Thomas on the Problem of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Exegete

The Thomist 69 (2005): 251-77 THOMAS ON THE PROBLEM OF THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, EXEGETE DANIELE. FLORES St. Mary's Seminary Houston, Texas AT SOME POINT toward the close of his teaching career, probably after his lectures on the Pauline corpus, but before his lectures on the Gospel of Matthew, Thomas became aware of the teaching attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia on prophetic signification. He became aware also of the condemnation that teaching incurred at the time of the Second Council of Constantinople.1 Based upon his sources, Thomas engages Theodore the exegete on four occasions, each discussion occurring in the context of Thomas's own scriptural expositions. Since these expositions represent the fruit of Thomas's classroom work with 1 Thomas makes reference to Theodore of Mopsuestia in connection with the problem of Nestorianism as early as &G N. Theodore on scriptural exposition, however, does notappear until the Matthew commentary. Weisheipl, following Mandonnet, suggested that the exposition of Matthew belongs to Thomas's first teaching period in Paris, ending around 1259. Torrell, however, favors dating the Super Matthaeum to the second Parisian period (1268-72). Torrell's position is persuasive on the grounds that the intervening years in Italy, between the Paris teaching assignments, would have provided Thomas with the opportunity to gather the wealth of Greek patristicsources, including the acta of the Ecumenical Councils, that begin appearing in his works during the 1260s. Further, had Thomas known of Theodore's condemned teaching on prophetic signification before 1268, we mightreasonably expectsome reference to the problem in the initial exposition of the Pauline corpus, generally agreed to have been completed by thatyear. Itseems plausible, therefore, to hold thatThomas discovered sources surrounding Theodore's exegesis some time after 1268, and that he included reference to it in the three scriptural expositions that he taught at the end of his life, beginning with the Super Matthaeum in 1269 or 1270. See Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D'Aquino: His Life, Thought and Works (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1983), 121-22; and Torrell, Initiation a saint Thomas d'Aquin: Sa personne et son oeuvre (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires de Fribourg Suisse, 1993), 80-86. 251 252 DANIEL E. FLORES students who would be preachers of the gospel and teachers of the faith, we can safely infer that he considered the issues raised by Theodore to be relevant to the preaching mission of the Church. Thomas characterizesTheodore as one who taught a consistent though erroneous approach to the exposition of the sacred text. I aim to give a summary account of the problem as Thomas saw it. Whether or not Thomas had reliable sources that reflected the actual teaching of Constantinople II is a related, important, but not identical issue.2 Whether or not the documentation surrounding Constantinople II accurately conveyed what Theodore of Mopsuestia actually taught is another matter entirely.3 Both questions merit serious theological attention. Here I seek only to examine Thomas's view of Theodore's teaching for its typical implications, that is to say, in the interest of identifying what 2 Thomas seems to be the first Latin theologian after patristic times to take up the teaching of the council on Theodore's exegetical method. The manuscript tradition flowing into the Renaissance preserved two collections ofTheodore's scriptural commentaries translated into Latin. The acta of the council provide Latin translations without commentary, appending them to the decrees of the council. The conciliar documentation also preserves a decree from Pope Vigilius containing the same excerpts, only with commentary from the pope characterizing the errors they contain. Vigilius's constitution predates the council. The pope never cites Theodore by name, ostensibly because he opposed the pressure to condemn Theodore posthumously. For the received Latin texts from both the acta of the council and the constitution of Pope Vigilius, see J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Florence, 1763), vol. 9, coll. N and V). Morard proposes thatThomas saw the acta of the council, but does not think he relied upon the Constitutum Vigilii. See Martin Morarcl, "Une source de saint Thomas d'Aquin: Le deuxieme concile de Constantinople (553)," Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques 81 (1997): 21-56...