가톨릭 신앙생활 Q&A 코너

10. Sometimes scripture uses a term with an extension of meaning or a spiritual implication, as when St. Paul (Heb. 10:1) calls the Old Law a figure of the New Law. Here the term "the Old Law" receives the added meaning of a forecast or promise. It is suitable that scripture should thus manifest its richness by conveying in literally true words an abundance of implied meanings or suggestions.

출처 1: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm

출처 2: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0023/__P1.HTM

출처 3: http://www.op.org/summa/a4/summa.pdf

St. Thomas Aquians

SUMMA THEOLOGICA

Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
Second and Revised Edition, 1920.

PROLOGUE

     Because the Master of Catholic Truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle: “As Unto Little Ones in Christ, I Gave You Milk to Drink, Not Meat”—1 Cor. iii. 1, 2), we purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian
Religion, in such a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners. We have considered that students in this Science have not seldom been hampered by what they have found written by other authors, partly on account of the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and arguments; partly also because those things that are needful for them to know are not taught according to the order of the subject-matter, but according as the plan of the book might require, or the occasion of the argument offer; partly, too, because frequent repetition brought weariness and confusion to the minds of the readers. 

     Endeavoring to avoid these and other like faults, we shall try, by God’s help, to set forth whatever is included in this Sacred Science as briefly and clearly as the matter itself may allow.

신학 대전 Ia

Question 1. The nature and extent of sacred doctrine

To place our purpose within proper limits, we first endeavor to investigate the nature and extent of this sacred doctrine. Concerning this there are ten points of inquiry:

우리의 목적을 고유의 한계들 안쪽에 앉히기 위하여, 우리는 바로 이 성스러운 교리의 본성과 범위를 우선적으로 연구합니다. 이것과 관련하여 질문에 있어서의 열 개의 요지(points)들이 다음과 같이 있습니다:(*)

-----
(*) 번역자 주: 위에 안내한 출처 2 및 출처 3에 이러한 언급이 있다.
-----

1. Is it necessary?
2. Is it a science?
3. Is it one or many?
4. Is it speculative or practical?
5. How it is compared with other sciences?
6. Is it the same as wisdom?
7. Is God its subject-matter?
8. Is it a matter of argument?
9. Does it rightly employ metaphors and similes?
10. May the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine be expounded in different senses? 

Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?

Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sirach 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.

Objection 2. Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science--even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge. 

On the contrary, It is written (2 Timothy 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God. 

I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation. 

Reply to Objection 1. Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man" (Sirach 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists. 

Reply to Objection 2. Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy. 

Article 2. Whether sacred doctrine is a science?

Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thessalonians 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science. 

Objection 2. Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science. 

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science. 

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God. 

Reply to Objection 1. The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred doctrine. 

Reply to Objection 2. Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us. 

Article 3. Whether sacred doctrine is one science?

Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not one science; for according to the Philosopher (Poster. i) "that science is one which treats only of one class of subjects." But the creator and the creature, both of whom are treated of in sacred doctrine, cannot be grouped together under one class of subjects. Therefore sacred doctrine is not one science. 

Objection 2. Further, in sacred doctrine we treat of angels, corporeal creatures and human morality. But these belong to separate philosophical sciences. Therefore sacred doctrine cannot be one science. 

On the contrary, Holy Scripture speaks of it as one science: "Wisdom gave him the knowledge [scientiam] of holy things" (Wisdom 10:10). 

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is one science. The unity of a faculty or habit is to be gauged by its object, not indeed, in its material aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which it is an object. For example, man, ass, stone agree in the one precise formality of being colored; and color is the formal object of sight. Therefore, because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this science; and therefore is included under sacred doctrine as under one science. 

Reply to Objection 1. Sacred doctrine does not treat of God and creatures equally, but of God primarily, and of creatures only so far as they are referable to God as their beginning or end. Hence the unity of this science is not impaired. 

Reply to Objection 2. Nothing prevents inferior faculties or habits from being differentiated by something which falls under a higher faculty or habit as well; because the higher faculty or habit regards the object in its more universal formality, as the object of the "common sense" is whatever affects the senses, including, therefore, whatever is visible or audible. Hence the "common sense", although one faculty, extends to all the objects of the five senses. Similarly, objects which are the subject-matter of different philosophical sciences can yet be treated of by this one single sacred science under one aspect precisely so far as they can be included in revelation. So that in this way, sacred doctrine bears, as it were, the stamp of the divine science which is one and simple, yet extends to everything. 

Article 4. Whether sacred doctrine is a practical science?

Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science; for a practical science is that which ends in action according to the Philosopher (Metaph. ii). But sacred doctrine is ordained to action: "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" (James 1:22). Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science. 

Objection 2. Further, sacred doctrine is divided into the Old and the New Law. But law implies a moral science which is a practical science. Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science. 

On the contrary, Every practical science is concerned with human operations; as moral science is concerned with human acts, and architecture with buildings. But sacred doctrine is chiefly concerned with God, whose handiwork is especially man. Therefore it is not a practical but a speculative science. 

I answer that, Sacred doctrine, being one, extends to things which belong to different philosophical sciences because it considers in each the same formal aspect, namely, so far as they can be known through divine revelation. Hence, although among the philosophical sciences one is speculative and another practical, nevertheless sacred doctrine includes both; as God, by one and the same science, knows both Himself and His works. Still, it is speculative rather than practical because it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts; though it does treat even of these latter, inasmuch as man is ordained by them to the perfect knowledge of God in which consists eternal bliss. This is a sufficient answer to the Objections. 

Article 5. Whether sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences?

Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not nobler than other sciences; for the nobility of a science depends on the certitude it establishes. But other sciences, the principles of which cannot be doubted, seem to be more certain than sacred doctrine; for its principles — namely, articles of faith — can be doubted. Therefore other sciences seem to be nobler. 

Objection 2. Further, it is the sign of a lower science to depend upon a higher; as music depends on arithmetic. But sacred doctrine does in a sense depend upon philosophical sciences; for Jerome observes, in his Epistle to Magnus, that "the ancient doctors so enriched their books with the ideas and phrases of the philosophers, that thou knowest not what more to admire in them, their profane erudition or their scriptural learning." Therefore sacred doctrine is inferior to other sciences. 

On the contrary, Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this one: "Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower" (Proverbs 9:3). 

I answer that, Since this science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical. Now one speculative science is said to be nobler than another, either by reason of its greater certitude, or by reason of the higher worth of its subject-matter. In both these respects this science surpasses other speculative sciences; in point of greater certitude, because other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err; whereas this derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be misled: in point of the higher worth of its subject-matter because this science treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity transcend human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are within reason's grasp. Of the practical sciences, that one is nobler which is ordained to a further purpose, as political science is nobler than military science; for the good of the army is directed to the good of the State. But the purpose of this science, in so far as it is practical, is eternal bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed. Hence it is clear that from every standpoint, it is nobler than other sciences. 

Reply to Objection 1. It may well happen that what is in itself the more certain may seem to us the less certain on account of the weakness of our intelligence, "which is dazzled by the clearest objects of nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun" (Metaph. ii, lect. i). Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths, but to the weakness of human intelligence; yet the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things, as is said in de Animalibus xi. 

Reply to Objection 2. This science can in a sense depend upon the philosophical sciences, not as though it stood in need of them, but only in order to make its teaching clearer. For it accepts its principles not from other sciences, but immediately from God, by revelation. Therefore it does not depend upon other sciences as upon the higher, but makes use of them as of the lesser, and as handmaidens: even so the master sciences make use of the sciences that supply their materials, as political of military science. That it thus uses them is not due to its own defect or insufficiency, but to the defect of our intelligence, which is more easily led by what is known through natural reason (from which proceed the other sciences) to that which is above reason, such as are the teachings of this science. 

Article 6. Whether this doctrine is the same as wisdom?

Objection 1. It seems that this doctrine is not the same as wisdom. For no doctrine which borrows its principles is worthy of the name of wisdom; seeing that the wise man directs, and is not directed (Metaph. i). But this doctrine borrows its principles. Therefore this science is not wisdom. 

Objection 2. Further, it is a part of wisdom to prove the principles of other sciences. Hence it is called the chief of sciences, as is clear in Ethic. vi. But this doctrine does not prove the principles of other sciences. Therefore it is not the same as wisdom. 

Objection 3. Further, this doctrine is acquired by study, whereas wisdom is acquired by God's inspiration; so that it is numbered among the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2). Therefore this doctrine is not the same as wisdom. 

On the contrary, It is written (Deuteronomy 4:6): "This is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of nations." 

I answer that, This doctrine is wisdom above all human wisdom; not merely in any one order, but absolutely. For since it is the part of a wise man to arrange and to judge, and since lesser matters should be judged in the light of some higher principle, he is said to be wise in any one order who considers the highest principle in that order: thus in the order of building, he who plans the form of the house is called wise and architect, in opposition to the inferior laborers who trim the wood and make ready the stones: "As a wise architect, I have laid the foundation" (1 Corinthians 3:10). Again, in the order of all human life, the prudent man is called wise, inasmuch as he directs his acts to a fitting end: "Wisdom is prudence to a man" (Proverbs 10:23). Therefore he who considers absolutely the highest cause of the whole universe, namely God, is most of all called wise. Hence wisdom is said to be the knowledge of divine things, as Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 14). But sacred doctrine essentially treats of God viewed as the highest cause — not only so far as He can be known through creatures just as philosophers knew Him — "That which is known of God is manifest in them" (Romans 1:19) — but also as far as He is known to Himself alone and revealed to others. Hence sacred doctrine is especially called wisdom. 

Reply to Objection 1. Sacred doctrine derives its principles not from any human knowledge, but from the divine knowledge, through which, as through the highest wisdom, all our knowledge is set in order. 

Reply to Objection 2. The principles of other sciences either are evident and cannot be proved, or are proved by natural reason through some other science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes through revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore it has no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge of them. Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: "Destroying counsels and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). 

Reply to Objection 3. Since judgment appertains to wisdom, the twofold manner of judging produces a twofold wisdom. A man may judge in one way by inclination, as whoever has the habit of a virtue judges rightly of what concerns that virtue by his very inclination towards it. Hence it is the virtuous man, as we read, who is the measure and rule of human acts. In another way, by knowledge, just as a man learned in moral science might be able to judge rightly about virtuous acts, though he had not the virtue. The first manner of judging divine things belongs to that wisdom which is set down among the gifts of the Holy Ghost: "The spiritual man judgeth all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15). And Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): "Hierotheus is taught not by mere learning, but by experience of divine things." The second manner of judging belongs to this doctrine which is acquired by study, though its principles are obtained by revelation. 

Article 7. Whether God is the object of this science?

Objection 1. It seems that God is not the object of this science. For in every science, the nature of its object is presupposed. But this science cannot presuppose the essence of God, for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, iv): "It is impossible to define the essence of God." Therefore God is not the object of this science. 

Objection 2. Further, whatever conclusions are reached in any science must be comprehended under the object of the science. But in Holy Writ we reach conclusions not only concerning God, but concerning many other things, such as creatures and human morality. Therefore God is not the object of this science. 

On the contrary, The object of the science is that of which it principally treats. But in this science, the treatment is mainly about God; for it is called theology, as treating of God. Therefore God is the object of this science. 

I answer that, God is the object of this science. The relation between a science and its object is the same as that between a habit or faculty and its object. Now properly speaking, the object of a faculty or habit is the thing under the aspect of which all things are referred to that faculty or habit, as man and stone are referred to the faculty of sight in that they are colored. Hence colored things are the proper objects of sight. But in sacred science, all things are treated of under the aspect of God: either because they are God Himself or because they refer to God as their beginning and end. Hence it follows that God is in very truth the object of this science. This is clear also from the principles of this science, namely, the articles of faith, for faith is about God. The object of the principles and of the whole science must be the same, since the whole science is contained virtually in its principles. Some, however, looking to what is treated of in this science, and not to the aspect under which it is treated, have asserted the object of this science to be something other than God — that is, either things and signs; or the works of salvation; or the whole Christ, as the head and members. Of all these things, in truth, we treat in this science, but so far as they have reference to God. 

Reply to Objection 1. Although we cannot know in what consists the essence of God, nevertheless in this science we make use of His effects, either of nature or of grace, in place of a definition, in regard to whatever is treated of in this science concerning God; even as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a cause from its effect, by taking the effect in place of a definition of the cause. 

Reply to Objection 2. Whatever other conclusions are reached in this sacred science are comprehended under God, not as parts or species or accidents but as in some way related to Him. 

Article 8. Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?

Objection 1. It seems this doctrine is not a matter of argument. For Ambrose says (De Fide 1): "Put arguments aside where faith is sought." But in this doctrine, faith especially is sought: "But these things are written that you may believe" (John 20:31). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument. 

Objection 2. Further, if it is a matter of argument, the argument is either from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, it seems unbefitting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the weakest form of proof. But if it is from reason, this is unbefitting its end, because, according to Gregory (Hom. 26), "faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience." Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument. 

On the contrary, The Scripture says that a bishop should "embrace that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9). 

I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered. 

Reply to Objection 1. Although arguments from human reason cannot avail to prove what must be received on faith, nevertheless, this doctrine argues from articles of faith to other truths. 

Reply to Objection 2. This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring" (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning." 

Article 9. Whether Holy Scripture should use metaphors?

제9조. 성경 본문은 은유들을 사용하여야만 하는지?

Objection 1. It seems that Holy Scripture should not use metaphors. For that which is proper to the lowest science seems not to befit this science, which holds the highest place of all. But to proceed by the aid of various similitudes and figures is proper to poetry, the least of all the sciences. Therefore it is not fitting that this science should make use of such similitudes. 

반대 1. 성경 본문은 은유(metaphors)들을 사용하지 말야아 하는 것 같습니다. 이는 가장 저급한 과학에 고유한 바로 그것은, 모든 것 중에서 가장 높은 장소를 차지하는 이 과학에 적합하지 않는 것 같기 때문입니다. 그러나 다양한 유사함(similitudes)들 및 표상(figures)들의 도움에 의하여 나아가는 것은, 모든 과학들 중에서 가장 저급한 과학인, 시(poetry)에 적합합니다. 그러므로 이러한 과학이 그러한 유사들을 사용하지 않는 것은 적절합니다.

Objection 2. Further, this doctrine seems to be intended to make truth clear. Hence a reward is held out to those who manifest it: "They that explain me shall have life everlasting" (Sirach 24:31). But by such similitudes truth is obscured. Therefore, to put forward divine truths by likening them to corporeal things does not befit this science. 

반대 2. 더구나, 이 교리는 진리를 분명하게 하고자 의도된 것으로 보입니다. 따라서 이것을 분명하게 나타내는 자들에게 다음과 같이 어떤 보상이 제공됩니다: "나를 설명하는 사람들은 영원히 지속되는 생명을 가지리라" (집회서 24,31).(*) 그러나 그러한 유사함(similitudes)들에 의하여 진리는 가리워집니다. 그러므로, 질료적 사물(material things)들에 하느님의 진리들을 비유함으로써 하느님의 진리들을 두드러지게 하는 것은 이 과학에 적절하지 않습니다.

-----
(*) 번역자 주: 여기서 인용되고 있는 집회서 24,31은, 다음에 있는, 과거의 (예를 들어, Clementine 판) 불가타 라틴 대중 성경의 집회서 24,31이다:
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/sir024.htm
-----

Objection 3. Further, the higher creatures are, the nearer they approach to the divine likeness. If therefore any creature be taken to represent God, this representation ought chiefly to be taken from the higher creatures, and not from the lower; yet this is often found in Scriptures. 

반대 3. 더구나, 더 고귀한 피조물들일수록, 하느님 비슷함(divine likeness)에 더 가까이 접근합니다. 따라서 만약에 어떤 피조물이 하느님을 표상하기(represent) 위하여 택해진다면, 이러한 표상은, 더 저급한 피조물들로부터가 아니라, 더 고귀한 피조물들로부터 택해져야 하며, 그리고 게다가 이것은 성경 본문(Scriptures)들 안에서 자주 발견되고 있습니다.

On the contrary, It is written (Hosea 12:10): "I have multiplied visions, and I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets." But to put forward anything by means of similitudes is to use metaphors. Therefore this sacred science may use metaphors. 

이와는 달리, "바로 내가 환시를 많이 보여주고 예언자들을 통하여 비유로 말하리라" (호세아 12,11)라고 기록되어 있습니다. 그러나 유사성들에 의하여 어떤 것을 두드러지게 하는 것은 은유(metaphors)들을 사용하는 것입니다. 따라서 바로 이 성스러운 과학은 은유들을 사용할 수도 있을 것입니다.

I answer that, It is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things. For God provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature. Now it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible objects, because all our knowledge originates from sense. Hence in Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly taught under the likeness of material things. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i): "We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils." It is also befitting Holy Writ, which is proposed to all without distinction of persons — "To the wise and to the unwise I am a debtor" (Romans 1:14) — that spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it. 

저는 다음과 같이 답합니다: 성전(聖典, Holy Writ, 즉 성경)이 질료적 사물들과 대비에 의하여 하느님의 그리고 영적 진리들을 두드러지게 하는 것은 적절합니다. 이는 하느님께서는 모든 것을 그 본성의 능력에 따라 제공하시기(provides) 때문입니다. 이제 사람이 느낄 수 있는 대상들을 통하여 지성적 진리들을 획득하고자 하는 것은 자연스러운데, 왜냐하면 우리의 지식 모두는 감각(sense)에서 유래하기 때문입니다. 따라서 성전(聖典, Holy Writ, 즉 성경)에 있어, 영성적 진리들은 질료적 사물들로에 대한 비슷함(likeness) 하에서 적절하게 가르쳐집니다. 이것이 바로 디오니시오스(Dionysius) 가 "우리는 하느님의 광선들에 의하여, 이 광선들이 많은 성스러운 베일들로 이루어진 덮개 안쪽에 감추어져 있지 않다면, 교화될 수가 없다." (Coel. Hier. i) 라고 말하는 바입니다. 개인들에 대한 구분 없이 모든 이에게 제안되는 - "지혜로운 이들에게도 어리석은 이들에게도 다 빚을 지고 있습니다" (로마 1,14) - 성전(聖典, Holy Writ, 즉 성경)이 영적인 진리들이 질료적 사물들로부터 취하여진 표상들에 의하여 자세히 설명되는 것은, 그리하여 그 결과로 심지어 자력으로 지성적 사물들을 붙잡을 수 없는 순박한 자(the simple)들마저도 그것을 이해할 수 있게 될 수 있게 되는 것은, 또한 적절합니다.

Reply to Objection 1. Poetry makes use of metaphors to produce a representation, for it is natural to man to be pleased with representations. But sacred doctrine makes use of metaphors as both necessary and useful. 

반대 1에 대한 답변. 시(poetry)는 어떤 표상(a representation)을 산출하기 위하여 은유(metaphors)들을 사용하는데, 이는 사람이 표상들에 기뻐하게 되는 것은 자연스럽기 때문입니다. 그러나 성스러운 교리는 필요하고 그리고 유용한 둘 다로서 은유들을 사용합니다.

Reply to Objection 2. The ray of divine revelation is not extinguished by the sensible imagery wherewith it is veiled, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i); and its truth so far remains that it does not allow the minds of those to whom the revelation has been made, to rest in the metaphors, but raises them to the knowledge of truths; and through those to whom the revelation has been made others also may receive instruction in these matters. Hence those things that are taught metaphorically in one part of Scripture, in other parts are taught more openly. The very hiding of truth in figures is useful for the exercise of thoughtful minds and as a defense against the ridicule of the impious, according to the words "Give not that which is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6). 

반대 2에 대한 답변. 하느님의 계시의 광선은, 디오니시오스(Dionysius) 가 말하듯이(Coel. Hier. i), 그것에 의하여 이 광선이 가리워지는, 느낄 수 있는 심상(心像)에 의하여 꺼지지 않으며, 그리고 그것의 진리가, 그것이 이 계시가 이미 드러나게 되었던 자들의 마음들이 은유들 안에서 머무는 것을 허락하는 정도에까지가 아니라, 그들을 진리들에 대한 지식으로 들어올리는 것을 허락하는 정도에까지, 그리하여 이 계시가 이미 드러나게 되었던 자들을 통하여 다른 자들도 또한 이러한 문제들에 대한 가르침을 받아들일 수 있을 정도에까지 남아있습니다. 따라서 성경 본문의 한 부분에서 은유적으로 가르쳐지는 바로 그러한 사물들은, 다른 부분들에서 더 공개적으로 가르쳐집니다. 표상(figures)들 안에 있는 바로 그 감추어진 진리는, "거룩한 것은 개들에게 주지 말라" (마태오 7,6) 라는 표현에 따라, 생각이 깊은 마음들의 실천에 그리고 신을 공경하지 않는 자들의 비웃음에 대한 방어(a defense)에 유용합니다.

Reply to Objection 3. As Dionysius says, (Coel. Hier. i) it is more fitting that divine truths should be expounded under the figure of less noble than of nobler bodies, and this for three reasons. Firstly, because thereby men's minds are the better preserved from error. For then it is clear that these things are not literal descriptions of divine truths, which might have been open to doubt had they been expressed under the figure of nobler bodies, especially for those who could think of nothing nobler than bodies. Secondly, because this is more befitting the knowledge of God that we have in this life. For what He is not is clearer to us than what He is. Therefore similitudes drawn from things farthest away from God form within us a truer estimate that God is above whatsoever we may say or think of Him. Thirdly, because thereby divine truths are the better hidden from the unworthy. 

반대 3에 대한 답변. 디오니시오스(Dionysius) 가 말하듯이(Coel. Hier. i) 하느님의 진리들이 더 고귀한 주요부(bodies)들에 대하여보다는 덜 고귀한 주요부들에 대한 표상 하에서 상세히 설명되어야만 하는데, 이것은 세 가지 이유 때문입니다. 첫 번째로, 왜냐하면 그것에 의하여 사람들의 마음들이 오류로부터 더 잘 보호되기 때문입니다. 이는 그렇게 하면 이러한 사물들은, 만약에 더 고귀한 주요부들에 대한 표상 하에서 표현되어졌더라면 의심에 노출되었을 수도 있는, 하느님의 진리들에 대한 자구적 서술(literal descriptions)들이 아니기 때문입니다. 두 번째로, 왜냐하면 이것은 이 세상의 삶 안에서 우리가 가지는 하느님에 대한 지식에 더 적절하기 때문입니다. 이는 당신이신 바(what)보다는 당신이 아닌 바가 우리에게 더 분명하기 때문입니다. 그러므로 하느님으로부터 가장 멀리 떨어진 사물들로부터 도출된 유사성(similitudes)들은 우리가 당신에 대하여 무엇을 말하거나 혹은 생각하든지간에 하느님께서는 그것 위에 계신다는 더 참된 평가를 우리 안쪽에 형성하기 때문입니다. 세 번째로, 왜냐하면 그것에 의하여 하느님의 진리들은 가치 없는 것들로부터 더 잘 감추어지기 때문입니다.

Article 10. Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?

제10조. 성경 본문에 있어 어떤 단어는 여러 어의/의미들을 가질 수 있는지?

Objection 1. It seems that in Holy Writ a word cannot have several senses, historical or literal, allegorical, tropological or moral, and anagogical. For many different senses in one text produce confusion and deception and destroy all force of argument. Hence no argument, but only fallacies, can be deduced from a multiplicity of propositions. But Holy Writ ought to be able to state the truth without any fallacy. Therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a word. 

반대 1. 성전(聖典, Holy Writ, 즉 성경)에 있어 어떤 단어는, 역사적(historical) 혹은 자구적(literal), 우의적/풍유적(allegorical), 윤리적(tropological) 혹은 도덕적(moral), 그리고 신비적/종말론적(anagogical), 여러 어의/의미(senses)들을 가질 수 없는 것 같습니다. 이는 한 본문에 있어 많은 다른 어의/의미들은 혼란과 속임을 산출하여 그리하여 논증의 힘 모두를 파괴하기 때문입니다. 따라서, 오로지 오류들을 제외한, 어떠한 논증도 명제들의 다중성으로부터 연역될 수 없습니다. 그러나 성전(聖典, Holy Writ, 즉 성경)은 어떠한 오류도 없이 진리를 진술할 수 있어야만 합니다. 그러므로 거기에 있어 어떤 단어에도 여러 어의/의미가 있을 수 없습니다.

Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De util. cred. iii) that "the Old Testament has a fourfold division as to history, etiology, analogy and allegory." Now these four seem altogether different from the four divisions mentioned in the first objection. Therefore it does not seem fitting to explain the same word of Holy Writ according to the four different senses mentioned above. 

반대 2. 더구나, 아우구스티노(Augustine)는 "구약 성경은 역사, 원인(etiology), 유비(analogy) 그리고 우의(allegory)에 관하여 네 겹의 구분을 가지고 있다." (De util. cred. iii) 라고 말합니다. 이제 이들 네 개는 모두가 첫 번째 반대에서 언급된 네 개의 구분들과 통틀어 다른 것 같습니다. 그러므로 성전(聖典, Holy Writ, 즉 성경)의 동일한 단어를 위에서 언급된 네 개의 다른 어의들에 따라 설명하는 것은 적합하지 않은 것 같습니다.

Objection 3. Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four. 

반대 3. 더구나, 이들 어의들 이외에, 이들 네 개 중의 하나가 아닌, 비유적 어의(the parabolical)가 있습니다.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xx, 1): "Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery." 

이와는 달리, 그리고리오(Gregory)는 "성전(聖典, Holy Writ, 즉 성경)은 그 화법의 방식에 의하여 모든 과학을 초월하는데, 왜냐하면 하나이며 동일한 문장 안에서, 그것이 어떤 사실을 서술함과 동시에, 그것은 어떤 신비를 드러내기 때문이다" (Moral. xx, 1) 라고 말합니다.

-----
번역자 주: 여기서 그레고리오(Gregory)는 성 그레고리오 1세 대 교황을 말하며, Moral. 은 욥기에 대한 그의 주석서인 Moralia in Job 을 말한다. 그리고 Moral xx, 1 전문은 다음에 있으니 참고하라:

참고 자료: http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book20.html
-----

I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses. 

저는 다음과 같이 답변합니다: 성전(聖典, Holy Writ, 즉 성경)의 저자는 하느님이시며, 당신의 힘 안에서 성경은, (사람도 또한 할 수 있듯이) 단순히 단어들에 의하여 뿐만이 아니라, 또한 사물들 그 자체에 의하여, 당신의 의미를 나타내고자 합니다. 그래서, 다른 모든 과학에 있어 사물들이 단어들에 의하여 나타내어지는 반면에, 이 과학은 단어들에 의하여 나타내어지는 사물들 그들 자체가 또한 어떤 어의(語義, signification)를 가진다는 특성을 가지고 있습니다. 그러므로 그것에 의하여 단어들이 사물들을 나타내는 바로 그 첫 번째 어의는, 역사적 혹은 자구적 어의(the historical or literal sense)인, 그 첫 번째 어의/의미(sense)에 속합니다. 그것에 의하여 단어들에 의하여 나타내어진 사물들 그 자체들이 또한 어떤 어의인 바로 그 어의는 영성적 어의(the spiritual sense)로 불리는데, 이 어의는 자구적 어의에 근거를 두고 있으며, 그리하여 자구적 어의를 전제합니다(presupposes). 이제 이러한 영성적 어의는 세 겹의 구분을 가지고 있습니다. 이는 사도가 옛 법(the Old Law)이 새 법(a New Law)에 대한 하나의 표상이다(히브리 10,1) 라고 말하듯이, 그리고 디오니시오스(Dionysius) 가 "새 법은 미래의 영광에 대한 한 종류의 표상이다" (Coel. Hier. i) 라고 말하듯이 때문입니다. 또다시, 새 법에 있어, 우리의 머리(Head)가 이미 행하신 바 무엇이든지간에 우리가 행해야만 하는 바의 한 종류입니다. 그러므로, 옛 법의 사물들이 새 법의 사물들을 나타내는 한, 우의적/풍유적 어의(the allegorical sense)가 거기에 있으며, 그리고 그리스도 안에서 행해진 사물들, 혹은 그리스도를 나타내는 사물들이 우리가 행하여야만 하는 바의 종류들인 한, 윤리적/도덕적 어의(the moral sense)가 거기에 있습니다. 그러나 그들이 영원한 영광에 관계하는 바를 나타내는 한, 신비적/종말론적 어의(the anagogical sense)가 거기에 있습니다. 왜냐하면 자구적 어의는 저자가 의도하는 바 바로 그것이기 때문에, 그리고 왜냐하면 성전(聖典, Holy Writ, 즉 성경)의 저자는, 한 번의 행위에 의하여 모든 사물들을 당신의 지성에 의하여 파악하시는, 하느님이시기에, 아우구스티노(Augustine)가 말하듯이, 심지어 자구적 어의에 따르더라도, 성전(聖典, Holy Writ, 즉 성경)에 있어 한 개의 단어가 여러 어의들을 가져야만 하는지는 (Confess. xii), 적절하지 않은 것이 아닙니다.

Reply to Objection 1. The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense. 

반대 1에 대한 답변. 이들 어의들의 다중성(multiplicity)은, 이들 어의들이 한 개의 단어가 여러 개의 사물들을 나타내기 때문에 증식되는(are multiplied) 것이 아니라, 이 단어들에 의하여 나타내어지는 사물들 그 자체들이 다른 사물들의 종류들일 수 있기 때문에 증식되므로, 다의(多義)의 허위(equivocation) 혹은 어떤 다른 종류의 다중성을 산줄하지 않습니다. 따라서 성전(聖典, Holy Writ, 즉 성경)에 있어 어떠한 혼란도 야기되지 않는데, 이는 이 어의들 모두가, 아우구스티노(Augustine)가 말하듯이(Epis. 48), 우의/풍유(allegory) 안에서 의도된 것들로부터가 아니라, 거기로부터만이 어떤 논증이 도출될 수 있는, 한 개 - 자구적 어의(the literal) - 위에 기초하기 때문입니다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 성경 본문의 어떠한 것도 이것 때문에 소멸되지 않는데, 왜냐하면 믿음(faith)에 절대적으로 요구되는(necessary to) 어떠한 것도, 그 자구적 어의에 있어 성경 본문에 의하여 다른 장소에서 두드러지게 되지 않는, 영성적 어의 아래에 포함되어 있지 않기 때문입니다.

Reply to Objection 2. These three — history, etiology, analogy — are grouped under the literal sense. For it is called history, as Augustine expounds (Epis. 48), whenever anything is simply related; it is called etiology when its cause is assigned, as when Our Lord gave the reason why Moses allowed the putting away of wives — namely, on account of the hardness of men's hearts; it is called analogy whenever the truth of one text of Scripture is shown not to contradict the truth of another. Of these four, allegory alone stands for the three spiritual senses. Thus Hugh of St. Victor (Sacram. iv, 4 Prolog.) includes the anagogical under the allegorical sense, laying down three senses only — the historical, the allegorical, and the tropological. 

반대 2에 대한 답변. 이들 세 개의 역사, 원인(etiology), 유비(analogy)는 자구적 어의(the literal sense) 아래에서 무리로 나누어집니다. 이는, 아우구스티노(Augustine)가 상세히 설명하듯이(Epis. 48), 어떤 것이 단순히 관련될 때마다 그것은 역사로 불리며, 그리고, 우리의 주님께서 모세가 아내들과 이혼함을 허락하였던 이유를, 즉, 사람들의 심장들의 굳음 때문에, 제공하셨을 때처럼, 그 이유(cause)가 할당될 때에 그것은 원인(etiology)으로 불리며, 그리고 성경 본문의 어떤 구절(text)의 진리가 다른 구절의 진리에 모순되지 않음이 보여질 때마다 그것은 유비라고 불립니다. 이들 네 개 중에서, 우의(allegory) 홀로 이 세 개의 영적인 어의들을 대표합니다(stands for). 따라서 성 빅토르의 후그(Hugh of St. Victor, 1096-1141년)는 신비적/종말론적 어의를 우의적 어의 아래에 포함하여, 그리하여 오로지 오로지 세 개의 어의들인 역사적 어의, 우의적/풍유적 어의, 그리고 윤리적/도덕적 어의만을 규정합니다(Sacram. iv, 4 Prolog.).

Reply to Objection 3. The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ. 

반대 3에 대한 답변. 비유적 어의(the parabolical sense)는 자구적 어의(the literal sense) 안에 포함되는데, 이는 단어들에 의하여 사물들이 고유하게(properly) 그리고 표상적으로(figuratively) 나타내어지기 때문입니다. 자구적 어의는, 그 표상(the figure) 자체가 결코 아니라, 표상되는 바로 그것입니다. 성경 본문이 하느님의 팔(God's arm)에 대하여 말할 때에, 자구적 어의는 하느님께서 그러한 한 개의 신체의 일부 가지고 계신다는 것이 아니라, 오로지 이러한 신체의 일부에 의하여 나타내어지는 바뿐입니다, 즉 작용하는 힘(operative power)뿐입니다. 따라서 어떠한 거짓도 결코 성전(聖典, Holy Writ, 즉 성경)의 자구적 어의의 밑에 있을 수 없습니다.  

-----
번역자 주: 자구적 어의에 속하는, 비유적 어의(the parabolic sense) 혹은 은유적 어의(metaphorical sense)에 대한 중세 백과사전에 주어진 설명은 다음의 글의 제3항에 있으니 또한 참고하라:
http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/soh/1082.htm

그리고 다음은 가톨릭 성경 해석 입문으로 마련된 글들의 모음이다:
http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/soh/intro2Biblical_exegesis.htm
-----
 

----------
번역자: 교수 소순태 마태오 (Ph. D.)
출처: http://club.catholic.or.kr/TourofSumma