Thomas Aquinas’ “16 Precepts for Acquiring Knowledge”

4 Replies

Since I am a student and a Catholic one at that, I try to learn how to be a better student constantly. Thomas Aquinas once wrote a letter to a certain Brother John about the principles of good study. Aquinas lays out his philosophy of how to study. A lot of it has to do with avoiding social contact, which I find more applicable to a more monastic approach to study. It should be noted that Aquinas was not a monk, but a mendicant. Yet he did live a religious life in community as a priest. Despite the hermit/monk flavor of some of the precepts, this list is extremely helpful in learning to think like a professional. Some of the shortest maxims are the most helpful. Let me know what you think of it.

“My Very Dear Brother,
Since you have asked me how you ought to study in order to amass the treasures of knowledge, listen to the advice which I am going to give you.
As a mere stripling,

1. Advance up the streams, and do not all at once plunge into the deep: such is my caution, and your lesson. I bid you to

2. Be chary of speech,

3. Slower still in frequenting places of talk:

4. Embrace purity of conscience,

5. Pray unceasingly,

6. Love to keep to your cell if you wish to be admitted into the mystic wine-cellar.

7. Show yourself genial to all:

8. Pay no heed to other folk’s affairs:

9. Be not over-familiar with any person, because over-much familiarity breeds contempt, and gives occasion to distraction from study.

10. On no account mix yourself up with the sayings and the doings of persons in the outside world.

11. Most of all, avoid all useless visits, but try rather to walk constantly in the footsteps of good and holy men.

12. Never mind from whom the lesson drops, but

13. Commit to memory whatever useful advice may be uttered.

14. Give an account to yourself of your every word and action:

15. See that you understand what you hear, and never leave a doubt unsolved:

16. Lay up all you can in the storehouse of memory, as he does who wants to fill a vase. ‘Seek not the things which are beyond thee’.

Following these ways, you will your whole life long put forth and bear both branches and fruit in the vineyard of the Lord of Sabaoth. If you take these words to heart, you will attain your desire.”

-Sixteen Precepts for Acquiring the Treasure of Knowledge by St. Thomas Aquinas

Ben Witherington’s Analysis of 1 Thessalonians

Leave a reply

Ben Witherington just published a commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians, published October 30th, 2006. I haven’t been able to get my hands on it yet because it’s currently only in a few libraries in the whole country. I did find the TOC on Baker Book House’s web site. Here’s his rhetorical analysis of 1 Thessalonians:

Prescript 1:1
Exordium 1:2-3
Narratio 1:4-3:10
Transitus 3:11-13
Exhortatio 4:1-5:15
Part I 4:1-8, 9-12
Part II 4:13-5:11
Part III 5:12-15
Peroratio 5:16-22
Invocation 5:23-24
Epistolary Closing 5:25-28

Ambrose on Jonah’s Whale

Leave a reply

I never thought of this before, but St. Ambrose compares the belly of the fish that swallowed Jonah to the womb of the Virgin Mary. In the ACCS (Ancient Christian Commentary Series) Ambrose states: Like Jonah when he was in the belly of the fish, I prayed to you on behalf of the people. Similarly, Christ was with God from his mother’s womb… (Prayer of Job and David 6.25)

Colossians 2:14 and Paul’s Letter Carriers

Leave a reply

There is a keyword in Col 2:14 which often gets mistranslated: cheipographon. The word literally means “hand-written” from “cheiro” for hand and “graphon” for written. Here’s a rundown of typical translations:
KJV “handwriting of ordinances”
RSV, NAB “bond”
NIV “written code”
NASB “certificate of debt”
ESV “record of debt”

The TDNT itself is a little ambiguous on the meaning of the word and Liddell & Scott is not helpful. It merely lists “note of hand, bond, manuscript note” as the definition. NIV has by far the worst translation of the ones listed above. “Written code” brings to mind the Mosaic Law and other things that have nothing to do with what Paul is talking about. The confused translations result, I think, from the following phrase: “with its regulations” (NIV) or “with its legal demands” (ESV). These demands are NOT the demands of the Old Covenant Law, but the demands of a promissory note. cheirographon is a record of debt, like a credit card bill. It is this credit card bill or mortgage statement that was “nailed to the cross.” The “demands” or statuatory implications of the handwritten record are only those of debt, not those of the Mosaic Law. The NASB and the ESV do the best job in relating the real meaning of this word and making sense of the whole passage. Paul is talking about financial debt and using it as a metaphor for the debt we owed to God because of sin.

Paul’s Letter Carriers
I made a quick list today of the people who carried Paul’s letters. For some of the letters, it is not clear who carried them, but here’s my list anyway:
1. Romans – 16:1 – Phoebe
2. 1 Cor – 16:17 – Possibly Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus
3. 2 Cor – unknown
4. Gal – unknown
5. Eph – Possibly Tychicus, cg. 2 Tim 4:12
6. Phlp – 2:25 – Epaphroditus
7. Col – 4:7,9 – Tychicus and Onesimus
8. Philm – 10 – Onesimus (on the same trip as the Colossians delivery)
9. 1 Thess – unknown
10. 2 Thess – unknown
11. 1 Tim – unknown
12. 2 Tim – unknown
13. Titus – unknown
14. Hebrews – unknown

Rhetorical Criticism

Leave a reply

I have really enjoyed Ben Witherington’s commentaries on the Pauline epistles, especially because of their intricate rhetorical analysis. Before reading Witherington, I had no idea that Paul was adhering to a rather strict structure for his letters. Hans Dieter Betz is the first scholar (that I can find) to publish a major commentary that dealt with these issues. Richard Longenecker in his Word Biblical Commentary (WBC), pp.cix-cx, on Galatians sums up what ancient sources to get to learn about Paul’s rhetorical structure:
1. Aristotle, Rhetoric
2. Cicero, De inventioneand De optimo genere oratorum
3. Quintillian Institutio Oratoria (I checked this one out last week. It’s four volumes!)
4. Anonymous, Rhetorica ad Herennium

Ancient examples of rhetoric:
1. Plato, Epistle 7
2. Isocrates, Antidosis
3. Demosthenes, De Corona
4. Cicero, Brutus
5. Libanius, Oratio 1

Structure of ancient Greco-Roman “forensic rhetoric”*, which is generally followed by Paul:
1. Exordium – Introduction: introduces speaker and topics
2. Narratio – Narration: statement of facts
3. Propositio – Proposition: states points of agreement and contention
4. Probatio – Confirmation: development of the argument
5. Refutatio – Refutation: rebuttal of the opponent
6. Peroratio – Conclusion: summarizes, evokes a sympathetic response

*”Foresic rhetoric” is speech techniques and patterns used in ancient law courts. A lawyer would follow this pattern when presenting his case. Kinda interesting how Paul’s letters do often sound rather, er, legal.

Reading Paul’s letters with this structure in mind keeps the reader aware of his surroundings and helps him follow the argument being made. It is easy to get lost in this structure if you’re not looking for it – kinda like driving on the right hand side of the road in England. Sort of.

Detecting a Bible Scholar’s Leanings

Leave a reply

Now I want to find the most important questions to ask a biblical scholar to determine his leanings. This should be interesting. Here’s the questions:

1. Do you believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch?
2. Do you adhere to the Two-Source Theory regarding the Synoptic Gospels?
3. Do you adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Magisterium?
4. Did Jesus really rise from the dead?
5. Did the miracles in the Bible really occur?
6. Is Jesus God?

Questions of a Historical-Critical Bible Scholar

Leave a reply

I’m trying to figure out the top ten questions an historical-critcal scholar asks when he reads the biblical text. Here’s what I’ve come up with so far:

1. Who wrote this text?
2. Who edited/redacted it?
3. Where was it written?
4. When was it written?
5. For what purpose did the author write it? Especially, what was his political motivation?
6. How does this text fit or not fit into the theories developed by historical-critical scholars?