesse, R.: 236, 569
Coggi, R.: 115, 132, 567 Diderot, D.: 63
Collins, J.: 118, 567 Dodds, M.J.: 518, 569
Congar, Y.: 532, 567 Domanyi, T.: X, 569
Contamine, G.: 230, 565 Domet de Vorges, M.: 194, 569
Conticello, C.: 234-236, 567 Dondaine, H.F.: 124, 169, 228,
Coté, A.: 301, 567 258, 555, 569
Crane, G.: 10, 44, 563 Donneaud, H.: 227, 424, 570, 571
Cremascoli, G.: 117, 124, 133, 239, Dronke, P.: 65, 570
572, 577, 586 Eccles, J.C.: 195, 582
Cross, R.: 419, 567 Eco, U.: 216, 299, 570
Cuddeback, J.: XIV, 350, 351, 357- Elders, L.J.: XIV, 76, 78, 86, 254,
359, 372, 567 259, 290, 306, 312, 570
Cuéllar, M.: 532, 567 Emery, G.: 306, 417, 422, 429,
Cullen, C.M.: 418, 419, 426, 567 430, 570
Dahan, G.: VII, X, XII, 45, 47, 50, Emery, K. Jr.: 289, 570
55, 59, 63, 66, 124, 128, 172, Fabro, C.: 91, 92, 466, 571, 584
200, 212, 234, 236, 239, 246, Faitanin, P. S.: 76, 571
290, 332, 334, 559, 560, 564, Falque, E.: 424, 425, 571
567, 568 Farkasfalvy, D.: 488, 571
Damico, H.: 130, 579 Feinerer, I.: 28, 571
Dammen, J.: 173, 565 Feuillet, A.: 220, 571
Darom, A.: 54 Firbas, J.: 6, 571
INDEX OF MODERN AND CONTEMPORARY NAMES 597
Firth, J.R.: 29, 30, 571 Hackett, J.M.: 92, 576

Fleckenstein, J.: 299, 303, 580, 582 Hadot, P.: 457, 573
Flynn, G.: 415, 571 Hajič, J.: 6, 10, 585
Forcada, M.: 9, 581 Hajičová, E.: 6, 7, 10, 573, 579
Forment, F.: 375, 571 Halácsy, P.: 9, 573
Foucault, M.: 219, 571 Hamesse, J.: 47 116, 233, 239, 316,
Frede, D.: 193, 571 336, 341, 345, 568, 573
Frede, M.: 301, 571 Hammele, M.: XI, 287, 574
Friedmann, R.: 429, 571 Hammond, J.M.: 418, 424, 565
Gadamer, H.-G.: 168, 572 Hamphsire, S.: 189
Gallacher, P.J.: 130, 579 Hankey, W.J.: 420, 574
Gallardo, N.: 5, 566 Harf-Lancner, L.: 49, 568
García Guillén, D.: 431, 572 Harris, Z. S.: 29, 30, 574
Gardeil, H.D.: 47 Harvey, W.Z.: 118, 574
Gardner, W.H.: 547, 572 Haskins, C.H.: 230, 574
Garland, D.M.: 118, 572 Haug, D.: 8, 574
Gauthier, R.-A.: 233, 289, 557, 560 Hausmann, M.: 290, 474
Geenen, G.: 234, 259, 572 Hayes, Z.: 426, 574
Geiger, B.: 91, 572 Healy, M.: 116, 122, 136, 574, 421,
Ghisalberti, A.: 133, 572 515, 519, 521, 574
Gilson, É.: VII, 193, 418, 462-467, Heck, C.: 59, 568
572, Heidegger, M.: 464-466, 565, 573,
Goering, J.W.: 173, 565 574
Goff, J.: 424, 565, 567, 576 Heinemann, R.: 168, 572
Gordis, R.: 118, 572 Helgadóttir, S.: 12, 582
Górniak, A.: 444, 585 Hirsch, E.: 316, 562
Goulet, R.: 55, 568 Hissette, R.: 288, 574
Graf Reventlow, E.: 420, 421, 423, Holmes, J.: XII, 259, 574
425, 427, 584 Hookway, C.: 432, 575
Granados, C.: 484, 583 Hornik, K.: 28, 571
Granados, J.: 484, 583 Hovingh, P.F.: VIII, 572
Greenacre, M.: 32, 573 Hudson, R.: 24, 575
Greisch, J.: 464, 573 Hütter, R.: 312, 575
Gurevich, A.: 179, 573 Izquierdo Labeaga, I.: 193, 575
Guyot, B.G.: 238, 585, 563 Jansen, L.: 118
Gy, P. M.: 258, 573 Jauss, H. R.: 227
Giertych, W.: 437, 455, 573 Jeauneau, É.: 65, 235
Haacke, R.: 230, 562 Jenkins, J.: 290
Jøhndal, M.: 8 Libera, A. de: 431, 457, 577

John of St. Thomas: 247 Lobato, A.: 76, 78, 466, 577
Johnson, M.D.: 247 Lobrichon, G.: 124, 577
Johnson, R.A.:232 Loftsson, H.: 12, 582
Jordan, M.D.: 289, 315 Lohr, C.H.: 288, 578
Jülicher, A.: 63 Long, R.J.: 289, 575
Kaczor, C.: 290 Lourdaux, W.: 123, 586
Kearney, R.: 464 Lowe, E.: 123, 578
Keating, D.: X, XI, XVI, 259, 288, Lubac, H. de: X, 50, 172, 229, 415,
421, 508, 515, 518, 521, 529, 416, 417, 419, 426, 578,
535 Luther, M.: 316, 353, 562
Kenny, A.: 193 MacIntyre, A.: 179, 193, 578
Kerr, F.: IX, 214 MacKenzie, N.H. 547, 572
Kilby, K.: 432 Maegaard, B.: 9, 581
Klimczak, P.: 287 Mandonnet, F.: 55, 56, 57, 61, 555
Klumper, B.: 234 Mangenot, E.: X, 288, 586
Koch, A.: 123 Maranesi, P.: 426, 578,
Köpf, U.: 288 Marcinkiewicz, M.A.: 10, 578
Kornai, A.: 9 Marcus, M.: 10, 578
Koterski, J.W.: 92 Marenbon, J.: 191, 429, 578, 581
Krajewski, B.: 168 Marion, J.-L.: 465, 578
Kübler, S.: 21 Martens, S.: 21, 578
Laansma, J.C.: 521 Martin, F.: XII, 91, 97, 102, 105,
Ladrière, J.: 215 109, 578
Lamb, M.L.: XII, 91, 242, 531 Martinelli, M.: 214, 578
LaNave, G.: 418, 424 Maurer, A.: 477, 478, 538, 558, 578
Larcher, C.: 74, McGillivray, B.: 5, 578
Le Guern, M.: 63, 576 McGinnis, C.M.: 120, 579
Le Pivain, D.-D.: 287, 576 Meyer, D.: 29, 571, 579
Lee, G. G.: 15, 580 Michel, A.: 217, 579
Le Goff, J.: 180, 184, 566, 576, Miguel, J. J. de: 259,
Leinsle, U.G.: 419, 576, Mikulová, M.: 12-14, 18, 579
Levering, M.: VIII, X, XI, XI, XIV, Milbank, J.: 433, 579
91, 100, 116, 139, 287, 312, Millet-Gerard, D.: 209, 588
323, 349, 417, 422, 423, 529, Minnis, A. J.: 47, 248, 579
564, 569, 570, 574, 576, 577, Montagnes, B.: 67, 579
588 Montmarquert, J.: 435
Lezius, W.: 21, 577 Morard, M.: 234, 579
Morrison, K.F.: 130, 579 Perler, D.: 193, 571

Murano, G.: 238, 580, Petersen, W.: 119, 581
Murnion, W.E.: 92, 576 Pevsner, N.: 182, 183, 184, 581
Murphy, R.E.: 138, 580 Pickstock, C.: 433, 579
Murray, P.D.: 571 Piolanti, A.: 532, 586
Muzzarelli, M.G.: 194, 580 Pius X (Pope): 412, 413, 465
Narváez, M. R.: V, XIII, 46, 141, Pius XII (Pope): 288, 496, 497
149, 151, 580 Ponce Cuéllar, M.: 532, 567
Neuhaus, R.J.: 582 Popel, M.: 12, 582
Nieto, J.: 97 Popper, K.: 195, 582
Norris Clarke, W.: 580 Prouvost, G.: 466, 582
Northrop Frye, H.: 59 Prügl, Th.: 135, 259, 290, 338, 552,
O’Callaghan, J.: 194, 580 582, 585
Ocker, C.: 119, 580 Qimhi, D.: 54
Oexle, O.G.: 303, 580 Quinto, R.: 50, 568, 582
Oliva, A.: 55, 56, 57, 61, 231, 237, Radding, M.: 178, 179, 184, 185,
557, 580 582
Olszewski, M. 418, 563 Rahner, K.: 432, 483, 576, 582
Oravecz, C.: 9, 573 Ramage, M.: VI, XV, 487, 502, 582
Osenova, P.: 21, 578 Ratzinger, J.: X, XI, XV, XVI, 112,
Osuna Fernández-Largo, A.: 580 190, 299, 415, 418, 457, 481-
Pacheco, M. C. 181, 580 491, 493-495, 497-505, 564,
Pajas, P.: 15, 579, 580 582-585
Paluch, M.: 122, 322, 580 Rauser, R.: 433, 583
Panevová, J.: 6, 8, 10, 573, 579, Raynaud, S.: 10, 563
580, 585 Régnon, Th. de: 430, 583
Panofksy, E.: 178, 184, 581 Reinhardt, E.: V, XII, 583
Paretsky, A.: 134, 581 Renard, J. P.: 232, 260, 583
Pasnau, R.: 191, 581 Ribarov, K.: 8, 574
Passarotti, M.: V, XII, 5, 9, 10, 563, Ricoeur, P.: XIII, 56, 200, 202, 209,
578, 581 211-215, 217, 584
Patfoort, A.: 201, 218, 581 Rögnvaldsson, E.: 12, 582
Pattin, A.: 316, 560 Romera, L.: 466, 584
Patuzzi, G.: 354 Romero Carrasquillo, F.J.: 328,
Pelik, R.: 199 584
Pelikan, J.: 431, 581 Rorem, P.: 185, 584
Pepliński, M.: 435, 581 Rösner, W.: 303, 580
Pérez de Laborda, M.: 459, 581 Rosser, G.: 184, 586
Rossi, M. M.: V, VII, XII, 59, 86, Sporleder, C.: 8, 574

120, 173, 174, 176, 177, 190, Steiner, G.: 217, 586
584 Štěpánek, J.: 15, 579
Rossi, T.: 176, 190, 584 Still, C.N.: 576
Roszak, P.: V, VIII, XIII, 70, 124, Stroobant de Saint-Éloi, J.-E.: X,
584 46, 84, 128, 288, 332, 559, 560
Rouse, M.: 238, 585 Strubel, A.: 52, 586
Rouse, R.: 238, 563, 585 Stump, E.: 316, 586
Rowland, T.: X, 585 Sulavik, A.T.: 117, 239, 586
Rubio, A.: 5, 566 Świerzawski, W.: 125, 532, 586
Ruckert, H.: 316, 562 Synave, P.: 49, 247, 488, 586
Rudolph, C.: 178, 585 Szutta, N.: 435, 587
Ruffolo, P.: 5, 578 Tábet, M.: 76, 78, 79, 85, 86, 587
Ryan, R.: 320, 585 te Velde, R.A.: 317, 587
Sabathé, M.: 287, 306, 585 Teeuwen, M.: 181, 587
Saebo, M.: 567 Tejada, A.: 5, 566
Sánchez-Navarro, L.: 484, 583 Tekippe, R. 184, 564
Sanfilippo, A.: 5, 566 Thibodeau, T.M.: 542, 561
Sanguineti, J.J: 480, 585 Ti-Ti Chen, J.: 532, 587
Santi, F.: 577, 585, 586 Titus, C.S.: 325, 582
Santorini, B.: 10, 578 Tomarchio, J. 316, 587
Saranyana, J.-I.: 465, 466, 585 Torrance, T.F.: 70, 552, 553, 554,
Sarasola, K.: 9, 581 587
Schaeffer, J.-M.: 207, 585 Torrell, J.-P.: 46, 49, 71-76, 85, 90,
Schlosser, M.: 259, 585 120, 195, 232-234, 269, 287,
Schooner, H.-V.: 260 291, 297, 332, 417, 521, 560,
Schulde im Walde, S.: 580 587
Schyndler, L.: 444, 585 Treier, D.J.: 521, 575
Senner, W.: 259, 557, 585 Troyer de Romero, H.K.: 328, 584
Sgall, P.: 6, 579, 585 Tyers, F.: 9, 581
Slater, T.R.: 184, 586 Urešová, Z.: 10, 573, 579
Smalley, B.: X, 50, 172, 230, 233, Urs von Balthasar, H.: 101, 415,
236, 250, 586 426, 427, 588
Smith, L.: 73, 586 Vacant, A.: X, 288, 586
Sneddon, C. R.: 123, 586 Vachek, J.: 7, 569
Sosa, E.: 435 Valkenberg, W.: 312, 421, 422, 588
Speer, A.: 289, 564, 570 van den Hoek, A.: 119, 588
Spicq, C.: X, 172, 247, 288, 586 Van Dijk, G.-J.: 334, 588
Van Liere, F.: 363, 588 Weisheipl, J. A.: 72, 74-76, 81, 231,
Van Nieuwenhove, R.: 135, 287, 232, 289, 521, 528, 575, 589,
290, 317, 552, 582, 587 Weiss, M.: 153, 560
van Riet, S.: 327, 561 Wenham, G. J.: 373, 589
Van Steenberghen, F.: 288, 418, Westerholm, S.: 359, 577
466, 588, Wichern, D.W.: 32, 575
Varenius, A.: 226, 562 Wielockx, R.: 313, 589
Venard, O.T.: V, XIII, 209, 216, Wilken, R. L.: 119, 589
588 Willems, R.: 234, 560
Verhelst, D.: 123, 586 Wippel, J.F.: 98, 307, 316, 467,
Viano, C.: 301, 571 468, 589
Vidová Hladká, B.: 7, 573 Woźniak, R. J.: VI, XV, 430, 590
Vijgen, J.: XIV, 291, 301, 312, 588 Wright, Chr.: 373, 590
Volk, M.: 21, 578 Yaffe, M.D.: 553, 554, 559
Von Simson, O.: 178, 588 Yocum, J.: X, XI, 259, 288, 421,
Walfish, B.D.: 173, 565, 508, 515, 518, 529, 569, 574,
Waldstein, M.: 107, 577, 589
Walz, A.: 241, 589 Yuen, A.H.: 428, 590
Wawrykow, J.: 135, 287, 290, 317, Žabokrtský, Z.: 12, 579, 582
552, 582, 587 Zagzebski, L.T.: XV, 435, 590
Wayne Hellmann, J.: 418, 424, Zoffoli, E.: 192, 590
565, 576 Zotz, T.: 303, 580
Wébert, J.: 201, 206, 207, 213, 589 Zum Brunn, E.: 457, 577
Weinandy, Th.: X, XI, 259, 288, Zycha, J.: 242, 249, 560
421, 508, 509, 515, 518, 529,
569, 574, 577, 589,
Collection « Textes et Études du Moyen Âge »
publiée par la Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales
Volumes parus :
1. Filosofia e Teologia nel Trecento. Studi in ricordo di Eugenio Randi a cura di
L. BIANCHI, Louvain-la-Neuve 1995. VII + 575 p. 54 Euros
2. Pratiques de la culture écrite en France au XVe siècle, Actes du Colloque
international du CNRS (Paris, 16-18 mai 1992) organisé en l’honneur de Gilbert Ouy
par l’unité de recherche « Culture écrite du Moyen Âge tardif », édités par M. ORNATO
et N. PONS, Louvain-la-Neuve 1995. XV + 592 p. et 50 ill. h.-t. 67 Euros
3. Bilan et perspectives des études médiévales en Europe, Actes du premier Congrès
européen d’études médiévales (Spoleto, 27-29 mai 1993), édités par J. HAMESSE,
Louvain-la-Neuve 1995. XIII + 522 p. et 32 ill. h.-t. 54 Euros
4. Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de l’Antiquité tardive à la fin du Moyen
Âge, Actes du Colloque international organisé par le «Ettore Majorana Centre for
Scientific Culture» (Erice, 23-30 septembre 1994), édités par J. HAMESSE, Louvain-
la-Neuve 1996. XIII + 723 p. 67 Euros
5. Models of Holiness in Medieval Studies, Proceedings of the International Symposium
(Kalamazoo, 4-7 May 1995), edited by B.M. KIENZLE, E. WILKS DOLNIKOWSKI,
R. DRAGE HALE, D. PRYDS, A.T. THAYER, Louvain-la-Neuve 1996. XX + 402 p.49 Euros
6. Écrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales : espace français, espace anglais,
Actes du Colloque international de Montréal (7-9 septembre 1995) édités par
K. FIANU et D.J. GUTH, Louvain-la-Neuve 1997. VIII + 342 p. 49 Euros
7. P.-A. BURTON, Bibliotheca Aelrediana secunda (1962-1996). Ouvrage publié avec
le concours de la Fondation Universitaire de Belgique et de la Fondation Francqui,
Louvain-la-Neuve 1997. 208 p. 27 Euros
8. Aux origines du lexique philosophique européen. L’influence de la « latinitas »,
Actes du Colloque international de Rome (23-25 mai 1996) édités par J. HAMESSE,
Louvain-la-Neuve 1997. XIV + 298 p. 34 Euros
9. Medieval Sermons and Society : Cloisters, City, University, Proceedings of
International Symposia at Kalamazoo and New York, edited by J. HAMESSE,
B.M. KIENZLE, D.L. STOUDT, A.T. THAYER, Louvain-la-Neuve 1998. VIII + 414 p. et
7 ill. h.-t. 54 Euros
10. Roma, magistra mundi. Itineraria culturae medievalis. Mélanges offerts au Père
L.E. Boyle à l’occasion de son 75e anniversaire, édités par J. HAMESSE. Ouvrage
publié avec le concours de la Homeland Foundation (New York), Louvain-la-Neuve
1998. vol. I-II : XII + 1030 p. ; vol. III : VI + 406 p. épuisé
11. Filosofia e scienza classica, arabo-latina medievale e l’età moderna. Ciclo di
seminari internazionali (26-27 gennaio 1996) a cura di G. FEDERICI VESCOVINI,
Louvain-la-Neuve 1999. VIII + 331 p. 39 Euros
12. J.L. JANSSENS, An annotated Bibliography of Ibn Sînæ. First Supplement (1990-1994),
uitgegeven met steun van de Universitaire Stichting van België en het Francqui-
Fonds, Louvain-la-Neuve 1999. XXI + 218 p. 26 Euros
13. L.E. BOYLE, O.P., Facing history: A different Thomas Aquinas, with an introduction
by J.-P. TORRELL, O.P., Louvain-la-Neuve 2000. XXXIV + 170 p. et 2 ill. h.- t. 33 Euros
14. Lexiques bilingues dans les domaines philosophique et scientifique (Moyen Âge –
Renaissance), Actes du Colloque international organisé par l’École Pratique des
Hautes Etudes – IVe Section et l’Institut Supérieur de Philosophie de l’Université
Catholique de Louvain (Paris, 12-14 juin 1997) édités par J. HAMESSE et
D. JACQUART, Turnhout 2001. XII + 240 p., ISBN 978-2-503-51176-4 35 Euros
15. Les prologues médiévaux, Actes du Colloque international organisé par l’Academia
Belgica et l’École française de Rome avec le concours de la F.I.D.E.M. (Rome, 26-28
mars 1998) édités par J. HAMESSE, Turnhout 2000. 716 p., ISBN 978-2-503-51124-5
75 Euros
16. L.E. BOYLE, O.P., Integral Palaeography, with an introduction by F. TRONCARELLI,
Turnhout 2001. 174 p. et 9 ill. h.-t., ISBN 978-2-503-51177-1 33 Euros
17. La figura di San Pietro nelle fonti del Medioevo, Atti del convegno tenutosi in
occasione dello Studiorum universitatum docentium congressus (Viterbo e Roma,
5-8 settembre 2000) a cura di L. LAZZARI e A.M. VALENTE BACCI, Louvain-la-Neuve
2001. 708 p. et 153 ill. h.-t. 85 Euros
18. Les Traducteurs au travail. Leurs manuscrits et leurs méthodes. Actes du Colloque
international organisé par le « Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientific Culture »
(Erice, 30 septembre – 6 octobre 1999) édités par J. HAMESSE, Turnhout 2001.
XVIII + 455 p., ISBN 978-2-503-51219-8 55 Euros
19. Metaphysics in the Twelfth Century. Proceedings of the International Colloquium
(Frankfurt, june 2001) edited by M. LUTZ-BACHMANN et al., Turnhout 2003. XIV +
220 p., ISBN 978-2-503-52202-9 43 Euros
20. Chemins de la pensée médiévale. Études offertes à Zénon Kaluza éditées par
P.J.J.M. BAKKER avec la collaboration de E. FAYE et CH. GRELLARD, Turnhout 2002.
XXIX + 778 p., ISBN 978-2-503-51178-8 68 Euros
21. Filosofia in volgare nel medioevo. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale de la S.I.S.P.M.
(Lecce, 27-28 settembre 2002) a cura di L. STURLESE, Louvain-la-Neuve 2003.
540 p., ISBN 978-2-503-51503-8 43 Euros
22. Bilan et perspectives des études médiévales en Europe (1993-1998). Actes du
deuxième Congrès européen d’études médiévales (Euroconference, Barcelone, 8-12
juin 1999), édités par J. HAMESSE, Turnhout 2003. XXXII + 656 p., ISBN 978-2-503-
51615-8 65 Euros
23. Lexiques et glossaires philosophiques de la Renaissance. Actes du Colloque
International organisé en collaboration à Rome (3-4 novembre 2000) par l’Academia
Belgica, le projet « Le corrispondenze scientifiche, letterarie ed erudite dal
Rinascimento all’ età moderna » et l’Università degli studi di Roma « La Sapienza »,
édités par J. HAMESSE et M. FATTORI, Louvain-la-Neuve 2003. IX + 321 p., ISBN
978-2-503-51535-9 39 Euros
24. Ratio et superstitio. Essays in Honor of Graziella Federici Vescovini edited by
G. MARCHETTI, V. SORGE and O. RIGNANI, Louvain-la-Neuve 2003. XXX + 676 p. –
5 ill. h.-t., ISBN 978-2-503-51523-6 54 Euros
25. « In principio erat verbum » . Mélanges offerts à Paul Tombeur par ses anciens élèves
édités par B.-M. TOCK, Turnhout 2004. 450 p., ISBN 978-2-503-51672-6 54 Euros
26. Duns Scot à Paris, 1302-2002. Actes du colloque de Paris, 2-4 septembre 2002,
édités par O. BOULNOIS, E. KARGER, J.-L. SOLÈRE et G. SONDAG, Turnhout 2005.
XXIV + 683 p., ISBN 2-503-51810-9 54 Euros
27. Medieval Memory. Image and text, edited by F. WILLAERT, Turnhout 2004. XXV +
265 p., ISBN 2-503-51683-1 54 Euros
28. La Vie culturelle, intellectuelle et scientifique à la Cour des Papes d’Avignon.
Volume en collaboration internationale édité par J. HAMESSE, Turnhout 2006. XI +
413 p. – 16 ill. h.t., ISBN 2-503-51877-X 43 Euros
29. G. MURANO, Opere diffuse per «exemplar» e pecia, Turnhout 2005. 897 p.,
ISBN 2-503-51922-9 75 Euros
30. Corpo e anima, sensi interni e intelletto dai secoli XIII-XIV ai post-cartesiani
e spinoziani. Atti del Colloquio internazionale (Firenze, 18-20 settembre 2003) a
cura di G. FEDERICI VESCOVINI, V. SORGE e C. VINTI, Turnhout 2005. 576 p.,
ISBN 2-503-51988-1 54 Euros
31. Le felicità nel medioevo. Atti del Convegno della Società Italiana per lo Studio
del Pensiero Medievale (S.I.S.P.M.) (Milano, 12-13 settembre 2003), a cura di
M. BETTETINI e F. D. PAPARELLA, Louvain-la-Neuve 2005. XVI + 464 p.,
ISBN 2-503-51875-3. 43 Euros
32. Itinéraires de la raison. Études de philosophie médiévale offertes à Maria Cândida
Pacheco, éditées par J. MEIRINHOS, Louvain-la-Neuve 2005. XXVIII + 444 p.,
ISBN 2-503-51987-3. 43 Euros
33. Testi cosmografici, geografici e odeporici del medioevo germanico. Atti del XXXI
Convegno dell’Associazione italiana di filologia germanica (A.I.F.G.), Lecce,
26-28 maggio 2004, a cura di D. GOTTSCHALL, Louvain-la-Neuve 2005. XV + 276 p.,
ISBN 2-503-52271-8. 34 Euros
34. Écriture et réécriture des textes philosophiques médiévaux. Mélanges offerts à
C. Sirat édités par J. HAMESSE et O. WEIJERS, Turnhout 2006. XXVI + 499 p., ISBN
2-503-52424-9. 54 Euros
35. Frontiers in the Middle Ages. Proceedings of the Third European Congress of the
FIDEM (Jyväskylä, june 2003), edited by O. MERISALO and P. PAHTA, Louvain-la-
Neuve 2006. XII + 761p., ISBN 2-503-52420-6 65 Euros
36. Classica et beneventana. Essays presented to Virginia Brown on the Occasion of
her 65th Birthday edited by F.T. COULSON and A. A. GROTANS, Turnhout 2006. XXIV +
444 p. – 20 ill. h.t., ISBN 978-2-503-2434-4 54 Euros
37. G. MURANO, Copisti a Bologna (1265-1270), Turnhout 2006. 214 p., ISBN 2-503-
52468-9 44 Euros
38. «Ad ingenii acuitionem». Studies in honour of Alfonso Maierù, edited by S. CAROTI,
R. IMBACH, Z. KALUZA, G. STABILE and L. STURLESE. Louvain-la-Neuve 2006. VIII +
590 p., ISBN 978-2-503-52532-7 54 Euros
39. Form and Content of Instruction in Anglo-saxon England in the Light of
Contemporary Manuscript Evidence. Papers from the International Conference
(Udine, April 6th-8th 2006) edited by P. LENDINARA, L. LAZZARI, M.A. D’ARONCO,
Turnhout 2007. XIII + 552 p., ISBN 978-2-503-52591-0 65 Euros
40. Averroès et les averroïsmes latin et juif. Actes du Colloque International (Paris,
juin 2005) édités par J.-B. BRENET, Turnhout 2007. 367 p., ISBN 978-2-503-52742-0
54 Euros
41. P. LUCENTINI, Platonismo, ermetismo, eresia nel medioevo. Introduzione di L.
STURLESE. Volume publié en co-édition et avec le concours de l’Università degli
Studi di Napoli « l’Orientale » (Dipartimento di Filosofia e Politica). Louvain-la-
Neuve 2007. XVI + 517 p., ISBN 978-2-503-52726-0 54 Euros
42.1. Repertorium initiorum manuscriptorum Latinorum Medii Aevi curante J. HAMESSE,
auxiliante S. SZYLLER. Tome I : A-C. Louvain-la-Neuve 2007. XXXIV + 697 p.,
ISBN 978-2-503-52727-7 59 Euros
auxiliante S. SZYLLER. Tome II : D-O. Louvain-la-Neuve 2008. 802 p., ISBN 978-2-
503-53045-1 59 Euros
auxiliante S. SZYLLER. Tome III : P-Z. Louvain-la-Neuve 2009, 792 p., ISBN 978-2-
503-53321-6 59 Euros
auxiliante S. SZYLLER. Tome IV : Supplementum. Indices. Louvain-la-Neuve 2010.
597 p., ISBN 978-2-503-53603-3 59 Euros
43. New Essays on Metaphysics as «Scientia Transcendens». Proceedings of the Second
International Conference of Medieval Philosophy, held at the Pontifical Catholic
University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre / Brazil, 15-18 August 2006,
ed. R. H. PICH. Louvain-la-Neuve 2007. 388 p., ISBN 978-2-503-52787-1 43 Euros
44. A.-M. VALENTE, San Pietro nella letteratura tedesca medievale, Louvain-la-Neuve
2008. 240 p., ISBN 978-2-503-52846-5 43 Euros
45. B. FERNÁNDEZ DE LA CUESTA GONZÁLEZ, En la senda del «Florilegium Gallicum».
Edición y estudio del florilegio del manuscrito Córdoba, Archivo Capitular 150,
Louvain-la-Neuve 2008. 542 p., ISBN 978-2-503-52879-3 54 Euros
46. Cosmogonie e cosmologie nel Medioevo. Atti del convegno della Società italiana
per lo studio del pensiero medievale (S.I.S.P.M.), Catania, 22-24 settembre 2006. A
cura di C. MARTELLO, C. MILITELLO, A. VELLA, Louvain-la-Neuve 2008. XVI + 526 p.,
ISBN 978-2-503-52951-6 54 Euros
47. M. J. MUÑOZ JIMÉNEZ, Un florilegio de biografías latinas: edición y estudio del
manuscrito 7805 de la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid, Louvain-la-Neuve 2008. 317
p., ISBN 978-2-503-52983-7 43 Euros
48. Continuities and Disruptions Between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
Proceedings of the colloquium held at the Warburg Institute, 15-16 June 2007, jointly
organised by the Warburg Institute and the Gabinete de Filosofia Medieval. Ed. by C.
BURNETT, J. MEIRINHOS, J. HAMESSE, Louvain-la-Neuve 2008. X + 181 p., ISBN 978-
2-503-53014-7 43 Euros
50. Florilegium mediaevale. Études offertes à Jacqueline Hamesse à l’occasion de son
éméritat. Éditées par J. MEIRINHOS et O. WEIJERS, Louvain-la-Neuve 2009. XXXIV +
636 p., ISBN 978-2-503-53146-5 60 Euros
51. Immaginario e immaginazione nel Medioevo. Atti del convegno della Società Italiana
per lo Studio del Pensiero Medievale (S.I.S.P.M.), Milano, 25-27 settembre 2008. A
cura di M. BETTETINI e F. PAPARELLA, con la collaborazione di R. FURLAN. Louvain-
la-Neuve 2009. 428 p., ISBN: 978-2-503-53150-2. 55 Euros
52. Lo scotismo nel Mezzogiorno d’Italia. Atti del Congresso Internazionale (Bitonto
25-28 marzo 2008), in occasione del VII Centenario della morte di del beato
Giovanni Duns Scoto. A cura di F. FIORENTINO, Porto 2010. 514 p., ISBN 978-2-503-
53448-0 55 Euros
53. E. MONTERO CARTELLE, Tipología de la literatura médica latina: Antigüedad, Edad
Media, Renacimiento, Porto 2010. 243 p., ISBN 978-2-503-53513-5 43 Euros
54. Rethinking and Recontextualizing Glosses: New Perspectives in the Study of Late
Anglo-Saxon Glossography, edited by P. LENDINARA, L. LAZZARI, C. DI SCIACCA,
Porto 2011. XX + 564 p. + XVI ill., ISBN 978-2-503-54253-9 60 Euros
55. I beni di questo mondo. Teorie etico-economiche nel laboratorio dell’Europa
medievale. Atti del convegno della Società italiana per lo studio del pensiero
medievale (S.I.S.P.M.) Roma, 19-21 settembre 2005. A cura di R. LAMBERTINI e
L. SILEO, Porto 2010. 367 p., ISBN 978-2-503-53528-9 49 Euros
56. Medicina y filología. Estudios de léxico médico latino en la Edad Media, edición de
A. I. MARTÍN FERREIRA, Porto 2010. 256 p., ISBN 978-2-503-53895-2 49 Euros
57. Mots médiévaux offerts à Ruedi Imbach, édité par I. ATUCHA, D. CALMA, C. KONIG-
PRALONG, I. ZAVATTERO, Porto 2011. 797 p., ISBN 978-2-503-53528-9 75 Euros
58. El florilegio, espacio de encuentro de los autores antiguos y medievales, editado por
M. J. MUÑOZ JIMÉNEZ, Porto 2011. 289 p., ISBN 978-2-503-53596-8 45 Euros
59. Glossaires et lexiques médiévaux inédits. Bilan et perspectives. Actes du Colloque de
Paris (7 mai 2010), Édités par J. HAMESSE et J. MEIRINHOS, Porto 2011. XII + 291 p.,
ISBN 978-2-503-54175-4 45 Euros
60. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109): Philosophical Theology and Ethics. Proceedings
of the Third International Conference of Medieval Philosophy, held at the Pontifical
Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre / Brazil (02-04 September
2009), Edited by R. Hofmeister PICH, Porto 2011. XVI + 244 p., ISBN 978-2-503-
54265-2 45 Euros
61. L’antichità classica nel pensiero medievale. Atti del Convegno de la Società italiana
per lo studio del pensiero medievale (S.I.S.P.M.), Trento, 27-29 settembre 2010. A cura
di A. PALAZZO. Porto 2011. VI + 492, p., ISBN 978-2-503-54289-8 59 Euros
62. M. C. DE BONIS, The Interlinear Glosses to the Regula Sancti Benedicti in London,
British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. III. ISBN 978-2-503-54266-9 (en préparation)
63. J. P. BARRAGÁN NIETO, El «De secretis mulierum» atribuido a Alberto Magno:
Estudio, edición crítica y traducción. I Premio Internacional de Tesis Doctorales
Fundación Ana María Aldama Roy de Estudios Latinos, Porto 2012. 600 p., ISBN
978-2-503-54392-5 65 Euros
64. Tolerancia: teoría y práctica en la Edad Media. Actas del Coloquio de Mendoza (15-
18 de Junio de 2011), editadas por R. PERETÓ RIVAS, Porto 2012. XXI + 295 p., ISBN
978-2-503-54553-0 49 Euros
65. Portraits de maîtres offerts à Olga Weijers, édité par C. ANGOTTI, M. BRÎNZEI,
M. TEEUWEN, Porto 2012. 521 p., ISBN 978-2-503-54801-2 65 Euros
66. L. TROMBONI, Inter omnes Plato et Aristoteles: Gli appunti filosofici di Girolamo
Savonarola. Introduzione, edizione critica e comento, Prefazione di G. C.
GARFAGNINI, Porto 2012. XV + 326 p., ISBN 978-2-503-54803-6 55 Euros
67. M. MARCHIARO, La biblioteca di Pietro Crinito. Manoscritti e libri a stampa della
raccolta libraria di un umanista fiorentino. II Premio de la Fundación Ana María
Aldama Roy de Estudios Latinos, Porto 2013. 342 p., ISBN 978-2-503-54949-1
55 Euros
68. Phronêsis – Prudentia – Klugheit. Das Wissen des Klugen in Mittelalter, Renaissance
und Neuzeit. Il sapere del saggio nel Medioevo, nel Rinascimento e nell’Età
Moderna. Herausgegeben von / A cura di A. FIDORA, A. NIEDERBERGER, M. SCATTOLA,
Porto 2013. 348 p., ISBN 978-2-503-54989-7 59 Euros
69. La compilación del saber en la Edad Media. La Compilation du savoir au Moyen
Âge. The Compilation of Knowledge in the Middle Ages. Editado por M. J. MUÑOZ,
P. CAÑIZARES y C. MARTÍN, Porto 2013. 632 p., ISBN 978-2-503-55034-3 65 Euros
70. W. CHILDS, Trade and Shipping in the Medieval West: Portugal, Castile and
England, Porto 2013. 187 p., ISBN 978-2-503-55128-9 35 Euros
71. L. LANZA, «Ei autem qui de politia considerat ...» Aristotele nel pensiero politico
medievale, Barcelona – Madrid 2013. 305 p., ISBN 978-2-503-55127-2 49 Euros
72. «Scholastica colonialis». Reception and Development of Baroque Scholasticism
in Latin America, 16th-18th Centuries, Edited by R. H. PICH and A. S. CULLETON.
ISBN 978-2-503-55200-2 (en préparation)
73. Hagiography in Anglo-Saxon England: Adopting and Adapting Saints’ Lives into
Old English Prose (c. 950-1150), Edited by L. LAZZARI, P. LENDINARA, C. DI SCIACCA,
Barcelona – Madrid 2014. XVIII + 589 p., ISBN 978-2-503-55199-9 65 Euros
74. Dictionarium Latinum Andrologiae, Gynecologiae et Embryologiae. Diccionario
latino de andrología, ginecología y embriología (DILAGE), dir. E. MONTERO
CARTELLE. (en préparation)
75. La Typologie biblique comme forme de pensée dans l’historiographie médiévale,
sous la direction de M.T. KRETSCHMER, Turnhout 2014. XII + 279 p., ISBN 978-2-503-
55447-1 54 Euros
76. Portuguese Studies on Medieval illuminated manuscripts, Edited by M. A. MIRANDA
and A. MIGUÉLEZ CAVERO, Barcelona – Madrid 2014. XV + 195 p., ISBN 978-2-503-
55473-0 49 Euros
77. S. ALLÉS TORRENT, Las «Vitae Hannibalis et Scipionis» de Donato Acciaiuoli, traducidas
por Alfonso de Palencia (1491), III Premio de la Fundación Ana María Aldama Roy
de Estudios Latinos, Barcelona – Madrid 2014. CLXXVI + 245 p., ISBN 978-2-503-
55606-2 55 Euros
78. Guido Terreni, O. Carm. (†1342): Studies and Texts, Edited by A. FIDORA, Barcelona –
Madrid 2015. XIII + 405 p., ISBN 978-2-503-55528-7 55 Euros
79. Sigebert de Gembloux, Coordinador J.-P. STRAUS, Barcelona – Madrid 2015. ISBN
978-2-503-56519-4 (en préparation)
80. Reading sacred scripture with Thomas Aquinas. Hermeneutical tools, theological
questions and new perspectives, Edited by P. ROSZAK and J. VIJGEN, Turnhout 2015.
XVI + 601 p., ISBN 978-2-503-56227-8 65 Euros
Orders must be sent to // Les commandes sont à adresser à :

Brepols Publishers
Begijnhof 67
B-2300 Turnhout (Belgium)
Phone +32 14 44 80 30 Fax +32 14 42 89 19
http://www.brepols.net E-mail: orders@brepols.net
Imprimé par Gràfiques 92, s.a.
Barcelona

Reading Sacred Scripture With Thomas Aquinas. Hermeneutical Tools, Theological Questions and New Perspectives

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Reading Sacred Scripture With Thomas Aquinas. Hermeneutical Tools, Theological Questions and New Perspectives

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales

TEXTES ET ÉTUDES DU MOYEN ÂGE, 80

READING SACRED SCRIPTURE WITH

Piotr ROSZAK and Jörgen VIJGEN

Coordinateur du Diplôme Européen d’Études Médiévales :

READING SACRED SCRIPTURE WITH

Piotr ROSZAK and Jörgen VIJGEN

© 2015, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

Piotr ROSZAK & Jörgen VIJGEN: Towards a ‘Biblical Thomism’:

Part 1: Hermeneutical Tools

Marco PASSAROTTI, What You Can Do with Linguistically Annotated

Part 2: Theological Questions and New Perspectives

Matthew LEVERING, The Old Testament in Aquinas’s Moral Theology 349

TOWARDS A ‘BIBLICAL THOMISM’: INTRODUCTION

The theological activity of Aquinas as master in Sacred Scripture

Exegetical Practice of Thomas Aquinas», Angelicum 90 (2013) 507-534.

comprehensive understanding of Aquinas has to take into account therefore

to the increasing availability of critical editions and such seminal works

Despite these achievements, there nevertheless remains much work

Piotr Roszak focuses his attention on the function of biblical quotations,

Leo Elders examines Aquinas’s use of the Church Fathers in the

occurred, namely, in the hypostatic union. Subsequently, he studies the prior

WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH LINGUISTICALLY ANNOTATED

It was in 1949 when the late father Roberto Busa SJ (1913-2011)

Corpus Annotation and Treebanks

Annotated corpora are collections of linguistic data enhanced with

Mostly because of the great success of PSG in linguistics in the second

The Index Thomisticus Treebank

The IT-TB is a (ongoing) dependency treebank based on a subset of

a large-scale annotation of real data. In this respect, the annotation style

Circle: «l’acte syntagmatique fondamental […] est la prédication» («the

Manner etc. The ‘dialogue test’ by Panevová10 is used as the guiding

Although the IT is a morphologically tagged corpus, its morphological

ordinatur;» («So, each thing is excellently arranged when it is properly

Fig 1. An Analytical Tree Structure.

As the tectogrammatical annotation of the IT-TB has just started and no

Fig. 2. A Tectogrammatical Tree Structure23

As only autosemantic nodes can occur in TGTSs, auxiliary sentence

Querying the Index Thomisticus Treebank

The IT-TB is a language resource freely available under a Creative

TrEd and PML Tree Query

PML Tree Query (PML-TQ)28 is a query language and search engine

Fig. 3. A graphical query of analytical data.

Figure 4 reports one of the results of the above query.

Fig. 4. An ATS resulting from a query.

The sentence whose ATS is displayed in figure 4 is the following:

The query in textual mode gets written automatically by TrEd

>> for $n1.m/lemma give $1,count() sort by $2 desc,$1

The rows are ordered first by number of occurrences in descending fashion

As mentioned above, tectogrammatical annotation provides both

grammatical rules, like in the case of relative pronouns. Textual

Fig. 5. A graphical query of tectogrammatical data.

Figure 6 displays a subtree of one of the TGTSs retrieved by the above

Fig. 6. The subtree of a TGTS resulting from a query.

The subtree reported in figure 6 corresponds to a portion of the TGTS

depends ‘indirectly’ on these verbs, as echild): ordino and guberno38. In

The portion of the IT-TB annotated at the analytical layer is accessible

Query results are displayed by highlighting the treebank elements that

#0:[lemma=“sum” & edge=/.*(\_Co|\_Ap)$/] > #1:[edge=“Pnom”]

c) is labelled with function Coord (coordinating elements), or Apos

Fig. 7. The main page of Tündra.

Fig. 8. A subtree in Tündra.