Jaarboek Thomas Instituut 1995 - Thomas Instituut te Utrecht

30 H.W.M. RIKHOF
an argument. That difference shows itself also in the results of the
inquiry. In the first article these results are somewhat tentative (cf. the
classification 32, p. 69) and mostly concerned with an agenda for
future research. De Grijs indicates here three types of research. First
historical research. De Grijs remarks that in order to understand "the
biblical material in Thomas' systematic works" (32, p. 64) one needs
to have knowledge of Thomas historical background. This means that
further research has to be done in three directions. First, his patristic
sources, for the patres are "the sancti who help us by explaining the
things Scripture talks about" (32, p. 65). This inquiry into the patres
is further necessary if only to determine Thomas' originality (32, p.
67). Second, the theological tradition before Thomas, for this can
explain certain procedures like the expositio textus (32, p. 69). Third,
the influence of the great doctrinal documents of the church (32, p.
68). But historical research needs to be done also on which edition,
which compilations Thomas used. The second type of research De
Grijs indicates one could qualify as a heuristic one. It concerns
research into the way the Latin bible influences Thomas' own Latin.
Via this research the implicit citations can be discovered, and it might
help the research of the reception of Thomas' theology, for in later
periods "that material link with the bible" seems to be less prominent
(32, p. 71). The third type of research is a systematic hermeneutical
one and is concerned with questions about the value of a quotation in
the argumentation, with the weight of the authority of Scripture. This
third point of the agenda seems to be the most important. But De Grijs
gives this question of authority, characteristically, a special edge.
"Does the text as such really playa role? (... ) I can not refrain from
the impression that the event more than the texts determines the
reflection" (32, p. 71; cf. p. 76). An echo of this can be found in the
hypothesis De Grijs formulates in the closing section of this article. In
the theological reflection the texts from Scripture function generally in
the same way as the fides eathoLiea does. This fides determines the
reflection, binds it to history, to the concrete event. Or in other
words, Scripture leads the reflection to a "categorisation" (32, p. 77).
A corollary to this hypothesis is the hypothesis that Thomas in his
biblical commentaries does the opposite: he looks for understanding of
the text by using reflection (inteLlectus)(32, p. 78).
The results of the second article are less exploratory and