No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 August 2011
The following study is an analysis of Augustine's exegetical method with especial reference to an assessment of its critical element. The object is to find out what kind of argument the Bishop of Hippo used in his expositions of Scripture, and to pass judgment on it in terms of the canons of modern critical method. There is obviously an immense difference between what we on the one hand and what St. Augustine on the other would call a “good” argument. It seems to me profitable to inquire into this difference.
1 Grabmann, Martin, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, 2 vol. (Freiburg, 1909–1911), vol. 1, pp. 137–143Google Scholar.
2 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 234–246; vol. 2, pp. 199–212.
3 E. Portalié, “Augustin (Saint),” Dict, de théol. cath., vol. 1, pt. 2, cols. 2341–2344; Bardenhewer, O., Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, vol. 4 (Freiburg, 1924), pp. 428–430Google Scholar and 480–490; J. R. Smith, “Augustine as an Exegete,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 61 (1904), pp. 318–344; Henry Preserved Smith, Essays in Biblical Interpretation (Boston, 1921)Google Scholar, chap. 3, “The Triumph of Allegory.”
4 De Genesi ad litteram, xi, i. J. P. Migne, Patrologia cursus completus series latina, vol. xxxiv, col. 430. Migne's Latin Patrology will hereafter be abbreviated “PL.” The Greek Patrology will be “PG.” The Viennese Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum will be cited “CSEL.”
5 Contra Faustum, xi, 5. PL xlii, 249.
6 The history of allegory as a technique of edification has been extensively investigated. The following monographs, which consider the subject with more or less specialized emphasis, are but a small part of an immense literature: Siegfried, Carl, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten Testaments (Jena, 1875)Google Scholar; Kihn, Heinrich, Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten (Freiburg, 1880)Google Scholar; Farrar, F. W., History of Interpretation (Bampton Lectures, 1885)Google Scholar; Prat, F., Origène, le théologien et l'exégète (Paris, 1907)Google Scholar; Pirot, Louis, L'Oeuvre exégètique de Théodore de Mopsueste (Rome, 1913)Google Scholar; Bousset, W., Judischchristliche Schulbetrieb in Alexandrien und Rom (Göttingen, 1915)Google Scholar; A. de la Barre, “Ecole chrétienne de l'Alexandrie,” Diet, de théol. cath.; Bardenhewer, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 7 ff.; H. P. Smith, op. cit.
7 De doc. christ., iii, 10, 14. PL xxxiv, 71.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid., iii, 12, 18. PL xxxiv, 72–73.
10 Ibid., iii, 16, 24. PL xxxiv, 74.
11 Ibid., iii, 2, 2. PL xxxiv, 65.
12 Ibid., iii, 3, 6. PL xxxiv, 67.
13 Ibid., iii, 3, 7. PL xxxiv, 68.
14 De cons, evang., ii, 5, 16. CSEL xliii, 98.
15 Ibid., ii, 19, 45. CSEL xliii, 145.
16 These remarks, of course, apply to the technique when the argument rests solely on the mere statement of duality or omission. When the argument is more fully developed and textual evidence is produced to demonstrate duality or omission, the technique will be seen to fall under one of the classifications discussed below.
17 De doc. christ., iii, 4, 8. PL xxxiv, 68.
18 Ibid., iii, 12, 19. PL xxxiv, 73.
19 Ibid., iii, 17, 25. PL xxxiv, 75.
20 De cons, evang., ii, 30, 72. CSEL xliii, 176.
21 De civ. Dei, xv, 13. PL xli, 454.
22 Grabmann, op cit, vol. 2, pp. 199–213, refers only to the third of these statements and briefly dismisses its importance on the ground that it is applied allegorically. Quite aside from his neglect of the other three principles, this reference is itself insufficient, as we shall see below. Augustine quite certainly used the method in a non-allegorical as well as an allegorical fashion.
23 It should be remembered that for Augustine, as for the whole ancient and medieval world, the literal meaning of a passage was a much more restricted thing than it is for the modern world. Phrases that we would consider literal, like “downcast eyes” or “my thoughts ran” were not so considered in the period we are studying. See the excellent article, “Der geistige Sinn der Heilige Schrift beim hl. Augustinus” by Hugo, L. in the Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, vol. xxxii (1908)Google Scholar. It is this fact that explains Origen's frequently misunderstood statement that many texts in the Bible have no literal meaning at all. At a later point in this investigation we shall have to try to decide to what extent Augustine's methods may be called controlled when he is dealing with allegorical concepts that are clearly established by usage or the intention of the writer. There is no question about the meaning of the phrase “blind ditch” to signify a ditch we are blind to, as Augustine himself points out (De Genesi contra Manichaeos, i, 34. PL xxxiv, 190), although this is certainly not in the medieval sense its literal meaning. The real difficulty comes, to give an example, when Augustine interprets “staff” to mean “power of domination.” But such an interpretation might conceivably be based on usage or intention as consistently as the idiom “blind ditch.”
24 Conf. vi, 4. CSEL xxxiii, 119.
25 De vera rel., 17. PL xxxiv, 136.
26 Contra Faustum, xix, 20. PL xlii, 360.
27 Ibid., xxi, 47. PL xlii, 428.
28 Ibid., xxii, 23. PL xlii, 417.
29 Ibid., vii, 2. PL xlii, 237.
30 Ibid., xxii, 42. PL xlii, 426.
31 Ibid., xxii, 73. PL xlii, 446.
32 Ibid.
33 De doc. christ., iii, 17, 25. PL xxxiv, 75.
34 See, e.g., De vera rel., 24. PL xxxiv, 141. See also Contra Faustum, xxii, 77. PL xlii, 450.
35 De cons, evang., ii, 41, 88. CSEL xliii, 191.
36 Contra Faustum, xxii, 18. PL xlii, 410.
37 Ibid., xi, 7, 8. PL xlii, 249.
38 De cons. evang., ii, 28, 65. CSEL xliii, 170.
39 Scripturae sacrae locutiones, PL xxxiv, 485–546.
40 Contra Faustum, xix, 16. PL xlii, 356–7.
41 De cons, evang., ii, 30, 71. CSEL xliii, 175–6.
42 De doc. Christ., iii, 25, 35. PL xxxiv, 78.
43 De doc. Christ., ii, 11, 16. PL xxxiv, 42.
44 Ibid., PL xxxiv, 43.
45 Ibid., ii, 12, 18. PL xxxiv, 44.
46 Ibid., ii, 14, 21. PL xxxiv, 45.
47 In Scripturae sacrae locutiones, PL xxxiv, 485–546.
48 De cons. evang., ii, 28, 68. CSEL xliii, 172.
49 Ibid., iii, 7, 29. CSEL xliii, 304 ff. It is interesting that some modern critics have not appreciated this point, but have thoughtlessly and without explanation insisted on a scribal error. It is also interesting that, having elaborated this excellent argument, Augustine then goes on to produce a fantastic explanation of the text derived not from the text at all but from his understanding of God's purpose in inspiring the evangelist.
50 De doc. christ., ii, 15, 22. PL xxxiv, 46; Epistola 28, CSEL xxxiv, pt. 1, pp. 105–7; De civ. Dei, xviii, 42–43. PL xli, 602–4.
51 Epistola 71, CSEL xxxiv, pt. 2, p. 252.
52 Ibid., p. 253. When Jerome replied to this letter he made the blunt statement that Augustine simply didn't understand these matters (Epistola 75, CSEL xxxiv, pt. 2, p. 318). He adds significantly that he had not labored for the purpose of superseding the Septuagint version, but simply of showing the Latin readers what the Hebrew text was.
Jerome's own attitude toward the Septuagint was one of change and gradual development. At first he apparently attributed all differences between the Hebrew and the Greek to scribal error and accepted the legend of inspiration without question. Later he took a more enlightened view and came finally to speak of the Seventy with very little respect. (See J. Forget, “Jérôme,” Diet, de théol. cath., vol. viii, pt. 1, pp. 939–943.) Origen's attempt to reestablish a good text of the Septuagint and to provide comparisons of it with the Hebrew and with other Greek versions was not a critical effort in the modern sense, but was motivated by the desire to obtain a convenient and universally useable text (Bardy, loc. cit., p. 1496).
53 De civ. Dei, xviii, 42–43. PL xli, 602–604.
54 Ibid., xviii, 44. PL xli, 605.
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid.
57 De doc. christ., iv, 7, 15. PL xxxiv, 96.
58 It should also be mentioned that Augustine, quite aside from the possibility of escape through allegory, could not always be trusted properly to draw and apply the evidence on textual questions. His insistence in the Pelagian controversy on the reading in quo in Rom. 5:12 is the most notorious example of this deficiency. There in the face of all the textual evidence he adopted an indefensible position, apparently carried away by his apologetic purpose. (De peccatorum meritis et remissione, CSEL, lx, pp. 12 ff.)
59 Ita enim salubriter discimus nihil aliud esse quaerendum quam quid velit qui loquitur. De cons, evang., ii, 12, 29. CSEL xliii, 130.
60 Ibid., ii, 12, 28. CSEL xliii, 129.
61 De doc. christ., ii, 5, 6. PL xxxiv, 38.
62 Conf., xii, 18. CSEL xxxiii, 328.
63 De doc. christ., i, 36, 40. PL xxxiv, 34.
64 Ibid., i, 36, 37–41 PL xxxiv, 34–35.
65 Conf., xii, 32. CSEL xxxiii, 343–344.
66 De doc. Christ., iii, 27, 38. PL xxxiv, 80. It has sometimes been argued that Augustine taught a plurality of literal meanings in reference to Scriptural texts. The above discussion will indicate that this was not the case. The point has been elaborated by Talon, F., “Saint Augustin a-t-il réelment enseigné la pluralité des sens littéraux dans l'Ecriture?”, Recherches des sciences religieuses, vol. ii (1921)Google Scholar.
67 De doc. christ., i, 35, 40. PL xxxiv, 34.
68 De cons. evang., ii, 62, 121. CSEL xliii, 224.
69 Ibid., ii, 67, 128. CSEL xliii, 230.
70 Conf., iv, 16. CSEL xxxiii, 85.
71 De doc. christ., prol., 4 ff. PL xxxiv, 17 ff.
72 Ibid., i, 25. PL xxxiv, 28.
73 Ibid., i, 3. PL xxxiv, 20.
74 Ibid., ii, 40, 60. PL xxxiv, 63.
75 Ibid., ii, 29 ff. PL xxxiv, 56 ff.
76 Ibid., ii, 13, 21. PL xxxiv, 45.
77 Ibid., iv, 4, 6. PL xxxiv, 91.