Oleg V. Bychkov

The Nature of Theology in Duns Scotus and his Franciscan Predecessors

The current commemorative volume is a collection of essays focused mainly around Duns Scotus’s project of philosophical theology. A present-day scientifically-minded reader might feel very much aloof among such discussions of theological matters by way of proofs, arguments and evidence: the way of discourse currently reserved for the domain of science. How do we situate such an understanding of theology and can it still be relevant and make sense to us now? In order to answer this question we need to look, first, at how theology is understood at present, second, at its status as regards what is now called the sciences, and third, at how Scotus and his immediate predecessors actually understood the nature of theology.

Alexander of Hales, The Sum of Theology

On the discipline of theology <...> Chapter 1. Is the discipline of theology an [exact] science? <...> 1. Augustine, 83 Questions, q. 48: “Some things are taken on faith and are never a matter of understanding, for example, every history that deals with singular events and human deeds.” Therefore, since the discipline of theology is for the most part historical, as is clear from the Laws and the Gospel, it is about the things that are “never a matter of understanding.” But there cannot be a science about things that are not a matter of understanding <...> 2. Also, as Aristotle says at the beginning of his Metaphysics, “Experience is of singular individual things, art deals with universals <...>”; but the discipline of theology for the most part does not deal with universals, but with singular and individual things, as is clear from historical narratives in it. Therefore it is not art or science. 3. Also, there are three ways truth operates in disciplines: opinion, belief, science <...>. However, science never derives from things pertaining to opinion or belief. Now since theology as such deals with matters of belief <...>, therefore it does not operate as a science. <...> [To the contrary] a. That which is known through divine inspiration is known more truly than that which is known through human reasoning <...>. Therefore, since knowledge in theology

“In Harmony with Reason”: John Duns Scotus’s Theo-aesth/ethics

Abstract Over the past two decades, the debate has intensified over the nature of John Duns Scotus’s (meta) ethics: is it a purely voluntarist “divine command” ethics or is it still based on rational principles? The former side is exemplified by Thomas Williams and the latter by Allan Wolter. Scotus claims that even the divine commandments that are not based on natural law are still somehow “in harmony with reason.” But what does this mean? Richard Cross in a recent study claims that God’s reasons for establishing certain moral norms are “aesthetic.” However, he fails to show clearly what is “aesthetic” about these reasons or why God’s will would follow “aesthetic” principles in legislating moral norms. This article clarifies both points, first, by painting an up-to-date picture of what constitutes “aesthetic” principles, and second, by providing a more accurate model of the way the human volitional faculty operates and addressing the problem of the “freedom of the will” from a present-day point of view.

But Everyone Experiences the Opposite: John Duns Scotus's Aesthetic Defense of Anselm's "Proof" of the Existence of God in Light of Present-day Thought

Recent scholarship of John Duns Scotus becomes less and less shy about relating his work to modern and contemporary thought.1 One new and interesting aspect of Scotus studies is looking at the aesthetic way of thinking in Scotus.2 One of the key contexts where Scotus applies aesthetic argumentation is his defense of Anselm’s Proslogion “proof” of the existence of God—the proof that is itself viewed as aesthetic by some scholars.3 Throughout the Middle Ages and subsequently, Anselm’s “proof” has been the subject of con-

Bonaventure Commentary on the Sentences [of Peter Lombard]: Prologue

[Arguments Pro] a. It seems that God is the subject. The subject of a science is that about which and about whose properties the science as a whole is; but this whole book is about God and his works, namely, creation and restoration, therefore etc. b. Also, it seems that the subject of this book is things and signs. For that is the subject of a science, whose division this science follows, for sciences are subdivided according to their subject matter; but this is [in the present case] thing and sign, as has been shown; therefore, etc. c. Also, it seems that the subject of this book is matters that pertain to belief. For that is the subject of a book, around which the intention and argument of the author are centered—which in this case is matters pertaining to belief. Whence the Master10 says in the Prologue that his goal is “to strengthen our faith with the shields of the tower of David,” that is, to adduce rational arguments to prove articles of faith: not faith as a habit, but faith as something that has been believed; therefore, etc.

Peter of John Olivi The Sum of Questions on The Sentences [of Peter Lombard]

[Arguments Pro] 1 God, it seems. The subject of a science19 is that to which everything in that science is reduced. As such it should be the final, simple element of the body of knowledge. In the whole of Scripture however nothing is more final and simple than God. Therefore, and so on. 2 Also, the most lofty and high and encompassing science should treat the most lofty and high and encompassing subject. And so here: no subject can be more lofty, high, and encompassing than God. Therefore, and so on. 3 Also, it seems we can deduce our conclusion from its very name, for it is called theology or knowledge about the divine, which means about God.

What Does Beauty Have to Do With the Trinity?: From Augustine to Duns Scotus

This paper will address a very specific task. Throughout the centuries theologians referred to the “beauty” of the Trinity or its specific persons. What exactly is the meaning of the word “beauty” in this case and can one speak of the “aesthetics” of the Trinity? The question will be treated historically, using material from Augustine, Bonaventure and John Duns Scotus. Augustine is certainly the greatest of Christian aestheticians.1 Bonaventure represents the thirteenth-century Franciscan tradition that is both interested in aesthetic matters and is Augustinian in nature.2 Duns Scotus is also supportive of both the Augustinian and the Bonaventurian traditions, and has, perhaps, the most developed and profound analysis of the Trinity in medieval thought.3 The paper will use the approach that von Balthasar dubbed “theological aesthetics,” as opposed to “aesthetic theology.”4 This means that the analysis will start not with aesthetic or artistic experience used for theological purposes, but with systematic theology proper, and show how certain aesthetic issues naturally come out of certain theological