Bill,
What do you make of Weingart's argument (_Logic of Divine Love_) that Abelard
was _not_ an exemplarist/subjectivist in his theory of atonement? Weingart
supplies ample citations from the Romans commentary as well as PA's other
works that clearly show an objectivist slant, and, having translated the
Romans commentary myself, I think he makes some good points. Weingart argues
that the passage you have cited from the RC should _not_ be taken as a
summary of PA's views on the atonement, and again, I think he makes a good
point.
I myself see both subjectivist and objectivist elements in PA's atonement
thought. How well do they reconcile? I'm not sure yet--I'm not sure I'd go
as far as Weingart, who wants to smooth over Peter's rough edges and portray
his thought as consistent. Most early 12th century thinkers are not all that
consistent--they frequently change their minds or their vocabulary, and don't
always worry about whether it all holds together in the end, the way 20th
century thinkers try to do. They, and especially Peter, remind me of what
Walt Whitman once said: "Do I contradict myself? / Very well then I
contradict myself, / (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
Steve Cartwright
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|