Biblical Problems And Augustine’s Allegorizing

By J. Barton Payne

Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina

HISTORICAL and moral difficulties in the books of the Old and New Testaments have challenged the minds of all types of men, influencing methods of interpretation, theories of inspiration, and faith itself. This fact applies not simply to the modern era but was appreciated by scholars from the first, one of the greatest being Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. The following inquiry concerns particularly his approach to Scripture and its problems through allegorical interpretation.

Augustine stressed the importance of Biblical apologetics. In fact, “the experience of Augustine himself shows how serious a stumbling block the Old Testament presented to those who approached Christianity from a philosophical or educated standpoint”.[1] His actual apologetic varied. In textual criticism the bishop was generally objective, as, for example, in the problem of Mt. 27:9.[2] In the realm of higher criticism a rational approach might appear, as with regard to the conflicting geneologies of Christ[3] or John’s knowledge of Jesus before the baptism.[4] In certain matters he exhibits such standard principles as veritas rei citatae vs. veritas citationis,[5] the temporary character of certain injunctions,[6] or the incompleteness of the record.[7] At other times he utilized allegorical interpretation, the assigning to a passage of a figurative meaning other than the literal: for example, his solution for the Mt. 27:9 quotation of “Jeremiah” was “hinc potuit mystice significari”;[8] he uses spiritual meanings to rectify differences between the MT and the LXX,[9] or the versions;[10] the slaughtering by Moses of the followers of the golden calf was explained as a picture of “mortifying your members which are on earth”;[11] in reference to a seventh day of creation on which God rested he concluded the true sense to be not historical but allegorical;[12] and that the Song of Solomon could not be accepted as a literal love song was taken for granted.[13] Finally, in other matters, he simply admitted that a knowledge of complete Biblical consistency was impossible of attainment in this life.[14] So J. G. Pilkington concluded: “He does not seem, however, quite consistent in his statements as to the relative prominence to be given to the literal and spiritual meanings…”.[15] But rather than leave the question thus, may there not be discerned the place and the way in which Augustine intended allegorical interpretation to be used?

Augustine’s fourfold method of interpretation, “secundum historiam, aetiologiam, analogiam, et allegoriam”, is well known, though his aetiology and analogy are little more than specific aspects of the historical or literal interpretation with some allegorical elements; the present standard of limiting true allegory to that intended by the writer himself[16] apparently exerted little or no influence over the great theologian. He could claim that allegories which none of the Biblical writers had recognized had been divinely pointed out to him, “Quia non, sicut in tua ueritate hoc certum uideo id cum cogitasse, cum haec scriberet”;[17] and yet he could also assign half a dozen spiritual meanings to one passage,[18] claiming it all to be merely what Moses had thought before him.[19] His sermons and books of Old Testament exegesis abound in spiritual elaborations: the dimensions of Noah’s ark,[20] and the 153 fish of John 21,[21] demonstrate several aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity; and in his work on the Psalter hardly a thought or word fails to produce an allegorical conclusion, whether it be a rock on the sea or the prickles on a hedgehog (Ps. 104:18). He could reduce the place of any non-allegorical elements to one of simply binding together the figures: “Solo enim uomere terra proscinditur; sed ut hoc fieri possit, etiam cetera aratri membra sunt necessaria”.[22] Accordingly, Trench concluded: he “seems himself prepared to go all lengths … to make the entire Old Testament history … prophetic … to account as though it had been unworthy of the Holy Ghost to occupy Himself in the record of such matters as fill up very many pages of the Book, unless this second and New Testament meaning could be shown everywhere to underlie the plainer and the earlier”.[23] “Omnia enim illa, sicut dicit apostolus, figurae nostrae fuerunt.”[24]

This goes too far. Generally a balance appears:

Mihi autem sicut multum uidentur errare, qui nullas res gestas in eo genere litterarum aliquid aliud praeter id, quod eo modo gestae sunt, significare arbitrantur, ita multum audere, qui prorsus ibi omnia significationibus allegoricis inuoluta esse contendunt.[25]

So W. Cunningham tried to sum up the situation as follows: “He seems to have accepted some such canon as this—to treat all Scriptural narratives as not only revelations of matters of faith about the unseen but also as statements of actual fact, unless they were obviously allegorical”.[26] But again, such an assertion seems objectionable, and on two counts. On the one hand he could dismiss altogether a given literal statement on the following grounds: “Et iste omnino modus est, ut quidquid in sermone divino neque ad morum honestatem, neque ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest, figuratum esse cognoscas”.[27] Yet, on the other hand, he recognized the inadvisability of employing allegorical interpretation against non-Christians,[28] in cases that might cause ridicule,[29] or in anything not strictly sacrae fidei congruam.[30]

It therefore appears that, particularly in Biblical passages containing difficulties, the key to Augustine’s use of allegorical interpretation may well lie, not primarily in any general position as to the place of allegory in Biblical hermeneutics, but rather in his desire to bring such passages into harmony with his doctrine of inspiration. This doctrine, though never systematically presented by Augustine, may be summarized as follows. Divine providence, working through the Holy Spirit, selected the human writers of Scripture[31] and ordered their undertaking of the writing.[32] The Spirit supervised the selection of source materials,[33] or provided information by direct revelation,[34] and determined the order of events, chronological or not.[35] “Administratione Spiritus sancti haec gesta conscripta sunt”;[36] “qua mentes euangelistarum sunt gubernatae”.[37] But Augustine’s doctrine of Scripture goes further and includes not simply the men, subjective illumination, but also the work, objective inspiration. While sometimes recognizing a human choice of both words[38] and materials,[39] he at other times inclines to simple dictation, “Spiritu Dei dictante dicti et conscripti sunt”.[40] However this inconsistency be resolved, the net result is verbal inspiration: “Sic etiam loquente propheta sancto, etsi dicamus, Propheta dixit, nihil aliud quam Dominum dixisse intelligi volumus”.[41] The words are as much God’s as if He spoke them all. This automatically ruled out the possibility of “aliquid mendacium”,[42] whether the record be of Enoch[43] or of Adam himself.[44] Scriptural inerrancy is clearly expressed: “Ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo erasse aliquid firmissime credam”.[45]

But to the thoughtful reader of Scripture, such as Augustine, there were bound to arise for consideration various kinds of difficulties and apparent discrepancies in Scripture. The resolution of the situation could follow various courses: (1) by a lowering of his doctrine of inspiration the tension might disappear; (2) by further study difficulties might be removed and harmony reappear within Scripture; or (3) a solution failing, in conscious acceptance of the fact, he might take Scripture as authority—on faith. As he himself put it, “sed prius sanctarum scripturarum auctoritatibus colla subdenda sunt, ut ad intellectum per fidem quisque perueniat”.[46]

In early life Augustine refused Christianity. This was caused in great measure by the difficulties within Scripture and his unwillingness to assume any of the above three methods of resolution: “uideo rem non compertam superbis neque nudatam pueris, sed in cessu humilem, sucessu excelsam et uelatam mysteriis, et non eram ego talis, ut intrare in eam possem aut inclinare ceruicem ad eius gressus”.[47] Over against his awareness of Biblical problems stood his doctrine of inspiration, or at least his view as to what a divine book ought to be, and finding no point of reconciliation he rejected the faith. Then came his contact with Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, who had been deeply influenced by the allegorical method of Origen and the Alexandrian school in explaining Biblical difficulties. As has been frequently pointed out,[48] Augustine’s conversion was due in great part[49] to Ambrose’s “solutions”, “littera occidit, spiritus autem uiuificat”.[50] Lacking both faith and explanations, but holding to an uncompromising view of Scripture,[51] he found in this fourth factor, allegorical interpretation, a perhaps questionable but still very real key to reconciliation, “die Vermittlerin zwischen der Philosophie und dem positiven traditionellen Glauben”, as Schwenkenbecher has suggested.[52]

But despite the solutions Augustine assigns to Ambrose’s allegorical interpretation in the Confessions, he nowhere elaborates on what they were, nor are the specific instances of “explaining away” by allegory as numerous in his writings (most of which came later in life) as the above might suggest.[53] Ordinarily, somewhere within the extensive allegorical application lies a literal explanation, as, for example, in the matter of patriarchal polygamy, the need for numerous offspring.[54 ]Philip Schaff claimed that in his immediately post-conversion period, after the contact with Ambrose (A. D. 385), Augustine made great use of the allegorical method, only to discard it in later life.[55] It is true that soon after the year 400 he was able to say of the difficulties of Genesis, “ut … existimarem etiam per me posse secundum propriam, non secundum allegoricam, locutionem haec scripta esse monstrari”.[56] Yet this fails to account for the dated statements and self-contradictions within Augustine: in 397 he could explain certain matters only on a figurative basis,[57] and this was still the case in 401–405;[58] yet previous to either of these he is found saying, “sane quisquis voluerit omnia quae dicta sunt, secundum litteram accipere, id est non aliter intelligere quam littera sonat”.[59]

Augustine’s allegorizing of difficulties seems best appreciated as a “diminishing Vermittlerin”. As he grew older both his Biblical knowledge and his faith to accept matters he could not fathom increased, and thus there diminished his need and use of allegorical interpretation to bridge the gap and support his unchanging doctrine of inspiration. But though he perhaps could have, he never completely, discarded his once so serviceable “crutch”: he enjoyed the spiritual exercise of its use, he could demonstrate almost anything with it, he never brought himself to accept on faith alone one or two particularly knotty problems such as Genesis 1 and the Song of Solomon, and he found allegorizing so bound up in his past experience as to be unable to part with it. So his avowals continued, despite increasingly limited solutions by the allegorical method. Whether he ever admitted this inconsistency to himself, his actions describe quite plainly a real mistrust of allegorical interpretation. As Warfield well remarked upon the character of Augustine in general, “In very fact, there remained to the end … ‘two Augustines,’ which is as much as to say, that he embraced in his public teaching inconsistent elements of doctrine”.[60]

Notes

1. R. L. Ottley: Studies in the Confessions of St. Augustine (London: Robert Scott, 1919), p. 67.
2. De Consensu Evangelistarum, III, 7, 29 (Vienna Corpus, 43:304–5). The Vienna texts are referred to throughout, except where only Migne is available.
3. Ibid., II, 3, 5 (pp. 84 f.).
4. Ibid., II, 15, 32 (p. 133).
5. Ad Orosium, 9, 12 (Migne, Patrologia, 42:676); cf. the case of Lot’s daughters, Contra Faustum, XXII, 42 (Vienna Corpus, 25: 635–636).
6. Confessionum Libri, III, 7, 13 (Vienna Corpus, 33:55).
7. Contra Faustum, XXXIII, 7 (Vienna Corpus, 25:793).
8. De Consensu Evangelistarum, III, 7, 31 (Vienna Corpus, 43:307); cf. ibid., II, 30, 71 (43:175), on Mk. 6:8 against Mt. 10:10 and Lk. 9:3.
9. De Civitate Dei, XVIII, 44 (Vienna Corpus, 40:2, pp. 338–341).
10. De Doctrina Christiana, II, 12, 17 (Migne, Patrologia, 34:43).
11. Contra Faustum, XXII, 92; cf. Jacob’s deception of Isaac, Sermones ad Populum, IV, 11–33.
12. De Civitate Dei, XI, 8 (Vienna Corpus, 40:1, p. 522); cf. the matter of the evenings and the mornings, ibid., XI, 7 (pp. 520 f.), W. Cunningham: S. Austin and his Place in the History of Christian Thought (London: C. J. Clay, 1886), p. 56, and Charles Joseph Costello: St. Augustine’s Doctrine on the Inspiration and Canonicity of Scripture (Washington, D. C.: Catholic University, 1930), p. 47; cf. also his approach to circumcision, Contra Faustum, XXII, 6 (Vienna Corpus, 25:596).
13. De Genesi ad Litteram, VIII:1 (Vienna Corpus, 28:1, p. 229); Costello: op. cit., p. 55.
14. In Joannis Evangelium Tractatus, 112, 1 (Migne, Patrologia, 35:1930).
15. “The Confessions of St. Augustin. Translated and Annotated”, Philip Schaff, ed.: A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Buffalo: Christian Literature Co., 1886), 1:92, n. 1.
16. Loc. cit.; and Costello: op. cit., p. 54.
17. Confessionum Libri, XII, 24, 33 (Vienna Corpus, 33:334).
18. Cf. ibid., XII, 17, 24-26 (pp. 325-327); 28, 38-39 (pp. 338-340); and De Doctrina Christiana, III, 27, 38 (Migne, Patrologia, 34:80).
19. Confessionum Libri, XII, 31, 42 (Vienna Corpus, 33:343).
20. Contra Faustum, XII, 14–21 (Vienna Corpus, 25:343 ff.).
21. Epistolae, LV, 17, 31–32 (Vienna Corpus, 34:2, pp. 205–207); cf. In Joannis Evangelium Tractatus, 122, 9 (Migne, Patrologia, 35:1964).
22. De Civitate Dei, XVI, 2, 3 (Vienna Corpus, 40:2, p. 127).
23. Exposition on the Sermon on the Mount Drawn from the Writings of St. Augustine with Observations and an Introductory Essay on his Merits as an Interpreter of Holy Scripture (London: Macmillan, 1869), p. 55.
24. Contra Faustum, XXII, 24 (Vienna Corpus, 25:618–619); cf. De Civitate Dei, XVII, 1 (Vienna Corpus, 40:2, p. 205).
25. Ibid., XVII, 3 (40:2, p. 209); cf. Trench: op. cit., p. 50; and note his literal approach to the geography of the Garden of Eden, De Civitate Dei, XIII, 20 (Vienna Corpus, 40:1, pp. 645 f.), to the apostasy of Solomon, Contra Faustum, XXII, 88 (Vienna Corpus, 25:693), and to “land over water” in Ps. 136, Enarrationes in Psalmos, CXXXV, 7 (Migne, Patrologia, 37:1759).
26. Op. cit., p. 58; cf Trench: op. cit., p. 33.
27. De Doctrina Christiana, III, 10, 14 (Migne, Patrologia, 34:71); cf ibid., III, 15, 23 (34:74) and De Genesi ad Litteram, I, 1 (Vienna Corpus, 28:1, p. 1).
28. De Unitate Ecclesiae, 5, 8 (Migne, Patrologia, 43:396).
29. De Genesi ad Litteram, I, 19 (Vienna Corpus, 28:1, pp. 28 f.).
30. De Doctrina Christiana, III, 15, 23 (Migne, Patrologia, 34:74); and 27, 38 (34:80).
31. De Consensu Evangelistarum, I, 1, 2 (Vienna Corpus, 43:2).
32. Ibid., I, 2, 3 (43:3).
33. Contra Faustum, XXII, 83 (Vienna Corpus, 25:685–686).
34. Sermones ad Populum, XII, 6, 6 (Migne, Patrologia, 38:103).
35. De Consensu Evangelistarum, II, 21, 51 (Vienna Corpus, 43:153).
36. Expositio Epistolae ad Galatas, 40 (Migne, Patrologia, 35:2133).
37. De Consensu Evangelistarum, III, 7 (Vienna Corpus, 30:305).
38. Ibid., II, 12, 27 (43:127).
39. Contra Faustum, VII, 2 (Vienna Corpus, 25:305); and Quaestionum in Heptateuchum Libri, IV, 42 (Vienna Corpus, 28:2, p. 352); cf. Trench: op. cit., p. 3.
40. Enarrationes in Psalmos, LXII, 1 (Migne, Patrologia, 36:748); cf. Contra Adimantum, 11 (Vienna Corpus, 25:136); though Costello objects to such a conclusion, op. cit., pp. 13–16.
41. De Trinitate, III 11, 23 (Migne, Patrologia, 42:882); and De Doctrina Christiana, II, 5, 6 (Migne, Patrologia, 34:38).
42. Epistolac, XXVIII, 3, 3 (Vienna Corpus, 34:1, p. 107).
43. Contra Faustum, XXVI, 3 (Vienna Corpus, 25:730–731).
44. De Civitate Dei, XV, 8 (Vienna Corpus, 40:2, p. 72); cf. Jules Martin: Saint Augustine (Paris: Felix Alcan, 1901), pp. 281 f.
45. Epistolae, LXXXII, 1, 3 (Vienna Corpus, 34:2, p. 354); cf. De Genesi ad Litteram I, 21 (Vienna Corpus, 28:1, pp. 30 f.).
46. De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, I, 21, 29 (Vienna Corpus, 60:27–28); cf. Sermones ad Populum, XLIII, 3, 4 (Migne, Patrologia, 38:255).
47. Confessionum Libri, III, 5, 9 (Vienna Corpus, 33:50); cf. De Beata Vita, 4 (Vienna Corpus, 63:92).
48. For example, Prosper Alfaric: L’Évolution Intellectuelle de Saint Augustin (Paris: Émile Nourry, 1918), p. 370; Louis Bertrand: Saint Augustine (London: Constable, 1914), p. 170; Joseph McCabe: Saint Augustine and His Age (London: Duckworth, 1902), p. 118; C. C. Martendale, “A Sketch of the Life and Character of St. Augustine”, in M. C. D’Arcy et al.: A Monument to Saint Augustine (London: Sheed and Ward, 1930), p. 94; Giovanni Papini: Saint Augustine (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930), p. 104.
49. Confessionum Libri, V, 14, 24 (Vienna Corpus, 33:111); but not entirely; cf. Bertrand: op. cit., p. 170.
50. Confessionum Libri, VI, 4, 6 (Vienna Corpus, 33:120; cf. pp. 166 f., 121 f.); and De Doctrina Christiana, III, 5, 9 (Migne, Patrologia, 34:69).
51. In many respects Augustine’s views underwent modification and even reversal throughout his life; cf. Jean Felix Nourrisson: La Philosophie de Saint Augustin (Paris: Didier, 1866), II:282; W. J. Sparrow Simpson: St. Augustine’s Episcopate (New York: Macmillan, 1944), p. 136; and Augustine’s Retractionum; but his doctrine of Scripture remained plenary at all times, Confessionum Libri, VI, 5, 7 (Vienna Corpus, 33:120–121); Gustav Kruger: Augustin, der Mann und sein Werk (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1930), p. 16; Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield: Studies in Tertullian and Augustine (New York: Oxford, 1930), p. 277.
52. “Augustinus Wort: fides praecedit rationem”, Jahresbericht über das Progymmasium zu Sprottau, Ostern (Sprottau: Wildner, 1899), pp. 4 f.
53. Cf. Mary Patricia Garvey: Saint Augustine: Christian or Neo-Platonist? (Milwaukee: Marquette Univ., 1939), p. 9, on distortion in the Confessions.
54. De Doctrina Christiana, III, 12, 20 (Migne, Patrologia, 34:73), etc.
55. Saint Chrysostom and Saint Augustine (New York: Whittaker, 1891), p. 90.
56. De Genesi ad Litteram, VIII, 2 (Vienna Corpus, 28:1, p. 233).
57. De Doctrina Christiana, III, 10, 14 (Migne, Patrologia, 34:71).
58. De Genesi ad Litteram, I, 1 (Vienna Corpus, 28:1, p. 1).
59. De Genesi contra Manichaeos, II, 2, 3 (Migne, Patrologia, 34:197).
60. Op. cit., p. 283.