On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, James R Ginther wrote:
> I think what we often forget is that the identification of the sponsa
> as either Mary or the church was not mutually exclusive for the
> medieval exegete. After all, Mary was deemed part of the church, and
> in an interesting use of synedoche, the church was Mary (much like
> the way Abel was the church). Hence, with this in mind Baldwin's
> elaboration contains no paradox, but presents Mary in terms of her
> historical status, as well as the various ontological and
> relational states she becomes by being one who was transformed by
> grace and thus a member of the church.
Point taken, Jim. But isn't it still paradoxical that as a way of
explaining this highly-articulated theology, contradictory metaphors are
applied simultaneously? The metaphors themselves are generally biblical,
but put together in new ways which, to us at least, create acute tensions
on the metaphorical level (mother/spouse, spouse/sister, etc.). Did
medieval people not notice this? (I took this as the point of John's
original question).
If they didn't, as you seem to imply, but bypassed metaphorical
inconsistency to focus on the theological referents, then what is the
nature of the mental change which makes a later readership feel a
discordance of metaphors and when did it take place? And if the medieval
approach to the mixing of such sexually-charged metaphors is so different
from our own, what does that imply for our attempts to understand
mentalities with regard to sexuality, etc.?
Thanks for the Grosseteste reference. I did not mean to imply Aquinas'
view was unique. I seem to recall more on the subject in de Lubac's
Exegese medievale, which I don't have at hand.
--
Paul Chandler || Yarra Theological Union
[log in to unmask] || Melbourne College of Divinity
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|