A Book Review from Books At A Glance
by Matthew B. Tabke
Thomas Aquinas is generally known among theologians and scholars for his monumental Summa Theologica which is an attempt at crafting a compendium of Catholic doctrine. It appears however, that less interest has been given to Aquinas’ numerous Biblical commentaries. While there does seem to be some revival of interest among Protestant scholars in the commentaries of Thomas Aquinas, that interest appears relegated to cutting edge scholarship on hermeneutical method and systematics rather than a general interest in utilizing Aquinas’ commentaries as a resource for modern commentaries. Perhaps the reason for this among Protestant scholars is the general distrust of Catholic thought regarding fundamental Protestant tenants of the faith such as justification by faith. A discussion of the relationship between Protestants and Catholics is not of primary interest in this review. Rather, what this survey hopes to show is the meticulous skill of Aquinas as a Biblical exegete beyond his clear capabilities as a philosopher and theologian. In this sense, Protestants should be encouraged to at least consider the conclusions of Aquinas when crafting Biblical commentaries in the modern world.
First, it is important to note the quality of the book and the formatting. The Aquinas Institute has undertaken several monumental projects as of late. Aside from an attempt to publish all extant works of Thomas Aquinas, the institute also has plans to publish the same with Augustine through Emmaus Academic. It is true that the works of both figures are available for free on the internet and for purchase in English translations, but the Aquinas Institute is undertaking this project with a somewhat unique bent. They are attempting to publish these works with parallel texts of every relevant language. As it pertains to the Hebrews commentary under review, this means that parallel Latin, Greek, and English versions of the text of Hebrews begin each section with Aquinas’ commentary appearing below in Latin and English. In other words, if you are a scholar hoping to deal with the original languages of any of Aquinas’ works or commentaries, every text will be available to you in a single volume. It is important to note, however, that these texts are not necessarily critical texts or the texts Aquinas worked with. It is true that the Novum Testamentum Graece 27th Edition (a critical text) was used in this commentary on Hebrews, but this does not mean that text critical footnotes appear in the commentary. The same is true here of all texts in the volume. There are no critical footnotes for the Latin texts of Aquinas’ commentaries. This is a relatively minor point, for variations in the Latin lectures of Aquinas are a particular point that would only be of relevance to very few, but it is still worth mentioning that there are no footnotes (whether of clarification or text critical) of any kind in the whole volume. The usefulness of the work does not appear to be undermined by the absence of footnotes.
The volumes released by the Aquinas Institute are high quality hardcover, Smyth-sewn works with good paper. The quality cannot be understated here. In a world of paperback glued books, the books released by the institute are beautiful works that are likely to last for decades, if not centuries. This relatively minor point will come as welcome news to anyone who enjoys the appearance of fine books rather than merely the content they contain. It should be noted, however, that the quality of these volumes is reflected by their price. Each work published is priced at $59.95 and many of Aquinas’ works have been released in multiple volumes. This means, unfortunately, that if one hopes to collect all of Aquinas’ commentaries, one will be shelling out several hundred dollars for the collection. The same is true for Aquinas’ Commentary on the Sentences or the Summa Theologica.
A few preliminary considerations of the formatting are in order. The book is organized according to the chapters of the Biblical book of Hebrews. Under each chapter several sections appear called “lectures.” It seems this work is a series of 54 lectures Aquinas delivered on the book of Hebrews somewhere. Here is where an issue with the commentary might be raised. There is no introduction to the contents of this volume by modern authors and translators whatsoever. A page is given informing us of a few aspects of the texts and translations, but no information whatsoever is given about when and where Aquinas delivered these lectures. Aquinas taught at multiple institutions throughout his life and given his other works that have received much more scholarly consideration such as Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles, the ardent scholar of Aquinas might like to know how his commentaries fit into his career. This information is surely available in other places, but the fact that no introduction is offered concerning these aspects does leave the volume lacking just a bit.
Regarding the texts used in the volume, we are informed clearly and succinctly of where the texts came from before the commentary begins. As mentioned above, the Greek text of Hebrews comes from the NA27. Of more concern, however, is the Latin text of Scripture. The notes given here inform us that it was likely Aquinas used multiple Latin translations of Scripture, as deduced from his quotations of them. However, those who crafted the volume have settled on using the Clementine Vulgate of 1598 (a version 300 years after Thomas) because it most closely resembles the text Aquinas appeared to be working from. This means that the English text is the Douay-Rheims because it was the English version translated from the Clementine Vulgate. The Latin text of the commentary is based on an edition from 1953 which came from the Fundación Tomás de Aquino. Fabian Richard Larcher prepared an English draft of the commentary which was received by Matthew Levering and prepared by a team of graduate students at Ave Maria University under the direction of Jeremy Holmes.
The commentary opens with a prologue highlighting the excellency of Christ from Psalm 85:8. This prologue is essentially a commentary on the Psalm verse where Christ’s Lordship is compared to other “gods” and where He is considered according to His effects in the created world. Here we notice immediately that Aquinas is reading this Psalm in a Christological sense and so considers this Psalm to be about Christ. This Christological reading highlights a hermeneutical point that will be evident throughout Aquinas’ work on the book of Hebrews. Aquinas also lays out some presuppositions concerning the epistle of Hebrews. He believes the book was written by Paul in Hebrew which explains the masterful eloquence displayed in the letter. According to Aquinas, Paul “knew the Hebrew language better than the others, for it was his native tongue,” and so Paul’s oratory skill would have been on full display (3). The letter is then presumed to have been translated by Luke, who possessed the unique ability to match the caliber of the Hebrew writing in Greek. Paul is said to have written anonymously in Hebrew because Jews generally despised him for his missionary work among the Gentiles.
As mentioned above, this commentary consists of 54 lectures delivered on the book of Hebrews. These lectures are organized in the commentary according to the chapter divisions in the epistle. Each lecture covers various ranges of texts, with some lectures on a single verse and some on a larger passage. Also, as mentioned above, each lecture begins with the text of Hebrews in Latin, Greek, and English.
Aquinas begins his commentary by suggesting Hebrews is divided into two primary parts. First, the author “extols Christ’s grandeur in order to show the superiority of the New Testament over the Old” (5). This comment is not perfectly clear in that it might suggest a variation concerning the inspiration of the text. Is Thomas saying that the Old Testament is somehow “less inspired” than the New? Aquinas presses the superiority of the New Testament over the Old, but when reading further, it seems he may be suggesting not superiority of inspiration, but superiority of covenant and content. This is an interpretation of Aquinas’ words, no doubt, but it would be an interpretation that stands in line with a general sentiment present throughout church history that the Old Testament is meant to be interpreted through the lens of the New. This would hence allow for the prologue on Psalm 85:8 to be interpreted as referring to Christ. Following this first assertion, the second part of Hebrews, according to Aquinas, discusses how faith unites believers to Christ as the Head of the Church (Heb. 11:1).
The work stands in the commentary tradition of Christian history in that Aquinas moves phrase by phrase through the text of Hebrews, interpreting and unpacking the meaning of the text. The author is quite meticulous in breaking down the grammatical constructions of the phrasing and carefully defining each word. Aquinas clearly has a very categorical mind, for he often produces lists of various types of meanings according to what he sees in each verse. He does not hesitate if he is inspired to do so, to go on for some time about a particular phrase or idea that needs multiplied analysis. What one ought to be aware of when considering Aquinas’ comments is that he is writing commentary on the Latin text of Hebrews. This is apparent in note 17 where he exegetes the phrase in prophetis in Hebrews 1:1 (9). His commentary here might suggest to a modern that Aquinas has a somewhat limited understanding of semantic range, for he makes much of the fact that the text says in prophetis rather than per prophetas. While the distinction is greater between these two phrases in Latin, the Greek text reads ἐν τοῖς προφήταις. Our modern English translations and lexicons allow for ἐν to refer to “in,” “through,” and “by,” thus demonstrating to us that Aquinas’ point is based on a distinction made in the Latin text not present in the Greek. If we are Protestant, such a particular point being stressed over a variation in Latin phrasing rings moot in our minds since we value the Greek text over the Latin. Thus, the reader will want to be aware that the commentary is an interpretation of a Latin translation of the epistle to the Hebrews.
If one is being perceptive as they read through this commentary, they will notice a particular feature that was a staple of Aquinas. In almost every paragraph of the commentary, Aquinas will support his reasoning with Scripture. For instance, notes 38-40 contain 10 paragraphs and 17 Scripture references. These lectures are saturated with Scriptural quotations, putting on full display the careful thinking of Aquinas and his impressive ability as a logician. Integrated with his Scriptural citations are apocryphal writings which Aquinas seemed to think were inspired, as many did at the time. Beyond this, a handful of references to “the Philosopher” (Aristotle), Augustine, and other writers and thinkers appear throughout the volume. If we are Protestant, we might disagree with some of Aquinas’ Catholic sentiments, but we cannot say he had bad reasons for reaching the conclusions he did. Aquinas strained his intellect to its maximum capacity, utilizing all Scriptural, historical, philosophical, and theological tools at his disposal to support his claims and provide a robust interpretation for the book of Hebrews.
I believe the modern Protestant can benefit greatly from Aquinas’ work on the book of Hebrews. Pastors who view Aquinas’ interpretation need to know that he is interpreting the Latin text, but beyond that, Aquinas provides a helpful commentary that aids in understanding the way interpretation worked in the Medieval Era. Aquinas has a Christologically robust hermeneutical method, by which he attempts to discover the work and splendor of Jesus in every text. Protestants need not fear a Catholic interpreter like Aquinas, for whether ancient or modern Catholics are as diverse in their interpretation as any Protestant, even if they give the illusion of unity in the public sphere. Perhaps what I would suggest, however, is that this particular volume is more useful to scholars than pastors simply because it contains multiple languages and has a high price point. Because this is the case, discretion should be used when purchasing the physical book, but the works of Aquinas are available for free online and thus the information should be accessed by those who are working to interpret Scripture.
Matthew B. Tabke