�The Love of Learning and the Desire for God in Thomas Aquinas Commentary on Romans

DRAFT OF

The Love of Learning and the Desire for God

in Thomas Aquinass Commentary on Romans

Thomas F. Ryan

St. Thomas University

Miami Gardens, FL. 33054

INTRODUCTION

Contemporary reviews of medieval exegesis in general and Thomas Aquinass in particular are decidedly mixed. Over the last century, pockets of scholars have recognized the significance of the Bible for Thomass life and work. These range from experts in Aquinas to experts in medieval exegesis more generally.[1] Yet, such a view is not universally accepted. Even scholars of Aquinas tend to isolate the few texts in which he offers his theoretical insights into biblical interpretation and the theoretical questions they address.[2] Few go on to examine what he actually does in his commentaries and sermons. Super epistolam ad Romanos lectura represents an important witness to his exegetical practice since he composed it near the end of his life in Naples. Much of the rest of his work on the Pauline epistles consists of secretarial reports of his lectures (reportationes).[3] Ad Romanos stands outMoreover because he returned to the reportatio and reworked at least that on the first half of Romans so that we have his reconsiderations of at least those chapters.[4] In this paper, I will present Ad Romanos against the background of Thomass critics to highlight both the scholarly and affective character of his exegetical practice. I do so by presenting Jean Leclercq as a foil and then turning to Aquinas himself.

In his important work The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture, Jean Leclercq pens a moving encomium to monastic theology.[5] In it, he counters his contemporaries emphasis on scholasticism by redirecting attention to monasticism, and he does so by drawing distinctions between the two. To be sure, the preface to this work admits that it is an introductory work that necessarily involve[s] simplifications and broad generalizations (vii). Hence, it is unfair to take his claims about scholasticism as representative when they function as a foil for monasticism. Yet, this is an influential work, and a review of it is instructive because it contains charges often leveled against scholasticism in general and its biblical exegesis in particular.

Leclercq accepts that the monastic and scholastic milieus are not in constant opposition; they form a contrast but are also interrelated and they owe much to each other (4); they must not be too sharply opposed (263). Yet, he does prioritize monastic theology; it is a theology of admiration and therefore greater than [scholasticisms] theology of speculation (283). Leclercq further differentiates them by reviewing scholastic treatises on Scripture and indicating that they resolve problems, contain little that is personal, and advance speculative insights (5-6). Meanwhile, monastic approaches are marked by savoring, clinging, desire, and longing (6, 9). Scholastics study Scripture for its own sake by means of questions and disputations. Monastic approaches emphasize the importance of the reader, meditation, and prayer. The objective of the first is science and knowledge; of the second, wisdom and appreciation (89). Monasticism emphasized memory of Scripture that inscribes the sacred text in the body and in the soul (89). Scholasticism replaces reminiscence with a bookish and artificial approach that relies on concordances (95). The purpose of monastic hagiography is to incite to the practice of virtue and promote praise of God (194).

Critique of scholasticism and its biblical exegesis is not confined to the pages of Leclercq. Some isolate Thomas as one of the few within this tradition concerned with Scriptures literal meaning. Others critique it for being derivative; in general it lacks innovation.

The theme of biblical interpretation in the Middle Ages is so extensive that it may seem presumptuous to attempt to treat it in one brief chapter. And yet there is little in medieval interpretation that is strikingly novel. As far as interpretation is concerned, the Middle Ages are a period of transition from the old patristic exegetical theology to the divorce between biblical interpretation and theology which we find in the work of Thomas Aquinas.[6]

However, there is more to scholastic exegesis in general and Thomass in particular than their critics acknowledge. Indeed, what Leclercq finds so appealing about monasticism is present in scholasticism, at least in Thomass version of it as found in his biblical commentaries. He, too, seeks to incite virtue and promote praise. His scriptural work, including his commentary on Romans, is also marked by the love of learning and the desire for God.

AQUINAS ON THE PAULINE EPISTLES

I begin with an overview of Thomass reflections on the Pauline letters in general. Outside of the prologue to and commentaries on the epistles, Thomas speaks little ex professo about them.[7] However, commenting on Scripture in general and the Pauline epistles in particular, he does gesture toward them in his inaugural lecture on Scripture that he delivered at his inception as master at the University of Paris in 1256. In it, he characterizes the New Testament as extending gifts of grace. The gospels treat of the origin of grace in Jesus Christ while the Pauline epistles address its power and the Churchs progress in communicating that power.[8]

As with most other early and medieval commentators, Aquinas considers all letters from Romans to Hebrews to have been penned by Paul and to be something of a single work, not a haphazard collection of fourteen letters.[9] He notes that the canons ordering principle is not chronology; Romans was not the first letter written. It is placed first because of the dignity of the city of Rome and because it counters pride, the source of every sin. Moreover, Romans considers grace in itself while subsequent letters address it as it is found in the sacraments. Thus, it makes sense to consider grace in and of itself before considering its instantiations in various sacraments.

One of the most difficult features of Thomass treatment of the Pauline letters and the sort of thing that may well have led Leclercq to pen his criticisms of scholastic exegesis (speculative, impersonal, bookish, and artificialsee above) is its use of divisio textus, the division of the text into progressively smaller units to the point where individual words or phrases can be interpreted. At the most general level, Thomas (and other scholastics) took so seriously the intentionality of the canonical arrangement that he discerns careful canonical ordering.[10] Having pointed out the reasons for the arrangements of all the letters, Thomas then turns to Romans, which he divides into two major parts, the greeting and the letter proper.[11] He continues to divide the text until he is ready to interpret the letters first word, Paul (Rom. 1:1). Not only does divisio textus organize Romans (to the minutest level), it also provides a framework for remembering Thomass interpretation.[12]

Besides careful organization, another characteristic of the scholastic method is its use of questions. This is particularly evident in Thomass Summa theologiae, which consists of 512 questions, and his several collections of disputed and quodlibetal questions. Yet, elements of scholastic questions appear in the biblical commentaries as well. In this context, they can signal exegetical difficulties and provide a framework for addressing them. For example, he concludes the prologue to the commentary on the entire Pauline corpus with a counterfactual objection that suggests a question, However, it seems (sed videtur) that the letter to the Romans ought not be first. The implied question is: Why is it first? He continues with a second objection: For, it seems the letters to the Corinthians were written earlier. He signals his answer, as often in the Summa, with the phrase One ought to say or We must say that (Sed dicendum quod) Rome was the preeminent ancient city, and so on (12).[13] Other questions that Thomas poses at the conclusion of the prologue are whether the Apostle was the first to preach in Rome whence he wrote the letter. The answer to the second question contains another element characteristic of the scholastic method and of Thomass biblical exegesis, the use of and respect for authorities: Augustine claims that he wrote it from Athens while Jerome claims from Corinth. This is not a contradiction because perhaps he began to write it in Athens and completed it in Corinth (14).

The love of learning finds expression in other ways in Thomas and in the 13^th century. Thomas, for example, can base his arguments on textual differences. For example, he recognizes the differences among Pauls quote of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17 (the just live by faith), the Latin translation of the Hebrew (the just live by their faith), and the Septuagints version, which, incidentally, is cited in Hebrews 10:38, (My [i.e., Gods] just live by faith). While recognizing the differences, Thomas seems to prefer the Septuagints reading for the priority it gives to God. They are called my [i.e., Gods] just, that is, justified by me and reputed just before me. [14] Counterintuitively, he follows what he knows to be an alternate, less accurate reading because it allows him to illuminate humanitys relationship to God. That is, his love of learning that drove the critical move to examine a range of readings steered him toward love of God; humans are made righteous in faith because of Gods gracious initiatives.

As noted above, a byproduct of Leclercqs defense of monastic theology is his critique of scholastic theology; however, the latter was not his main focus. Yet, his critique can serve as a catalyst for probing questions about Thomass exegesis. Is divisio textus simply an innocuous organizational strategy, or does it so overwhelm the biblical text that it drains all life from it? Do the scholastic-style questions introduce a speculative note into his exegesis so that it promotes the love of learning at the expense of the desire for God? I will devote the remainder of this paper to the second question and to arguing that the love of learning and the desire for God enhance each other mutually in Aquinass prologue to the Pauline epistles and in Ad Romanos. The desire for God takes place and is advanced within the context of the love of learning.

One of the striking features of the prologue to the Pauline epistles when compared to its predecessors is its attention to the authors themselves, including Paul, of Scripture. One feature that marks earlier commentaries is their emphasis on opponents. That is, prologues to the Pauline letters tend to isolate Jews and heretics as those against whom the commentaries are directed. William of St. Thierry (+~1148) states that Paul defended Gods glory against the Jews, and the apostolic fathers everywhere defended it against heretics.[15] For Peter Abelard (+1142), Gentiles in Pauls audience thought highly of themselves, Jews were extremely arrogant.[16] Peter Lombard (+1160) speaks of the Epistles of Paul as being especially useful in defending against heretical depravities. He also tends to emphasize human sinfulness. Like Thomas, he compares the Pauline letters to the Davidic Psalms. However, the Lombard identifies David as a murderer and an adulterer and Paul as a persecutor.[17] Then, in a section shared by other prologues, including that of the Glossa ordinaria, he includes an imagined dialogue between Roman Jews and Gentiles that sought to identify who merited Gods grace. Of course, the answer is neither does, but in the course of the dialogue, the author describes the Jews as puffed up (1300), and he imagines them as singing their own praises. The gentile participants in this dialogue build themselves us up at the expense of the Jews who are described as falling into idolatry, angering God, and killing Christ (Christum . . . occidistis, 1301).

Thomas includes many of these same elements, but he downplays them as if to turn our attention elsewhere. He speaks of Davids sin and of Paul who received mercy (6). He refers to errors and heretics, but it is only Colossians that addresses the former and Titus the latter (11).[18] The worst he has to say about Jews in the prologue is that Paul disputed with them about Christ (9).[19]

Another common feature of many prologues is the concern about genre, a concern that arises from the attempt to explain the New Testaments canonical order. The vulgates prologue to the Pauline letters, attributed to Jerome but composed by Pelagius, precedes many commentaries such as the Glossa ordinarias and Hugh of St. Chers (+1264). It opens by asking, First, why after the Gospels, which are a supplement to the Law and contain examples and precepts for living, did the Apostle wish to address these letters to individual churches? This arrangement resembles the Old Testaments since, in it the prophets example follows the law of Moses, in which all Gods commandments are collected.[20] This prologue conceives of law and gospel as genres. The former is associated with a person, Moses, but the emphasis is textual. It focuses more on the place in which the laws are read or collected (legebantur) than on the one who disseminated them.

Similarly, Peter Abelard begins his prologue by discussing the intention of Holy Scripture (to teach and to move) and then identifying the various kinds of teaching in the Old Testament: the Law (contained in the five books of Moses), and the prophetical and historical books together with the other Scriptures. He continues with the New Testament. The Gospel takes the place of the Law, the Epistles and the Apocalypse take the place of the prophets, [t]he Acts of the Apostles and the various narrative accounts in the Gospel contain episodes of sacred history (Abelard, 100-101). Likewise, Peter Lombard speaks of the Old Testament, the mosaic Law, prophetic doctrine, the New Testament, the Gospel, the epistles of Paul and others.[21]

In contrast, to his predecessors, Thomas focuses his prologue on the person of Paul and not his office as apostle.[22] The prologue has a personalist touch that its very first word (humans) points to. Of the thirty-two times that the word Paul appears in both the prologue and Ad Romanos, six (almost 20%) of those times are in the prologue. In contrast, apostle appears in the prologue five out of a total of 329 times (1.5%).

Thomas devotes more than half of the prologue to praise of Paul the human being. As was the scholastic style and much as a preacher, Thomas begins his prologue with a scriptural text, Acts 9:15, This man [Paul] is for me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. He presents Paul, as vessel, in terms of makeup, contents, use, and fruit. Like shining gold, his wisdom shone forth. He was solid with the virtue of charity and ornate with other virtues. He was filled with the name of Christ, not only in intellect and affect but also in his whole way of life. A vessel and its contents are used for something. In this case, Paul imitated Christ bodily, by speaking of him and by communicating his grace and mercy. The fruit of this vessel are the letters he wrote.[23]

While Thomas reflects at length on the person of Paul, his emphasis on the authors of Scripture extends beyond Paul. Most other prologues compare the epistles to the prophets. Just as the prophets follow Moses, so the epistles follow the Gospels to tease out the latters implications. To be more precise, other prologues speak of genres. Following the law, the genre of prophetic writing serves to both restrain and encourage, according to the Lombard (1297). In contrast, Thomas emphasizes Moses, the prophets, and Paul, not as genres but as persons. I quote at length:

As in the Old Testament, after the law of Moses are read the prophets who handed on the teaching of the law to the people, according to Malachi 4:4, Remember Moses, my servant. So also in the New Testament, after the Gospel is read the teaching of the apostles who handed on to the faithful what they heard from the Lord according to 1 Corinthians 11:23, I received from the Lord what I also have handed on to you.[24]

The quote from Malachi emphasizes the person Moses. At first, Thomas seems to be talking about the prophets as texts because of the words are read (leguntur). However, he goes on to speak of them as having handed on (tradebant) the teaching of the law. He uses the same word to describe the work of the apostles who handed on (tradiderunt) what they heard from the Lord. Thus, Moses, the prophets, and Paul are, for Thomas, human beings. He needs to make this point because, I suggest, it relates to his purpose. He proposes a model for his audience, not of how to write but how to live. Thus, he speaks not of genres but of people because he presents them, and particularly the apostle Paul, as models for his audience to emulate. Hence, the scholastic form of prologue gives Thomas the means by which to sketch a portrait of Paul who can serve as a model of the vita apostolica.[25]

As with other religious orders, the Dominicans sought to live the apostolic life, the vita apostolica, exemplified in Matthew 10 by the twelve who are sent out without money, sacks, or walking sticks (Mt. 10:9-10). Yet the meaning of this text could differ. The Dominican Simon Tugwell argues that medieval Franciscans tended to highlight the first part, the vita, while medieval members of his own order tended to highlight the second. The former placed greater emphasis on their whole way of life, while Dominicans utilized their way of life, including mendicancy, as a tool in the service of their apostolate.[26] I will devote the rest of this paper to teasing out themes in Ad Romanos that are related to the apostolic life and that are given prominence by Thomas use of elements of scholastic questions.

AQUINAS ON ROMANS

As noted above, Thomas employs elements of scholastic questions to address difficulties that arise in the course of interpretation. In addition, these elements allow him to draw attention to particular themes. This practice can be disconcerting to contemporary readers because they tend to disrupt the commentarys narrative flow and often veer off on tangents that seem to abandon the biblical text. In this section, I will survey a number of such disruptions to determine their function, especially with regard to the relationships among Paul, the apostles, Christ, and Thomass Dominican audience.[27]

In his reading of Romans 8:23 (Not only [creation] but also we ourselves who have the first-fruits of the Spirit), Thomas uses elements of scholastic-type questions to draw attention to the theme of apostle and its value as a model for his audience. Before introducing these elements, he follows his predecessors, such as Peter Lombard, in taking the we and its modifying phrase who have the first fruits of the Holy Spirit to refer to the apostles because they had the Holy Spirit prior in time and more abundantly than others. Unlike his predecessors, Thomas adds scriptural evidence from Jeremiah 22:3 and Hebrews 12:23 in support of his claim. He also expounds on the ways in which apostles excel over others; they outshine all other saints by any standard, whether in terms of virginity, doctrine, or martyrdom (676).

As in questions in the Summa theologiae, he then acknowledges an objection. Some can say that, because of Christ, other saints have put up with greater torments and austerities than the apostles. With words resembling those that launch the body of articles in the Summa theologiae, Thomas states But, we must observe that (Sed sciendum est quod ) humans are not judged on quantity or extent of their works but on their joy, whose source is God, in doing them. They rejoice more who love more. The apostles did what they did out of such great love, and they had the heart for doing much greater things if there had been the opportunity (677).

Perhaps anticipating a charge of works righteousness, Thomas introduces a second objection. Someone might say that people can attempt to have love equal to the apostles. He responds, we must say (dicendum) that this love comes not from humans themselves but from God. Love stems from grace, and grace from election. After Jesus in his humanity and Mary chosen (electa) as mother of Christ, the apostles are chosen (electi) for greater dignity. That is, they received grace more abundantly because they obtained immediately from Christ himself what pertains to salvation and then passed it on to others. Therefore, the Church was founded on them (678).[28]

Paul leaves no indication whom he means by we here, but Thomas follows the tradition of associating this term with the apostles. However, he goes beyond the tradition, and the Romans text, by probing what it means to be an apostle, and he does so by means of the elements of a scholastic question noted above. He devotes almost an entire column of the Marietti edition of Ad Romanos to them. By doing so, he respects the tradition and advances beyond it by articulating models for and implications of apostleship. His extensive answer is suggestive of his focus on the vita apostolica and its prototypes, the apostles, as models for his audience.

As noted above, medieval prologues to the Pauline letters tend to associate prophetic with epistolary literature in the Bible because the former disseminated Moses teaching while the latter did so with Gospel teaching. In his prologue, Thomas associates the prophets themselves with the apostles, and he does the same and more in the commentary. Though he acknowledges Pauls references to prophets in Romans, he generally does not dwell at length on them. For example on Romans 1:1-2 (the Gospel of God that was promised before by Gods prophets in the Holy Scriptures), Thomas simply points out that prophets words are fulfilled in the New Testament and that not all prophets are Gods (26). He says little more in response to the occurrence of prophets in Romans 3:21 (301). In Romans 11:2-3, Paul notes that Elijah pleaded with God against Israel. This passage leads Thomas to introduce an element similar to one contained in a scholastic question, We must understand (Sed intelligendum) that prophets plead against people in three ways; he then briefly lists those ways (865-66).

Thomass most extended reflection on prophecy (one column in the Marietti edition) appears in response to Pauls discussion of the body of Christ and the different gifts that proceed from Christs grace: prophecy, ministry, teaching, giving, ruling, and caring (Rom. 12:5-8). Thomas offers cursory reflections on most of these. However, he deliberates at some length on the first, prophecy.[29] He begins with a discussion of what prophecy concernsfuture contingents. God is knowledgeable of these, but they are distant from human knowledge. Prophecy, as commonly understood, also reveals secrets.[30] Thomas then turns to the location and task of prophecy. This gift was not only in the Old Testament but also in the New. Joel 2:28, I will pour out my spirit on all flesh, and your sons will prophesy. As an aside, the biblical text states, your sons and your daughters will prophesy; Thomas here eliminates your daughters. Prophecys purpose in the New Testament is scriptural interpretation. They are called prophets in the New Testament who expound prophetic sayings because sacred scripture is interpreted in the same spirit that composed it. Sirach 24:46, I will yet pour out teaching as prophecy. Thomas goes on to say that prophecy functions to build up, to confirm the faith (978-79). Here he addresses not only the phenomenon of prophecy but also prophets themselves. For him, they are not confined to the Old Testament but are also found in the New. By restricting prophecy to men alone in his citation of Sirach, he may be thinking that prophecy continues yet among his Dominican confreres.

Indeed, Thomas explicitly collapses the office of prophet with that of apostle in the person of the apostle, Paul. He does so in Romans 15:28 where he worries, as those before him had, that Paul was misleading or at least misled when he states that he would travel to Spain, which he never did. Thomas devotes practically an entire column to scriptural and papal support (James, 2 Corinthians, and Pope Gelasius) in the service of Pauls integrity. Finally, he admits that prophets dont always get it right. Granted he had a prophetic spirit, but not all things are revealed to prophets as is clear from 2 Kings 4:27 where Elisha states, the Lord has concealed it from me and has not informed me (1186). Thus, Paul, the model for the vita apostolica was himself prophetic, which suggests that Dominicans should be as well.

This papers focus on the apostle Paul instead of on Jesus Christ may confirm suspicions about the marginalization of Christ among medieval Dominicans. Indeed, in the past, scholars often differentiated Franciscans from Dominicans by distinguishing between their Christocentric and Theocentric spiritualities respectively.[31] Scholars are less likely to take this position today, and a careful reading of Thomass biblical commentaries would reveal the problems with it.

Indeed, the main model for Dominicans is Christ whom Thomas links with apostleship in Ad Romanos. He does so early on, in his commentary on Romans 1:4-5 (our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have received grace and apostleship), and he makes the point that Paul is so powerful a model because of his dependence on and imitation of Christ. Again, it is instructive to compare Thomass treatment of Romans 1:5 with that of his predecessors. Peter Lombard concludes his interpretation of apostleship in two words but devotes more than nine columns in the Migne edition to christological reflections associated with these verses. The Glossa ordinaria interprets this term with four words in the interlinear gloss but not at all in the marginal gloss.

In contrast, Thomas devotes more than a column to describing apostleship and its link to Christ. Though he does not employ elements of a scholastic question here, he does depart on a brief and scripturally informed excursus on apostleship and apostle, which, he notes, means sent. Christ sent [the apostles] as though bearing his office and authority. He then implies Jesus apostleship because, as John 20:21 indicates, he too was sent. Just as the Father has sent me; so I also send you, that is, with the fullness of authority. Then Thomas collapses Christ and apostleship. Thus, Christ himself is called apostle, Hebrews 3:1, Consider the apostle and high priest Jesus Christ (61).

Thomas then returns to the text of Romans 1:5 and discerns within it an enumeration of four characteristics of apostleship. First, Paul suggests its usefulness when he adds for obedience to the faith. Thomas continues with a first-person paraphrase of Paul, It is as if he said, For this were we sent, that we might move peoples wills to believe. Second, he proposes the extent of their work with the words among all the nations (62). Third, he addresses the fullness [of apostleships] power when he adds, for his name, namely for his office and authority. Thomas continues, For as Christ is said to have come in the name of the Father, John 20:21, as though having the Fathers full power, so also the apostles are said to have come in Christs name, as if in the person of Christ. Thomas also admits that the words for his name could refer to the purpose of apostleship; it seeks to disseminate Christ name, not to gain some earthly reward for itself. Acts 9:15, He is for me a vessel of election to carry my name in order to exhort the faithful saying, Do all in the name of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17) (64).

This passage brings us full circle back to the prologue where we learned that Paul was filled with Christs name. This is not simply a passive condition. To be filled is to be sent, as the Son is by the Father, and the sending marks the one sent with the power of office and authority. Furthermore, this condition is not meant as a reward to its recipient but for building up the other, the faithful, through exhortation to do all in Christs name, as Colossians states. That is, filled with Christs name, apostles do not keep it for themselves but hand it on so that, empowered by this name, others may, hopefully, do the same.

Paul concludes by clinching the relationship between Christ and the apostles. As already noted, the latter exhort the faithful in the name, by the power, and bearing the office and authority of the former. The fourth characteristic of apostleship is power over the exalted in the audience. In the words of Isaiah 26:5-6, He will humble the exalted city. The poor persons, namely Christs, foot and the needy persons, namely the apostles and especially Peters and Pauls, step will trample it down (65). That is, the apostles carry on the Sons work. What is left unsaid but clearly implied is that Thomass Dominican audience, living as it did the vita apostolica, should imitate the apostles in exhorting the faithful in the name, by the power, and bearing the office and authority of Jesus Christ.

CONCLUSION

The elements of scholastic-type questions and the extended excurses examined above do not simply respond to textual difficulties. To be sure, they do that. For example, Paul does not identify the we in Romans 8:23. This is a difficulty to which Thomas brings to bear his scholastic apparatus. Yet he does not stop once he names the referent of we. He continues to wonder about apostles and, in doing so, departs from direct consideration of this verse. How do apostles compare with other saints, and are they the sources of their own goodness? Thomas does not, however, depart from Scripture. He cites biblical authorities, in this case Jeremiah 22:3 and Hebrews 12:23, in support of his claims. In a sense, he does not even depart from Romans because by enriching our understanding of apostle, he advances our understanding of this letters author.

As noted above, a byproduct of Jean Leclercqs praise of monastic theology is his critique of scholastic theology. It contains little that is personal; it is speculative and bookish. Yet, we should not take this to mean that Thomas Aquinas, a representative of scholastic theology, is uninterested in the implications of his exegesis for his audience. Indeed, he emphasizes the personal over the generic in his review of the Pauline epistles in his prologue, and the person is more imitable than the genre. He disrupts the narrative flow of his commentary to link apostles with prophets on the one hand and with Christ on the other. Surely, this would resonate with the members of his audience who sought to live a Dominican version of the vita apostolica. Thus, Thomas pursues an agenda, an educational agenda. He seeks to form his students so that they can then go out and preach, and he does so by aligning their work with the apostles, prophets, and Christs. As Leclercq suggests, Thomass exegesis does contain questions and reflect disputations; it is informed by concordances. It can be speculative and bookish, but it is so, like monastic theology, for the purpose of inciting to the practice of virtue and promot[ing] praise of God.

[1] For a recent overview of appraisals of Thomass exegesis, see the introduction, chapters 1 and 2 of Christopher T. Baglow, Modus et Forma: A New Approach to the Exegesis of Saint Thomas Aquinas with an Application to the Lectura super Epistolam ad Ephesios (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2002).

[2] Thomas addresses his exegetical principles most extensively in Summa theologiae (STh) I.1.9-10, Quaestiones quodlibetales VII.14-16, and De Potentia 4.1.

[3] Beryl Smalley notes that it is no accident that the two favourite books for commentators [from the eleventh and early twelfth century on] were the Psalter and the Pauline Epistles, the creative energy being centered in the latter; St. Paul provided the richest nourishment to the theologian and logician. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1964) 77.

[4] Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person and His Work, tr. R. Royal (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1996) 250-57. Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistolas s. Pauli lectura, ed. R. Cai (Turin: Marietti, 1953) 1. Numbers in parentheses refer to paragraph numbers of the prologue (volume 1, pages 1-3) and of the commentary (volume 1, pages 5-230) in this edition. Translations of Scripture follow Thomass biblical text as it appears in Ad Romanos.

[5] Jean Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture, tr. C. Misrahi. New York: Fordham University Press, 1961.

[6] Robert Grant, David Tracy, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible, 2^nd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 83.

[7] For extensive reflections on the prologue to the Pauline corpus, see Eugene F. Rogers, Jr., Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth: Sacred Doctrine and the Natural Knowledge of God (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995) 73-95.

[8] Thomas Aquinas, Principium biblicum in Thomae aquinatis opera omnia [cum hypertextibus in CD-ROM], ed. R. Busa (Milan: Trend/Thomistica, 1996).

[9] Thomas accepts the Pauline authorship of the fourteen letters. However, he is aware, like many before him, of doubts about such an attribution when it comes to Hebrews. Hence, he devotes a third of his prologue for Ad Hebraeos to rehearsing and responding to these doubts. Super epistolam ad Hebraeos lectura, in Super Epistolas s. Pauli lectura, 2.336.

[10] Here is a translation of Thomass overview of the Pauline corpus as found in the prologue to the Pauline commentaries:

Paul wrote fourteen letters. Nine instruct the Church of the Gentiles, four the leaders and princes of the Church, that is rulers, and one the people of Israel, namely the letter to the Hebrews. This teaching is entirely about the grace of Christ, which can be considered from three perspectives. It can be considered insofar as grace is in the head, namely in Christ, thus is it commended in the letter to the Hebrews. It is also in the principal members of the mystical body, and thus is it commended in the letters addressed to the prelates. Third, it is in the mystical body itself, the Church, and thus is it commended in the letters sent to the Gentiles. Here is their division. The grace of Christ can be considered in three ways. In one way, in itself, and thus is it commended in the letter to the Romans. It is also in the sacraments of grace, and thus is it commended in the two letters to the Corinthiansthe first of which deals with sacraments themselves and the second with the dignity of ministersand in the epistle to the Galatians, which excludes, in opposition to those who sought to add old sacraments to the new, surplus sacraments. Third, Christs grace is considered according to the effect of unity that it has produced in the Church. Therefore, the Apostle first treats of the institution of ecclesiastical unity in the letter to the Ephesians and, second, its confirmation and progress in the epistle to the Philippians. Third, he addresses defense of it against errors in the epistle to the Colossians, against present persecution in 1 Thessalonians, and against future persecutions especially in the time of the antichrist in 2 Thessalonians. He instructed leaders of the Churches, both spiritual and temporal. He taught the spiritual leaders about the institution, instruction, and governance of ecclesiastical unity in 1 Timothy, about firmness against persecutors in 2 Timothy, and about defense against heretics in the epistle to Titus. He taught temporal lords in the epistle to Philemon. And so, the rationale behind the division and order of the epistles is evident.

[11] The commentary on Romans begins with the following:

This Epistle is divided into two parts: into a greeting and into the epistle proper, which begins with the words, First indeed (Rom. 1:8). The letter first describes the author, second the persons greeted where he says, To all who are at Rome (Rom. 1:7), third the greeting itself, Grace to you (Rom. 1.7). Concerning the first [the author], he does two things. First, he describes the person of the author. Second, he commends his office with the words, Which he had promised before, etc. (Rom. 1:2).

[12] For a schema of how Thomas divides Ad Romanos, see Super epistolas s. Pauli lectura, 1.651-67. On divisio textus, see John F. Boyle, The Theological Character of the Scholastic Division of the Text with Particular Reference to the Commentaries of St. Thomas Aquinas in With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, eds. J. McAuliffe, B. Walfish, J. Goering (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003) 276-83.

[13] Thomas generally begins the body of each of the Summas articles with Respondeo, dicendum quod and the responses to objections with Ad primum (secundum, etc.) ergo dicendum quod.

[14] Probat autem hanc expositionem cum subdit sicut scripturm est Iustus autem meus ex fide vivit. Quod quidem accipitur secundum litteram LXX. Nam in littera nostra, quae est secundum hebraicam veritatem, dicitur Iustus ex fide sua vivit. Dicitur autem iustus meus, scilicet a me iustificatus et apud me iustus reputatus. (104). Thomas does not actually cite Pauls quote of Habakkuk (justus autem ex fide vivit) in Ad Romanos, but he knows of this version since he cites it elsewhere, for example in STh II-II.12.1 ad 2 and III.66.1 ad 1. For the growing number of scholarly tools available for biblical study in the 13^th-century, see the work of Mary A. and Richard Rouse, Statim Invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page in Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991) 191-219.

[15] William of Saint Thierry, Exposition on the Epistle to the Romans, tr. J. B. Hasbrouck (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1980) 16.

[16] Peter Abelard, Commentary on St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans: Prologue and the Beginning of Commentary in Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism c. 1100-1375: The Commentary Tradition, ed. A.J. Minnis, A. B. Scott (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) 100.

[17] Peter Lombard, In omnes d. Pauli apostoli epistolas, Patrologia latinae, ed. J. P. Migne, 191.1297-98.

[18] In Ad Romanos, as elsewhere, Thomas is concerned about heresies. In his discussion of Romans 1:3, he devotes almost an entire column in the Marietti edition to three heresies concerning Christs Sonship (30-33).

[19] As might be expected, Thomas dwells at some length on Jewish-Gentile relations in his commentary on Romans 9-11.

[20] Biblia sacra: juxta vulgatam versionem, ed. R. Weber and B. Fisher (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983) 1748. The Bible Thomas used more closely resembles this edition of the Vulgate than modern scholarly editions. Pelagius prologue is found elsewhere, such as in the Biblia latina cum glossa ordinaria: Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81, ed. K. Froehlich and M.T. Gibson (Brepols: Turnhout, 1992) 4.271. Hugh of St. Cher, Postilla super epistolas B. Pauli ad Romanos in Opera omnia in universum vetus et novum testamentum, 7.2.

[21] Lombard, 1297. An exception in this area is William of St. Thierry who makes no mention of genre but is at pains to point out the derivative character of his commentary. It is not original not founded on novelty. It is based instead on Augustine, Ambrose, Origen, and some other learned men, even some masters of our own day, who, we are certain, have not in any way transgressed the limits set by the fathers (15).

[22] For the growing importance of the human author of Scripture in the 13^th-century, see General Introduction, Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism, 3.

[23] Similarly, Hugh of St. Cher organizes his prologue around a scriptural text, in this case the description of Benjamin in Genesis 49:27, Benjamin a ravenous wolf, in the morning shall eat the prey and in the evening shall divide the spoil. Hugh then points out seven ways in which Paul is signified by Benjamin (2v).

[24] Et sicut in Veteri Testamento post legem Moysi leguntur prophetae, qui legis doctrinam populo tradebantsecundum illud Mal. 4:4, Mementote Moysi servi meiita etiam in Novo Testamento, post Evangelium, legitur Apostolorum doctrina, qui ea quae a Domino audierunt, tradiderunt fidelibus, secundum illud 1 Corinthians 11:23, Accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis (4).

[25] On the image of Paul in Thomass theology and on his prologue to the Pauline corpus, see Otto Hermann Pesch, Paul as Professor of Theology. The Image of the Apostle in St. Thomass Theology, Thomist 38 (1974): 584-605. In a mid-thirteenth century work, Dominican Thomas of Cantimpré writes of Paul as model, I am simply constrained to reply to [mendicants] critics, who consider these new religious Orders to be superstitious and silly, and reckon their traveling round to be frivolous; to use their own word, they call the friars gyrovagues. Well, my brethren, you need not be ashamed to be called or to be gyrovagues. You are in the company of Paul, the teacher of the nations, who completed the preaching of the gospel all the way from Spain to Illyria. While they sit at home in their monasteriesand let us hope that it is with Maryyou go touring round with Paul, doing the job you have been given to do. Thomas of Cantimpré, Defense of the Mendicants, Early Dominicans: Selected Writings, ed. S. Tugwell (New York: Paulist, 1982) 134.

[26] Simon Tugwell, Introduction to Early Dominicans, 19. On Franciscan Peter Olivis reading of Matthew 10 in contrast to Thomas Aquinass account of apostolic poverty, see Kevin Madigan, Olivi and the Interpretation of Matthew in the High Middle Ages (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003) 105-13.

[27] Thomas depicts Paul as something of a kindred spirit who himself poses scholastic-type questions. Thus, in Romans 8:35, Paul asks, Who therefore will separate us from the love of Christ? Of Paul, Thomas states that he first proposes a question, then shows the necessity of the proposed question and then offers a solution (721).

[28] Though Thomas is more frequently portrayed holding a book, iconography does include him supportingproviding a foundation fora church building on top of a book.

[29] Thomas devotes several questions to this topic in his Summa theologiae; see STh II-II.171-174. For Thomas on prophecy, see Jean Pierre Torrell, La traité de la prophétie de S. Thomas dAquin, Recherches sur la théorie de la prophétie au moyen age, xiie-xive siècles: etudes et textes (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 1992) 205-31.

[30] Thomas may undertake such an extended discussion of prophecy as knowledge of future contingents because the glosses seem to associate this better and more technical understanding with a more popularly held one. Thus, the Lombard seems to equate the two when he claims that prophecy is the revelation either of future things or of secrets (1499-1500).

[31] Introduction to Christ Among the Medieval Dominicans: Representations of Christ in the Texts and Images of the Order of Preachers, eds. K. Emery and J. Wawrykow (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1998) 1.