Reading the Gospel of Matthew
with Thomas Aquinas

Rediscovering the Lost Value of Unity: On Aquinas's References to Aristotle in His Commentaries on the Sermon on the Mount

Inspired by Martin Luther King Jr's 1954 sermon on "rediscovering lost values", I revisit Aquinas's references to Aristotle in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. And I do so by zooming in on lecture 2 (esp. nos. 408-410) relating to chapter five of the Gospel of Matthew (esp. Mt 5, 3-10). In this lecture, the references of Aristotle seem to be intended to underpin the importance of not playing off the contemplative dimension of the Beatitudes against to their virtuous dimension. In fact, Aquinas's references suggest that both dimensions are ordered to each other in terms of perfectibility, providing a way of thinking together perfectum and imperfectum without confounding or demounting them, without uniforming or separating them. Thus my reading assesses the need for rediscovering - the theoretical and practical impetus pertaining to - the value of unity, meaning a layered unity, an analogical unity, a unity in diversity, an underlying unity, which quite a few present-day philosophers and theologians seem to have lost or taken for granted, including the idea of accounting for it. Not only insofar as they remain preoccupied with imaginaries of irreducible diversity (related to conceptions of historicism, narrativism, culturalism, identity politics, and the like), but also insofar as Aristotle, including the Latin Aristotle, has long ceased to be considered a systematically pertinent interlocutor. And I'll argue that reflecting on such issues or entanglements is part of rediscovering the lost value of unity, acknowledging the need "to go backward in order to go forward", as Martin Luther King puts it, and to do so in a self-critical manner.

The Two Hands of Thomas Aquinas. Some Stylometric and Linguistic Remarks on Two Reportations of Aquinas' Lectura super Matthaeum

One of the most significant predicaments of Thomas Aquinas' Lectura super Matthaeum is the fact that it is conveyed in reportations of his students, attempting to properly encapsulate Aquinas' ideas. As Anton ten Klooster (2014) stated, „Peter of Andria and Leodegar of Besançon are the two hands with which Aquinas' commentary is written. Their reportationes represent the only access we have to this part of Aquinas's oeuvre. The hand of Peter is certainly more steady and secure than Leodegar's, but to both we are indebted for delivering us the commentary on a gospel so important to Thomas." However, can we ascertain which of these aligns more closely with Aquinas' thought process and writing methodology? Would the application of digital humanities approaches prove beneficial?

In this paper I intend to present some stylometric remarks on two reportations of Lectura super Matthaeum, emphasizing the use of function words in the text, and to provide linguistic evidence on the question of which of the Aquinas „two hands" is truly better.

The Key Primatial Text Through the Eyes of Aquinas: A Comparative Perspective (Matthew 16:17-19)

In worldwide ecumenical dialogue, one of the most polarizing loci in the Gospel according to St. Matthew is the pericope describing St. Peter's confession made in Caesarea Philippi about Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 16:13-20). In particular, Christ's response to the Apostle's confession is the most controversial among Christians of different denominations (Matthew 16:17-19). On the one hand, in Roman Catholic theology, it constitutes the most important primatial text, i.e., the passage that legitimizes the supreme authority of the bishops of Rome as the successors of St. Peter. On the other hand, other Christian theologies carefully distance themselves from this interpretation, refusing to link this Petrine text with the foundation of the papal office. In this paper, I will present St. Thomas Aquinas' view on this famous passage, pointing out both the refreshingly innovative and historically conditioned elements in his interpretation. Next, drawing on the writings of the Church Fathers, I will compare Aquinas' understanding with that of St. Augustine of Hippo, to whom he explicitly refers in his commentary on the Gospel. Then, I will briefly examine how St. Thomas's reading relates to the broader patristic reception of this significant text. Who or what is the 'rock' on which the Church is built? What prerogatives are associated with the 'keys of the Kingdom of Heaven', and to whom were they given? Finally, to what extent can different answers to these questions be effectively harmonized? The aim of the presentation is to take an interdisciplinary journey through the biblical text, enriched by the heritage of centuries of Church tradition, of which Doctor Angelicus is one of the most prominent witnesses.

Aquinas and the Imminent Kingdom

Many biblical scholars have pointed out that the early Christians believed that the kingdom of God (and the consummation of time with it) would arrive very soon, perhaps even in their lifetime. There are some passages in the New Testament that point in that direction. Indeed, some scholars, like Alfred Loisy, have suggested that the Church is but a poor substitute for the kingdom that never came. Yet, as Pope Benedict XVI reminds us in his book Jesus of Nazareth, there are other passages that don't suggest an immanent kingdom but rather something that lies in a distant future.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, discusses in several places not only the notion of the kingdom of God but also the end of times. As with Pope Benedict, one finds that Aquinas has a more polysemic understanding of the kingdom of God than some modern biblical scholars who seem to consider the existence of the Church as a kind of rationalization for the absence of the kingdom in their "univocal" understanding of this notion.

In my paper, I will conduct an analysis of Aquinas's understanding of the kingdom of God and the consummation of earthly time and place. The findings of my analysis will then be related to the contemporary discussion that Pope Benedict has about the issue of the imminent kingdom and the potential problems it poses for Catholic doctrine. I will argue that Thomistic biblical hermeneutics, found both in the Matthew commentary and elsewhere, holds the key to a holistic understanding of reality that counters the sharp discontinuous character that some biblical scholars give to the kingdom of God.

Who is the main addresse of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14? Insights from Aquinas, Pablo de Santa Maria and Brevary Childs

The subject of fulfillment has been called the "framing motif" and even the "central theme" of the Gospel of Matthew. One of the so-called "fulfillment passages" occurs in Mt. 1: 22-23 where we read: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet -- and here Matthew is quoting Is. 7:14-: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us".

We will first interpret the general meaning of this passage following Aquinas. Second, we will identify the main difficulties, proposed by the rabbis of the 13^th^-15^th^ centuries, and solve them with the help of Pablo de Santa Maria (ca. 1351-1435) and the contemporary scholar Brevard Childs (1923-2007). Third, we will apply the most important rule for identifying messianic prophecies in order to fix the meaning of the passage. Finally, we will demonstrate that the best way to understand it is to understand that it is addressed in the first place to Joseph, Mary's husband.

What Becomes of the Walking Dead? Thomas Aquinas and Contemporary Exegesis on Matthew 27:51-53

In a pericope found only in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ's death immediately sets off a series of dramatic events: "the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people" (Matt 27:51-53).

Contemporary scholarship encompasses multiple views on every aspect of this passage, e.g., Is it Matthew's own creation or a redaction of material he received? Is it best understood as a miracle akin to the raising of the daughter of Jairus, or as another of those fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy (in this case, Ezekiel 37:1-14) to which Matthew is so partial? A number of scholars argue that the whole of 27:52-53 is a displaced resurrection narrative, originally part of chapter 28.

Likewise, Matthew's intent is variously assayed. Does he mean to present "proleptic manifestations of eschatological realities," or perhaps to signal the arrival of the eschatological turning point of the universe, i.e., the start of the "end of the age"? This congenial hermeneutical pluralism largely vanishes when the question of the historicity of the events is taken up. There is broad insistence that the symbolic, poetic, and popular apocalyptic character of this text rules out any historical foundation to the events themselves, as well as any historical intent by the evangelist.

Thomas Aquinas, of course, finds historical reality, editorial intent, and theological plurality perfectly compatible. Indeed, Aquinas' own position undergoes a significant change regarding the nature of the rising of the holy ones. In his reportatio on the Gospel of Matthew, he sees this as resurrection: "one can say about these people that they rose and did not die again, because they rose for the manifestation of Christ's resurrection, and it is certain that Christ rising again from the dead, dies now no more (Rom 6:9). Also, if they had risen only to die again, it would not have been a kindness shown them but rather an injury; therefore they rose to enter into heaven with Christ" (cap.27, lect.2; n.2395). By the time of the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas views the rising of the saints as a Lazarus-like resurrectio imperfecta: "by an imperfect resurrection, some others have risen before Christ, so as to be a kind of figure of His Resurrection" (III.53.3, resp.).

Following a sketch of the results of contemporary scholarship and a consideration of the development of Aquinas' views, this paper will explore three questions. First, what accounts for the Angelic Doctor's change of mind in the relatively short period between the Commentary on Matthew (1268-1272, by Torrell's reckoning) and the composition of the Tertia Pars (1272- 1273)? Second, how does the interplay of exegesis and theology in this passage and other resurrection-related texts in Matthew offer both a challenge to, and a model for, contemporary exegesis?

Aquinas's Reading of the Passion according to Matthew with Augustine

I this paper I will present the results of a study of Augustine's influence upon Aquinas's use of the Gospel of Matthew's Passion narrative in the development of Aquinas's soteriology. I will focus on Aquinas's soteriology as he presents it in its mature form in the treatise on the Passion in the Summa theologiae (ST). Aquinas is indebted to Augustine, particularly in the development of Aquinas's understanding of sacrifice, but also the other modes by which the Passion brings about salvation (as Aquinas lays out in ST III.48). Close study of Aquinas's use of the Gospel according to Matthew illuminates some aspects of this hidden debt to Augustine.

Blasphemy in St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew

In his commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Thomas uses the term blasphemy (blasphemia) twenty-five times, making it his main tool for describing Jesus' conflict with the religious leaders of Israel. In two pivotal scenes --- the forgiveness of the paralytic's sins (Matthew 9) and the trial before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26) --- the accusation of blasphemy is levelled directly at Christ. The scribes and high priests made this accusation based on their belief that Jesus, as a human being, was usurping divine dignity and power.

However, in his commentary, St. Thomas shows that blasphemy did not result from Jesus' wrongdoing, but from the cognitive error and hostility of his accusers. They interpreted his words from the perspective of human nature alone, failing to recognise his divinity, confirmed by miracles, in him. Aquinas refers to the following Church Fathers: St Jerome, St John Chrysostom and Origen. He interprets the dramatic gestures of Jesus' opponents, such as ritualistically tearing their garments, as signs of a spiritual loss of authority, and as acts of blasphemy against God Himself.

A broader analysis of blasphemy in light of the Summa Theologica shows that Thomas considers it to be the most serious insult to God because it strikes directly at His truth and goodness. From this perspective, contemporary hate speech can be understood as a form of verbal aggression that reveals contempt for the divine-human dignity of Jesus.