Chris Siefert (cmsief@acm.org)
College of William and Mary
December, 1999
Augustine opens the body of On Christian Doctrine with a discussing of ``things'' and ``signs'' (or res and signum in Latin). Whereas anything which exists can properly be called a thing, he uses the term in a strict sense, ``to signify that which is never employed as a sign of anything else.'' Signs on the other hand are also things in the loose sense, but are not in the strict sense. He writes that, ``every sign is also a thing, for what is not a thing is nothing at all'' (On Christian Doctrine I.2.2; Babcock 146). With the strict definition Augustine partitions everything that exists into two categories -- things and signs. What is important to note however, is that things, by nature of being things have a reality to them. This point will be important in later discussion.
Before the question of reality content of signs can be dealt with, one must first have an understanding of what a sign was to Augustine, and how that factored into Augustinian hermeneutics. In the second book of On Christian Doctrine, Augustine gives a definition of the term sign. He says that, ``a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself'' (II.1.1; Fathers of the Church). From this rather broad category of things that point to other things, Augustine distinguishes between two types of signs -- natural and conventional. Natural signs ``are those which, apart from any intention or desire of using them as signs, do yet lead to the knowledge of something else.'' An example of such a sign would be smoke indicating fire (Ibid. II.1.2; Fathers of the Church).
But these natural signs are not the focus of Augustine's work. Rather he focuses on conventional signs. These are signs ``which living beings mutually exchange for the purpose of showing, as well as they can, the feelings of their minds, or their perceptions, or their thoughts'' (Ibid. II.2.3; Fathers of the Church). These signs include such things as language itself and the signs found in Scripture. These signs are also either proper or figurative, that is they have one or two levels of signification. The word ``ox,'' for example is a conventional sign. In the proper sense (one level of signification), it points to the animal which is an ox. But in the figurative sense (two levels of signification), it points to one of the four evangelists. One arrives at this figuration through two levels of signification -- from the word to the animal, and from the animal to the evangelist. Whereas both of these types of conventional signs are discussed in On Christian Doctrine, it is the figurative ones that get the majority of his attention, and henceforth shall be the focus of this work (Ibid. II.10.15; Babcock 148-149).
One type of problematic sign in Scripture is what Augustine calls ``unknown'' signs. These are signs consist of things like Hebrew words, references to plants, animals and minerals, and special numbers. Generally, thus category of signs can be dealt with simply, namely by learning the relevant information. For language problems, Augustine recommends learning Greek and Hebrew. Likewise, for knowledge of the characteristics of plants, animals and minerals, Augustine recommends the study of the natural sciences. ``No help is to be despised, even though it come from a profane source,'' writes Augustine (Ibid. II.11,14,16,18.16-28; Fathers of the Church).
While unknown signs can be dealt with easily, ``ambiguous'' signs are generally much more difficult. Proper ambiguous signs can often be dealt with by ``attending to punctuation,'' but figurative ambiguous signs often lead cause problems to the reader of the Scriptural passage (Ibid. III.2.2; Fathers of the Church). There are two errors that are to be avoided when dealing with possibly figurative signs -- interpreting literal expressions figuratively, and interpreting literal expressions figuratively. It is from this point and with these concerns that Augustine begins his discussion of rules for hermeneutics, detailing several of his rules before citing Tyconius' Book of Rules at the end of the book (Ibid. III Argument; Fathers of the Church).
But how can one discern what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken figuratively in Scripture? Augustine's answer is a simple one. He feels that the love of God, and the love of one's neighbor for God's sake are the goal of a Christian life. The Scriptures have ``nothing else in them'' (Ibid. II.7.10; Fathers of the Church). Also in this vein, he notes that ``these are the three things to which all knowledge and all prophecy are subservient: faith, hope, love'' (Ibid. I.37.41; Fathers of the Church). Thus Augustine proposes a rule for determining whether or not a given section of Scripture is literal or figurative which is based on these assertion. He tells us that, ``Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life, or soundness of doctrine, you may set it down as figurative'' (Ibid. III.10.14; Fathers of the Church). Roland Teske refers to this the ``maximizing criterion,'' as it ``maximizes the amount of Scripture that has a figurative sense, for a vast amount of Scripture does not in its proper or literal sense deal directly with matters of faith or moral conduct'' (109-110).
This question of literal and figurative interpretation raises yet another question -- why are there figurative signs in Scripture to begin with? After all, Scripture would be much easier to interpret if one could simply take all signs to be proper, and the whole text to be speaking in a literal sense. In fact, once Augustine believed exactly that, and it was due to the difficulties that literalism caused that he became a Manichee ``hearer,'' abandoning the faith of his mother, Monica. But Ambrose of Milan taught spiritual interpretation of Scripture, and this rang true to Augustine. Recalling Ambrose' sermons, Augustine says he taught that `` `the letter kills but the spirit gives life,' when he [Ambrose] removed the mystical veil and uncovered the spiritual sense of those things which in their literal meaning seemed to contain a perverse doctrine'' (Confessions 5.14.24; Teske 111-112). Due to the role understanding of spiritual interpretation and figuration played in his conversion, it is not surprising that Augustine would see this as an important part of Scripture. Augustine finds that though some ``of the expressions [of Scripture] are so obscure as to shroud the meaning in the thickest darkness'' he does ``not doubt that all this was divinely arranged.'' From this we see that Augustine thought God had Scriptural ambiguities inserted on purpose. But why? According to Augustine, God had this done ``for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and preventing a feeling of satiety in the intellect, which generally holds in small esteem what is discovered without difficulty'' (On Christian Doctrine II.6.7; Fathers of the Church; Brown 261). The ambiguity in Scripture exists in order to keep Christians humble, and to ``stimulate our appetite'' as ``what is attended with difficulty in the seeking gives greater pleasure in the finding'' (Ibid. II.6.8; Fathers of the Church).
Out of all the signs Augustine has discussed, it is the conventional ambiguous signs, and their interpretation which is relevant to the question of reality content. This begets two important questions. First, what is the reality content in both ends of a proper sign? Secondly, what about the reality content in all three parts of a figurative sign? Is there a difference for Augustine?
The second part of a proper sign in Scripture contains a reality as well. For example, the proper signs of the book of Jeremiah which describe his acts in Egypt have a reality to them -- they occurred in history. Augustine cites Ambrose's use of the history of Jeremiah refute various claims of the Platonists. In doing so, Augustine shows the reality inherent in those proper signs in Scripture (Ibid. II.28.42; Fathers of the Church). The proper signs in Scripture describing the coming of Jesus Christ would also be among such proper signs with a reality existing in history (Ibid. III.6.10; Fathers of the Church). More generally, Augustine tells us that ``all, or nearly all of the transactions recorded in the Old Testament are to be taken not literally only, but figuratively as well'' (Ibid. III.22.32; Fathers of the Church). That statement, insofar as it applies to proper signs says that they do have a reality in their second part, and this reality allows for ``literal'' interpretation.
Proper signs can also refer to realities to come. An example of this would be some of the deeds that God will accomplish against evil. Augustine writes that, ``Every severity, therefore, and apparent cruelty, either in word or deed, that is ascribed in Holy Scripture to God or His saints, avails to the pulling down of the dominion of lust. And if its meaning be clear, we are not to, give it some secondary reference, as if it were spoken figuratively'' (Ibid. III.11.17; Fathers of the Church). Thus he offers one of Paul's semi-prophetic statements in Romans as an example of proper signification. In it Paul writes, ``But, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God...but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil'' (Romans 2:5-9; Ibid. III.11.17; Fathers of the Church). According to Augustine, the second part of this sign spoke of a reality which is to come, and no additional levels of signification are needed for its interpretation.
Presumably, proper signs could also refer to a reality occurring now, but Augustine gives no examples of this. What is important to note however, is that there is a reality associated with the end of a proper sign in Scripture. As Babcock comments, ``there will be two cases in which a thing will have the standing of a thing, one when it is not a factor of signification at all, the other when it is the terminus of a given instance of signification'' (Ibid. I.2.2; Babcock 146). Since things have a reality within themselves, basically by definition, the second part of a proper sign in Scripture must tap into that reality.
But does this same content of reality hold when one deals with figurative signs as well? Clearly, a figurative sign in Scripture must have the same reality at the ``word'' level, namely the reality derived from the common language. Likewise, the ``thing'' at the second and final level of signification of a figurative sign in Scripture must also have a reality to it. This follows from Babcock's analysis of Augustine's first few paragraphs by reasoning that shows that a reality is present at the terminal level of a proper sign (Ibid. I.2.2; Babcock 146). The question then becomes, what sort of reality is present at the middle level of a figurative sign? Can the middle part of a figurative sign have a reality to it, and if so, must it?
Augustine points out through many examples that the middle part of a figurative sign can contain a reality two it. An example of this would be Augustine's analysis of the old testament. Augustine tells us that ``all, or nearly all of the transactions recorded in the Old Testament are to be taken not literally only, but figuratively as well'' (Ibid. III.22.32; Fathers of the Church). In the next chapter Augustine offers the narratives of the sins of great men as another case of Scriptural sections having both proper and figurative signification. He writes that, ``when he [the reader] reads of the sins of great men, although he may also be able to see and to trace out a figure of things to come, let him yet put the literal fact to this use also'' (Ibid. III.23.33; Fathers of the Church). This tell us that there exist passages in Scripture which are both literal and figurative, and hence both proper and figurative signs. Since the middle part of the figuration is the end or terminal level of the associated proper sign, it follows logically that there is a reality to it. From this it is clear that figurative signs in scripture can have a reality to their middle part.
But must figurative expressions have such a reality to their middle parts, or is this not a requirement for Augustine? The answer to this question is no. Augustine reveals this indirectly in his guide to determining what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken figuratively in Scripture. He writes that, ``Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life, or soundness of doctrine, you may set it down as figurative'' (Ibid. III.10.14; Fathers of the Church). In this he implies that there is no literal level to these texts, hence it cannot be taken to be a proper sign. Augustine also describes taking figurative expressions literally as ``a wretched slavery.'' In the same vein, he writes ``And nothing is more fitting called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter'' (Ibid. III.5.9; Fathers of the Church). Dawson comments that ``refusing to turn from the sign to the thing signified is a `miserable servitude of spirit' that leads to death.' '' (Ibid. III.5.9; Dawson 134). Clearly, a reading of a proper sign would be much different. Augustine makes this distinction most explicit in the following two passages:
``For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice, does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth. Now it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light'' (Ibid. III.5.9; Fathers of the Church).
Those who clung obstinately to such signs could not endure our Lord's neglect of them when the time for their revelation had come; and hence their leaders brought it as a charge against Him that He healed on the Sabbath, and the people, clinging to these signs as if they were realities, could not believe that one who refused to observe them in the way the Jews did was God, or came from God (Ibid. III.6.10; Fathers of the Church).
From the above quotations, we see that Augustine finds the Jews guilty of a fatal error. They refused to take the sign to its end -- a reality. Thus it is plain to see that Augustine did not require all signs in Scripture to be both proper and figurative. Though there are expressions throughout Scripture that are both proper and figurative, the two need not coincide. So it is possible to have a figurative sign that does not have a proper sign as its ``word'' and middle parts. Hence it is possible for a figurative sign to exist without a definite reality in its middle part.
Throughout the first few centuries of Christian history, there were many disagreements between Christians on topics ranging from christology to hermeneutics. Many of the conflicts in the East however, involved protagonists from two cities -- Alexandria and Antioch. The debate over hermeneutics raged in the third and fourth centuries with the specific topic of spiritual interpretation of Scripture. The Alexandrian Christians, represented by Origen of Alexandria believed heavily in allegorical interpretation. On the other hand, the Antiochene Christians, represented by Diodore of Tarsus focused more on the literal and historical meaning of the texts. Since Augustine was from the West, he belonged to neither the Alexandrian or Antiochene schools. The framework of this debate raises a natural question namely, what are the similarities and differences between Augustine's hermeneutics and those of Origen and Diodore? Would Augustine agree with Origen's emphasis on spiritual interpretation and allegory, or would he focus more on the historical and literal interpretation like Diodore?
In On First Principles, Origen of Alexandria outlines his particular hermeneutical rules. He finds that the spiritual sense of Scripture is the one of critical import to the Christian reader. He writes that, ``For with regard to divine Scripture as a whole we are of the opinion that all of it has a spiritual sense'' (On First Principles IV.III(5); Froelich 67). For Origen, all of scripture was to be interpreted ``spiritually'', or using figuration and searching for the terminal level of signification. But did Origen find there to be a literal, or properly signified reality to Scripture as well? For most of Scripture the answer is yes. But Origen felt that there are some sections which describe an event which ``is an impossibility'' or ``though possible, it [the event] actually did not happen'' (Ibid. IV.II(9); Froelich 62). For Origen ``some Scriptural passages have no bodily sense at all'' and ``there are cases where one must seek only for the soul and spirit of the passage, so to speak'' (Ibid. IV.II(5); Froelich 58). Thus, Origen's hermeneutical theory in relation to signification can be distilled into two major points. The first is that all of Scripture has a spiritual sense or contains a figurative signification. The second is that not all of Scripture has a literal sense or contains a proper signification.
What would Augustine have though of Origen's first major point? Did he feel that all of Scripture contains a figurative signification? The fact that he differentiates between proper and figurative signs at all in his discussion seems to suggest that Scripture may indeed have signs that are solely proper or solely figurative. This is however, merely a suggestion, and not an open disagreement with Origen's hermeneutics. It is in the opening argument of the third book of On Christian Doctrine, where Augustine begins to make this disagreement. He writes that, ``In the case of figurative signs we need to guard against... interpreting literal expressions figuratively'' (Fathers of the Church). In the case of phrases in Scripture that ascribe cruelty or severity to God or his saints, Augustine finds that their end is for the ``pulling down of the dominion of lust.'' If the meaning of the phrase is ``clear, we are not to, give it some secondary reference as if it were spoken figuratively'' (Ibid. III.11.17; Fathers of the Church). Augustine also finds that Scripture ``tends to establish the reign of love,'' and if an expression ``when taken literally it at once gives a meaning of this kind, the expression is not to be considered figurative'' (Ibid. III.15.23; Fathers of the Church). In these two sections Augustine makes his disagreement with Origen most clear. For Augustine, there were indeed passages of Scripture that had no figurative meaning and thus only possessed proper signification. This puts him at odds with this point of Alexandrian hermeneutics as he believes that not all of Scripture has a spiritual meaning.
The second major part of Origen's hermeneutics is the fact that not all of Scripture has a literal meaning. To put this in the language of signs, this means that there are passages of Scripture that have figurative but not proper signs. As demonstrated in the previous section, Augustine found that ``it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light'' (Ibid. III.5.9; Fathers of the Church). Thus Augustine would agree completely with this aspect of Origen's hermeneutics, noting that not all of Scripture has a literal reality.
But how do Origen's criteria for denying the reality of a literal sense of Scripture for a given passage relate to Augustine's? Origen's rule for interpretation is what Teske would call the ``Absurdity Criterion'' (Teske 111). Origen writes that, ``where the recorded actions of a specific person did not fit the account of the inner meaning, Scripture has woven into the historical narrative some feature which did not happen'' (On First Principles IV.II(9); Froelich 62). He also notes that ``In such cases he [the interpreter] must provide the connection on the level of intelligible reality between a statement impossible in its literal sense and those statements which are not only possible but true according to the historical narrative, allegorizing the latter along with texts which did not happen according to the letter'' (Ibid. IV.III(5); Froelich 67). Although Origen always felt that it was the spiritual sense of Scripture which was of import, he only authorized the disregarding of the literal sense of Scripture in the case of some kind of impossibility or event that did not occur.
Augustine actually advocated precisely the same hermeneutical rule in his apologetic work De Genesi contra Manichaeos. Augustine writes that, ``there is no way which we can understand what has been written [Genesis 2-3] in a matter that is pious and worthy of God without believing that these things have been set before us in figures and enigmas'' (2.2.3 Teske 112). According to Teske, Augustine tells us ``only reason for believing that the text contains figures and enigmas is that such a belief provides the only escape from understanding the text in a matter that is blasphemous, lacking in piety and unworthy of God'' (Teske 112-3). Although he offers that criterion for figurative interpretation of Scripture to the Manichees, he himself uses a different criterion. As discussed above, this is what Teske calls the ``maximizing'' criterion. He expounds this in On Christian Doctrine, but uses it in both that work and De Genesi contra Manichaeos (Teske 117). This criterion is best stated by Augustine himself. He tells us that, ``Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life, or soundness of doctrine, you may set it down as figurative'' (On Christian Doctrine III.10.14; Fathers of the Church). Not only are cases of absurdity or impossibility in Scripture to be declared void of proper signification, but anything which does not deal with faith or morals are to be viewed likewise. In such cases, the Augustine finds the meaning to be solely figurative.
Diodore of Tarsus outlines a radically different set of hermeneutical rules from those given by his Alexandrian counterparts. Unlike complete literalists, Diodore outlines what he calls ``a realistic, middle-of-the-road approach'' (Commentary on the Psalms, Prologue; Froelich 86). His goal was to ``expound it [Scripture] according to the historical substance (historia) and the plain literal sense (lexis). At the same time, we will not disparage anagogy and the higher theòria'' (Ibid.; Froelich 85). By , he means the figurative level of signification. For Diodore, there was a definite value in this figurative interpretation. He notes that, ``In any approach to holy Scripture, the literal reading of the text reveals some truths while the discovery of other truths requires the application of theòria'' (Preface to the Commentary on Psalm 118; Froelich 87). However Diodore also found that even when one would look for the spiritual meaning or theòria, one could not eliminate the literal meaning. He writes that ``One thing is to be watched, however: theòria must never be understood as doing away with the underlying sense'' (Comment. Psalms; Froelich 85). He also claims that ``Scripture does not repudiate in any way the underlying prior history but `theorizes,' that is it develops a higher vision (theòria) of other but similar events in addition, without abrogating history'' (Pref. Psalm 118; Froelich 88). Thus the major points of Diodore's hermeneutics are the value of spiritual interpretation, and that there is no case under which the proper signification of Scripture is nullified.
Augustine would obviously agree in the value of spiritual interpretation of Scripture. His entire hermeneutical system is after all, based on the discernment and use of figuration in Scripture. But what would Augustine say about Diodore's second major point, that one could not do away with the literal sense of underlying history of Scriptural passages? Augustine would find that to be a tremendous problem, as he finds that there are passages of Scripture that are solely figurative. Of a passage in Jeremiah, Augustine writes, ``But in the saying addressed to Jeremiah, `See, I have this day set thee over nations, and over kingdoms, to root out, to pull down, and to destroy, and to thrown down,' there is no doubt the whole of the language is figurative'' (On Christian Doctrine III.11.17; Fathers of the Church). For Augustine, failing to ignore the literal sense when necessary was a serious problem and he calls such behavior ``bondage'' to signs. He writes that, ``Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, and significant object without knowing what it signifies.'' He also writes that, ``to follow the letter, and to take signs for ...things ...is a mark of weakness and bondage'' (Ibid. III.9.13; Fathers of the Church).
Augustine sees the Jews as one group most certainly in such bondage. The Jews in Jesus' day ``clung obstinately to such signs...clinging to these signs as if they were reality, could not believe that one who refused to observe them in the way the Jews did was from God, or came from God'' (Ibid. III.6.10; Fathers of the Church). In failing to see the higher meaning, and figurative signification of Scripture, the Jews have put themselves in such bondage. However Augustine finds that the signs of the Jews pointed at least pointed to the truth, though the Jews refused to believe them. The pagan gentiles were also in bondage, but in an even worse way. He writes that, ``If then, to take a sign which has been established for a useful end instead of the thing itself which it was designed to signify, is bondage to the flesh, how much more so is it to take signs intended to represent useless things for the things themselves'' (Ibid. III.7.11; Fathers of the Church). The gentiles were in bondage to ``temporal things,'' not even the signs of the truth to which the Jews were bonded (Ibid. III.6.10; Fathers of the Church).
In all of this discussion of bondage to signs, Augustine does make his point, and presents his disagreement with Diodore. Though both agree on the importance of spiritual interpretation, and the identification of figuration in Scripture, the abrogation of the literal sense is an point of conflict. Whereas Diodore could never justify the abrogation of the literal sense, Augustine found that sometimes such an extreme is necessary, in order to find the figurative and to prevent the bondage to signs.
Thus we have On Christian Doctrine, Augustine's instruction book for understanding Scripture and Scriptural signification. In it he outlines his theory of signs, differentiating between the proper which have a reality on both ends, and the figurative, which have a reality on both ends, but may or may not have a reality in the middle. This puts Augustine somewhere between the schools of Alexandria and Antioch. He sided against Origen and the Alexandrians in insisting that portions of Scripture have only a proper signification. In terms of abrogating the literal sense of Scripture, Augustine sided against Diodore and the Antiochenes and claimed that it can be allowed. Thus he outlines a Western view of Scriptural signification -- one not quite congruent with any of those in the East, but one with a definitive answer to the question of the interpretation of signs.
This document was generated using the LaTeX2HTML translator Version 97.1 (release) (July 13th, 1997)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, Nikos Drakos, Computer Based Learning Unit, University of Leeds.
The command line arguments were:
latex2html -split 0 -no_navigation rel331.tex.
The translation was initiated by Chris Siefert on 1/4/2000