Who said it first, Thomas or Rambam?

In a famous article (Theology Today 38 [1981]), Avery Dulles (now Cardinal) examined a book entitled The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible (1979), by Jack Rogers and Donald McKim. He found it wanting. He notes, for example, that “they make a questionable appeal to the patristic doctrine of divine condescension (synkatabasis) or accommodation to allow for the possibility of error in the Bible.” He avers, furthermore, that the authors explain away Augustine’s strong affirmations of biblical inerrancy. Still, Dulles appreciates the motivation behind McKim and Rogers' book. Dulles’s conclusion is worth citing in full:

It is hard to disagree with Rogers' and McKim's proposal to combine contemporary critical scholarship with a return to the richer theology of the "central Christian tradition," but the details of this proposal need to be elaborated in a more systematic work. The rigid doctrine of inerrancy, as taught in nineteenth century scholasticism and contemporary fundamentalism, has been frequently refuted to the satisfaction of most mainline Christians. But deeper reflection is in order to show whether or how the Bible, notwithstanding the misstatements it contains, can still serve as an inviolable norm of faith. We shall have to ask more urgently than this book does what kind of truth should be sought from the Bible.

So that is the question: what kind of truth should we seek from the Bible? Here is the answer of Thomas Aquinas:

unde omnia illa quorum cognitio potest esse utilis ad salutem est materia prophetiae, sive sint praeterita, sive praesentia sive futura, sive etiam aeterna, sive necessaria, sive contingentia. Illa vero quae ad salutem pertinere non possunt, sunt extranea a materia prophetiae - [De Veritate, 12. A. 2. C. Go here for the context]

Therefore, all those things the knowledge of which can be useful for salvation are the matter of prophecy, whether they are past, or future, or even eternal, or necessary, or contingent. But those things which cannot pertain to salvation are outside the matter of prophecy – [St. Thomas, "On Truth," Q. 12, A. 2, C. Go here for the context]

 The concrete example Thomas goes on to give, citing Augustine, is astronomy. The Bible is not where we should look, says Thomas, for scientific information about the shape of heaven.

Rambam, I imagine, made a similar distinction before Thomas did, though I can't cite chapter and verse. It is the kind of distinction one  expects someone with some Aristotle in his bones to make.   

Comments

[Iyov]

It is not that easy.

Rambam made some statements that seem to suggest your opinion (such as his commentary to Genesis 2:4) but then made many more statements that seem to support Biblical inerrancy (contrast with Moreh Nevuchim 3.50). In any case, it is clear from Moreh Nevuchim that Rambam viewed as Aristotle as consistent with the Bible.

Similarly, I think your quote from Aquinas misrepresents his total view. One doesn't need to go very far to see this -- it is Part 1, Question 1, Article 1 in the Summa Theologica.

So, I think that capturing "sound bites" from Aquinas or Maimonides or other medieval philosophers to support your view is not quite fair -- they need to be read in entirety. I think it is safest to say that both Aquinas and Maimonides believed that Biblical interpretation only was valid insofar as it existed in a framework of traditional exegesis -- which seems to a topic not directly related to the point you are making here.

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Iyov,

for the references. As for your reference to the well-known beginning of the Summa, are you saying that that passage stands in contradiction to the one I quoted? I don't see that. They seem fully compatible to me.

As far as Rambam is concerned, in some passages he expresses himself freely; in others, rather guardedly, in accordance with past tradition. I'm not sure you are taking that sufficiently into account.

[Iyov]

John, I think you are being deliberately contrary for the sake of the pleasure of argument.

Look at the sed contra; Aquinas quotes Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum, ad aguendum, ad corripiendum, ad erudiendum ad justitiam. Later, in Ia. I, 10, he amplifies considerably (e.g., at ad. 3: In quo patet quot sensui litterali sacrae Scripturae nunquam potest subess falsum.) See also Auqinas II Tim. 3, lect. 3 and Quodlibets VII, 6, 14-16.

Aquinas clearly held, as did Rambam, that the Bible should be interpreted in different sense, including figurative senses (thus, it is anthropomorphic heresy to claim that God has a hand and sits down.) However, to hold that Aquinas viewed the Bible as variable in truth depending on its "salvation" value is to distort his perspective considerably.

Finally, as you are undoubtedly aware, Aquinas has two theories of prophecy (you misplace the context Aquinas distinguishes Biblical and post-Biblical prophecy -- see the very work you quote): that discussed in his explanation of secondary causality and his special treatment of inspiration through special graces or charisms gratiae gratis datae. See ST 2a2ae. 171-8.

You are usually careful and nuanced in your remarks, and it is surprising for me to see you take such a simplistic view of Aquinas.

[JohnFH]

Iyov, I appreciate your valiant attempts to keep me on the straight and narrow. But I remain unconvinced by your claim that I quote Thomas without regard to context and without due consideration of other statements Thomas makes. Surely you are right that Thomas asserted that Scripture is entirely trustworthy. I do no less, nor do I suggest that Thomas does any less.

For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume that you’re right and that I misquote Thomas. I would then reply: at least I’m in good company. The official Catholic teaching on the subject, Dei Verbum, quotes the same passage of Thomas in a footnote to its section 11, and exactly to the same effect.

Here is the key graph from the document:

Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.

And what readeth the official footnote? Here it is:

cf. St. Augustine, "Gen. ad Litt." 2, 9, 20:PL 34, 270-271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, "On Truth," Q. 12, A. 2.

[Let’s see if I can sneak that past Iyov. . . . Oh, I give up. Better to quote an authority that he will probably refrain from contradicting.]. Here is Avery Cardinal Dulles’s commentary thereto:

While some commentators interpret this sentence as excluding all error from the Bible, it may be read as asserting that, while there may be erroneous statements here or there, they are corrected elsewhere or do not affect the meaning of the whole. Further, the Council’s statement might seem to allow for errors in matters without importance for our salvation.

Note that Dulles refrains from adjudicating between the possible interpretations. When a teacher under ordination does that, Jewish, Christian, or otherwise, you know what that means. He is tracing the bounds of acceptable diversity of opinion. (Avery Dulles, “Scripture: Recent Protestant and Catholic Views,” Theology Today, Vol. 37, No. 1, April 1980 http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1980/v37-1-article1.htm).

I might return to Thomas at some point, because he, like Rambam, is of a different ilk than many of his epigonous disciples. Thomas (passim) acknowledged a variety of knowledge sources and means to arriving at knowledge. He is light years away from those inerrantists today – both Judaism and Christianity have them in not insignificant numbers - who cannot imagine, for example, the possibility that creation correctly understood and evolution correctly understood might be compatible elements of a unified theory. I can’t see Thomas being bothered by this possibility. He looked outside the Bible, not within it, when he wanted to know what shape heaven might have.

Thomas aimed at synthesis. He was not an either/or thinker.

[Iyov]

John, I must express consternation at your style of argument.

What Dulles (who was not Cardinal in 1980) thought or did not think about Aquinas is of no moment to the the question of the historical Aquinas. Dulles is reinterpreting Aquinas for a Vatican II Church.

Similarly it is anachronistic to quote Dei Verbum, often considered the most important constitution emerging from Vatican II, to understand the historical Aquinas. (I hardly need mention that Dei Verbum is one of the most criticized of the Vatican II documents -- Joseph Ratzinger has written that it is "illogical" and "confused".)

So, if you mean to say: Vatican II has re-interpreted Aquinas to support a "moderate" position on Biblical reliability, I am forced to agree. However, if you claim that Vatican II was merely implementing Aquinas's clearly expressed views, I must ask you: given the great influence of the Angelic and Universal Doctor, why did it take the Church seven and a half centuries to suddenly discover what he was saying?

You mentioned the Constitution in a previous post. Is it your view that when the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it sheds light on the opinions of the Framers?

[JohnFH]

Very good, Iyov. I concede your excellent point that:

What [a teaching authority thinks or does not think] about Aquinas is [per se] of no moment to the the question of the historical Aquinas.

We are coming to a consensus. I agree that Vatican II interpreted Aquinas in a way that clashed with how he was interpreted by, e.g., previous popes only a few decades before. Thus it is true that Vatican II re-interpreted Aquinas to support a "moderate" position on biblical reliability. So far so good.

But, chronological proximity to an author no more guarantees correct interpretation of an author than chronological distance precludes it.

I'm not much of a Thomist, I admit, and I will defer to the authority of a Thomist on the subject matter if you can direct me to one - I wouldn't be surprised, however, if the matter is disputed. I'm more familiar with the history of interpretation of Luther and Calvin, and yes, it definitely has taken several centuries on occasion to return to a correct interpretation of their words. Do you find that surprising?

I like it, by the way, when you quote Latin w/o translation. It is boorish to provide an English translation. On the other hand, translation is necessary should you wish to include most potential readers of these comments in the conversation.

As for your last rhetorical question, I answer "yes" without hesitation. Not necessarily, but conceivably - and occasionally, without question: later interpreters of an author see implications the author himself would never have imagined. Pelikan in the book I've been touting develops this thesis with care. The same assumption governs the explication of Torah by the sages past and present.

[Iyov]

Ah, but John, surely you know that God gave two Torahs at Sinai, one written and one oral. (I am just tweaking you with this paragraph -- I do not want to debate this point now.)

You write: chronological proximity to an author no more guarantees correct interpretation of an author than chronological distance precludes it.

No guarantees here. But don't you think proximity in time and culture makes it more likely that two people had a similar weltanshaung?

[JohnFH]

Thanks for the friendly conversation, Iyov.

Your point about the dual Torah is well-taken. I actually take the claim seriously. In the same way, a Catholic would say that Vatican II contains Spirit-filled interpretation of Thomas. Once again, I'm not about to simply write off the claim.

The trouble with the Weltanschauung argument is that it takes insufficient account of other variables. For example, Luther had an apocalyptic view of his time. Very quickly, however, that view of things came to be seen as unkosher. It wasn't long before Luther's apocalyptic utterances were ignored or misinterpreted - until recently. Or take Calvin. A great humanist. But how many of his epigonous disciples had that in them? Jonathan Edwards, yes, but then, there really isn't a direct line between Calvin's non-scholastic, ample view and Edward's non-scholastic ample view.