[26] St. Thomas refers to Jn 21:21 in the Summa Theologiae : III, q. 83, a. 4, ad 2.
[27] Tract. in Io ., 124, ch. 1, col. 1969; cf. Catena Aurea , 21:19-23.
[28] Ibid., col. 1970; cf. Catena Aurea , 21:19-23.
[29] In Ioannem hom ., 88, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 480.
[30] In Ioannem hom ., 88, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 480; cf. Catena Aurea , 21:19-23.
[31] Tract. in Io ., 124, ch. 2, col. 1970; cf. Catena Aurea , 21:19-23.
[32] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea , 21:19-23.
[33] In Ioannem hom ., 88, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 480.
[34] St. Thomas refers to Jn 21:25 in the Summa Theologiae : III, q. 42, a. 4; q. 83, a. 4, ad 2.
[35] Tract. in Io ., 124, ch. 8, col. 1976; cf. Catena Aurea , 21:24-25.
APPENDICES OF NOTES HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
James A. Weisheipl, O.P., S.T.M.
III The Concepts of “Nature” and “Person” “Nature” as a Philosophical Concept “Person” as a Philosophical Concept
IV The Mystery of the Triune God A. Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father B. Three distinct Persons in one Nature
I
BRIEF NOTE ON THE TEXT OF ISAIAH (6:1)
USED FOR THE PROLOGUE
It was customary for medieval sermons to be based on a special text of Scripture, which would be developed phrase by phrase in the course of the sermon. Naturally, every text was adapted to the ultimate purpose the preacher had in mind. Similarly, every book or important treatise in the Middle Ages would be introduced by a Prologue, which was likewise a development of a text chosen by the author from Scripture. The development of this text was not necessarily an explanation of the literal sense of the passage. It was rather an explanation adapted by the author to prepare the reader for the book about to follow. Usually the text chosen was adapted to cover the special range of material to be discussed, and thus served as a division of the matter about to be treated. There is nothing unusual about this.
Since, as St. Augustine says, St. John’s purpose in writing his gospel was “to inform us about the contemplative life ,” St. Thomas chose the text from Isaiah (6:1) to show the reader something about John’s own contemplation in that the Lord Jesus is contemplated therein in a threefold fullness: sublime ( alta ), expansive ( ampla ), and perfect ( perfecta ). (See Prologue, n. 1). Hence, St. Thomas adapts the text of Isaiah (6:1) to fit this threefold fullness of John’s contemplation revealed in his Gospel. This is a very normal and ordinary procedure. Indeed almost any text is flexible and adaptable in many ways according to the purpose of the preacher or writer.
St. Thomas, in fact, uses the text chosen for two purposes: first, to explain the threefold fullness of John’s contemplation; second, to divide the following exposition of John’s Prologue into three parts: namely 1 (1-2) concerning the sublimity of the Word, 1 (3- 13) concerning the totality of the universe through the Word, and 1 (14a) concerning the Incarnation of the Word. The first division corresponds to Lecture 1, the second to Lectures 2 to 6, and the third to Lecture 7. Consequently, the tripartite reading of the text of Isaiah (6:1) is essential to Thomas’ development in the Prologue of his explanation of the Gospel.
The Latin Vulgate that Thomas used had this threefold division of the text of Isaiah (6:1): Vidi Dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum, et plena erat domus a makestate eius, et ea quae sub ipso erant replebant templum. In the commentary we have translated this literally as, “I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, and the whole house was full of his majesty, and the things that were under him filled the temple,” as required by the exposition of Thomas. Moreover, it is clear from Thomas’ running gloss, which he gave in class some time between 1248 and 1252 as a young cursor biblicus at Cologne under St. Albert the Great, that this was the actual reading of his personal Bible. (See Expositio super Isaiam ad Litteram, in Opera Omnia, ed. Leon. 28 [Rome 19741, 6:1, lines 96-103). What is more, St. Albert the Great himself used this full text from Isaiah (6:1), as above, and adapted it for his own purposes for the Prologue to his Commentary on the Second Book of the Sentences (ed. Borgnet 27:1-3), which he wrote when he was already a Master in Sacred Theology at Paris toward the end of 1245 or the beginning of 1246. (See my Friar Thomas dAquino, Garden City: Doubleday, 1974, p. 45). He too needed all three parts of the text to show the division of Book Two into three parts or three “Treatises.”
The historical and textual problem with all of this is that the Latin phrase, et plena erat domus a maiestate eius, the second phrase, is not found in the ordinary editions of the Latin Vulgate, neither in the old Clementine version nor in the critical edition prepared by Dom Robert Weber in 1975 (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 2 vols.). Nor is this second phrase to be found in the Greek Septuagint nor in the Hebrew Massoretic text of Isaiah. The historical and textual problem is to locate the vulgate tradition to which the Bible of Thomas and Albert belonged; this has not yet been done. The text of Isaiah (6:1) in the critical edition simply reads: Vidi Dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum, et ea quae sub eo erant implebant templum.
The text in Thomas’ Bible was somehow a conflation from Isaiah (6:4), et domus repleta est fumo, “and the house was filled with smoke,” while the reading in the Piana edition of Thomas’ works and all subsequent editions, including the Marietti, is a conflation from Isaiah (6:3), plena est omnis terra gloria eius, “the whole earth is full of his glory.”
The Hebrew author of Isaiah 6 (1-4) wished to say that he saw the splendor of the All High God fill the temple (6:1), the whole earth (6:3), and the house (6:4). This kind of Hebraic development is completely missed in the version Albert and Thomas had before them. But, then, this particular text would not have been suitable for the kind of development Thomas wished to present in his Prologue. Nor would it have been suitable for Albert’s purposes either when he commented on Book II of the Sentences.
Nothing I have said here makes the slightest difference to our understanding or appreciation of St. Thomas’ Prologue. Isaiah 6 (1-4) as St. Thomas had it helps to explicate John’s Gospel in a way that the passage as established by biblical criticism does not. Nevertheless, for the study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, the study of medieval exegesis, and a fuller understanding of St. Thomas and his sources, it would be helpful if we could discover St. Thomas’ Bible or at least the manuscript tradition to which it belonged. (See the editors of Expositio super Isaiam, ed. cit., Preface, pp. 43-47).