The Metaphysics of Meaning: Applying a Thomistic Ontology of Art to a Contemporary Hermeneutical Puzzle and the Problem of the Sensus Literalis

Abstract

The Metaphysics of Meaning:Applying a Thomistic Ontology of Art to a Contemporary Hermeneutical Puzzle and the Problem of the Sensus Literalis Peter Junípero Hannah, O.P. The aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of the sensus literalis, an exegetical and theological concept which has been understood in (sometimes widely) varying ways through Christian history. To do this, I will use Thomistic principles to mediate a contemporary hermeneutical debate over where meaning lies in a text. Hans Georg-Gadamer’s Truth and Method (1960) and E. D. Hirsch’s Validity in Interpretation (1967) represent two sides of the debate, Gadamer focusing on the text as the site of meaning, and Hirsch on authorial intention. I will develop, using Thomistic principles, an ontology of a work of art that can be fruitfully applied to the contemporary hermeneutical question, and then reapplied to the question of the sensus literalis. The first two sections briefly set forth the problem of the literal sense and introduce my thesis that Aquinas can help mediate the debate between Gadamer and Hirsch. The third section summarizes the respective positions of Gadamer and Hirsch in closer detail. The fourth proposes a model along Thomistic lines that can clarify the parameters of the debate. In the conclusion, I summarize what has been found and reapply my findings to the question of the literal sense. [End Page 675] The Sensus Literalis: Ancient Concept, Contemporary Problem Brevard Childs has called ascertaining the “literal sense” of Scripture “one of the most difficult and profound theological questions in the entire study of the Bible.”1 Aquinas’s dictum that the literal sense is “that which the author intends” seems simple enough.2 He also asserts—and the Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes him approvingly—that the literal sense is that “on which all other senses are based” and the foundation of all theological reflection.3 Church documents of the recent past, with the Catechism, have affirmed the primacy of the literal sense, leaving open its precise parameters while affirming the difficulty of its discernment partially rooted in the inspired character of the scriptural text.4 Both Church documents and Childs are aware that the concept of this traditional sense of Scripture winds a twisting path through the history of biblical interpretation. It has been associated variously with the “external” or “carnal” versus the spiritual meaning, with the Old versus New Testament meanings, with Christological and sometimes [End Page 676] lofty theological meanings, as necessitating sophisticated philosophical reflection to discern it, with the “plain sense” of Scripture, with a “canonical” sense, with the results of critical historical research, or more generally, with the “primary,” “real,” or “basic” meaning of the biblical text.5 The concept of the “literal sense” is complicated by two factors. First, Scripture has two authors, human and divine. Determining how and in what way each author’s intention warrants exegetical [End Page 677] conclusions becomes a tremendously complex issue rivaling, and in conspicuous ways paralleling, Christological questions of how human and divine intentionality coalesce.6 Second, the rise of critical methods in the modern era and the deeper sense of historical awareness they have facilitated prevent the exegete from reading historical narratives as straightforwardly as he once did. Today the exegete must, as Hans Frei has put it, “distinguish sharply between literal sense and historical reference.”7 Olivier-Thomas Venard has captured the contemporary discussion well by comparing the sensus literalis to a curve bound by “two asymptotes,” historical and literary, that tend to frame all reflection on the issue: on one side, emphasis is placed on how historical circumstances shape meaning and, on the other, on how the literary features of the text itself generate an experience for the reader.8 The implications of [End Page 678] Venard’s image are evocative: the more one focuses on the historical “asymptote,” the further one seems to get from the textual narrative (Frei’s concern with critical methods after the Enlightenment); alternatively, centering attention on the text itself and its ostensibly referenced subject matter seems often to lead to reflective processes that prescind from historical grounding. Rowan Williams expresses simply but well the status quaestionis...