Analysis Of Saint Thomas And St. Thomas
Though famous as a theologian, St. Thomas also hat1 a trcmendous grasp of the content of Scripture. His extensive knowledge probably gave birth to the story that he had memorized the whole Latin Bible. In theory St. Thomas, as Augustine before him, believed that theological reasoning must be based only on the literal sense of Scripture. Yet in his SUVZVZU ‘Theologica St.
Thomas declares: God is the Author of Holy Scripture. He has given a meaning not only to the words but to the things they signify, so that the things signified in turn signify something else. Prinnmri(y, words signify things, which is the historicnl sense; secondarily, the things signify other things, and we get the spiritual sense. The latter is of three sorts. The Old Law …show more content…
Thomas stresses the primary importance of the literal interpretation and represents a trend in the right direction, he is still deeply involved in the multiple sense practices. He compiled a catena (chain) of sayings of the fathers on the four Gospels. These came from twentytwo Greek and twenty Latin writers.34 Farrar laments: “He accepts without hesitation their most tasteless and empty allegories.“ 3” The problem that St. Thomas faced-and that we still face-is the role and function of figurative language. How may it be recognized? What does it mean? St. Thomas’ involvement in allegorizing made it almost impossible for him to handle objectively either literal or figurative language. Allegorizing is like a fog which at first renders objects indistinct and then finally blots them out altogether. In the presence of allegorizing both literal and figurative elements are …show more content…
On the one hand, he accepted the practice of fourfold interpretation or “multiple sense.” Uut on the other hand, being inllucnced by Rabbinic studies, he stressed the importance of the literal sense and criticized the Vulgate because it was not always true to the Hebrew text. He took explicit issue with some allegorical interpretations, and his general emphasis was sound. At the University of Erfurt, where Martin Luther studied, Nicholas’ system of biblical interpretation prevailed. Luther respected Nicholas, and his thought was probably influenced by him. It is significant that reformation began when men questioned the allegorical or mystical approach to Scripture. The Middle Ages reveal the tragic results of close alignment between allegorizing and ecclesiastical tradition. Buried but yet stirring beneath these forces was the potent reality of the message of Cod.
In this period, preaching began to somewhat declain. Its entered into a wilderness. There were some homiletical productions founded. It was a repetition, less
Thomas declares: God is the Author of Holy Scripture. He has given a meaning not only to the words but to the things they signify, so that the things signified in turn signify something else. Prinnmri(y, words signify things, which is the historicnl sense; secondarily, the things signify other things, and we get the spiritual sense. The latter is of three sorts. The Old Law …show more content…
Thomas stresses the primary importance of the literal interpretation and represents a trend in the right direction, he is still deeply involved in the multiple sense practices. He compiled a catena (chain) of sayings of the fathers on the four Gospels. These came from twentytwo Greek and twenty Latin writers.34 Farrar laments: “He accepts without hesitation their most tasteless and empty allegories.“ 3” The problem that St. Thomas faced-and that we still face-is the role and function of figurative language. How may it be recognized? What does it mean? St. Thomas’ involvement in allegorizing made it almost impossible for him to handle objectively either literal or figurative language. Allegorizing is like a fog which at first renders objects indistinct and then finally blots them out altogether. In the presence of allegorizing both literal and figurative elements are …show more content…
On the one hand, he accepted the practice of fourfold interpretation or “multiple sense.” Uut on the other hand, being inllucnced by Rabbinic studies, he stressed the importance of the literal sense and criticized the Vulgate because it was not always true to the Hebrew text. He took explicit issue with some allegorical interpretations, and his general emphasis was sound. At the University of Erfurt, where Martin Luther studied, Nicholas’ system of biblical interpretation prevailed. Luther respected Nicholas, and his thought was probably influenced by him. It is significant that reformation began when men questioned the allegorical or mystical approach to Scripture. The Middle Ages reveal the tragic results of close alignment between allegorizing and ecclesiastical tradition. Buried but yet stirring beneath these forces was the potent reality of the message of Cod.
In this period, preaching began to somewhat declain. Its entered into a wilderness. There were some homiletical productions founded. It was a repetition, less