In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Thomist 61 (1997): 525-48 ETERNITY AND DURATION IN AQUINAS BRIAN J. SHANLEY, 0.P. The Catholic University ofAmerica Washington, D.C. CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSIONS of the classical doctrine of divine eternity as a timeless (rather than everlasting) mode of existence tend to follow the pattern and the agenda established by Elenore Stump and Norman Kretzmann in their influential 1981 article, "Eternity."1 Their original paper is a persuasive analysis, defense, and creative appropriation of the traditional Boethian definition of eternity as "the complete possession all at once of illimitable life" ("aeternitas igitur est interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio").2 The defenders of the classical doctrine of timeless eternity have targeted for cr1t1c1sm three major problems in the Stump-Kretzmann position: (1) the historical claim that the Neoplatonic tradition in general and Boethius in particular conceiyed eternity as involving an extended duration;3 (2) the related philosophical claim that timeless eternity necessarily implies some kind of infinite, atemporal, extended duration; and (3) the attempt to conceptualize the relationship between eternity and time in terms of a species of simultaneity that is relative to a particular frame of reference. I do not intend to rehearse these critical exchanges over the Stump-Kretzmann position or to provide a direct evaluation ofits 1 The Journal ofPhilosophy 78 (1981): 429-58. 2 Consolatio philosophae, book 5, prose 6, p. 422, 11. 9-11, in the Loeb Classical Library, vol. 74 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973). 3 In chapter 8 of Time, Creation, and the Continuum (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 98-130, Richard Sorabji claims that the Neoplatonic tradition in general, and Boethius in particular, rejected the idea that timeless eternity is a kind of extended duration. I find Sorabji's analysis to be convincing. 525 526 BRIAN J. SHANLEY, O.P. philosophical viability.4 I am concerned instead to argue that their lumping together of Aquinas with Augustine, Boethius, and Anselm as a proponent of their version of eternity has resulted in a misinterpretation of Aquinas's position.5 While much of what Stump and Kretzmann say about eternity does indeed hold true for Aquinas, their interpretation of him errs in identifying his position with their version of the Boethian view, especially on the much-debated issue of whether eternity is an extended duration.6 I will show that while Aquinas does hold that divine eternity is an atemporal duration, it is not infinitely extended in the way that Stump and Kretzmann claim. Aquinas's understanding of eternity has received relatively scant attention in the contemporary literature,7 where he has been largely relegated to passing references and footnote discussions.8 'A summary, analysis, and bibliographical guide to the debate can be found in Brian Leftow's Time and Eternity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 147-82. Stump and Kretzmann have subsequently written another response to their critics: "Eternity, Awareness, and Action," Faith and Philosophy 9 (1992): 463-82. A more recent entrant into the fray is Kathrin A. Rogers, "Eternity Has No Duration," Religious Studies 30 (1994): 1-16. She argues against both Stump-Kretzmann and Leftow on historical and philosophical grounds. 5 Stump and Kretzmann specifically name Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, and Aquinas as proponents of their interpretation of the classical doctrine in "Eternity, Awareness, and Action," 464. 6 In the context of attributing a view of eternity as an infinitely extended duration to Boethius, Stump and Kretzmann write: "Medieval philosophers after Boethius, who depend on him for their conception of eternity, also clearly understand eternal existence in that sense" (433). In the corresponding footnote, they specifically attribute this view to Aquinas in Summa theologiae I, q. 10. They reiterate that claim in "Eternity, Action, and Awareness," 479 n. 5; here they acknowledge, however, that their interpretation of Aquinas is not in line with what he says in the Sentences. This leads them to claim that there is development in Aquinas from the Sentences to the Summa; I will contest that claim. ' Ironically, the analytic philosopher who seems to have the best grasp of Aquinas on eternity is Christopher Hughes, On a Complex Theory of a Simple God (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), 115-20; the irony stems from...

pdf

Share