Confessions: Part 2

II.                   On the Interpretation of the Bible:

I find it difficult to pinpoint and describe Augustine’s hermeneutic because I find him utilizing both methods which I have been exposed to, yet have in the past thought to be mutually exclusive. I find it refreshing that this ancient author so easily addresses and resolves this modern conflict of biblical interpretation for me.

 So for me, my foundation for interpreting scripture was using a historical, grammatical, rhetorical, theological method. Its ambition was to discover the author’s original intent, as well as how the original audience would have received that message. Anything that deviates from this is an invalid interpretation and a poisonous application. It is on this last point that Augustine would disagree and go to great lengths to maintain unity in the body, affirming the validity of various interpretations:

“As long as each interpreter is endeavoring to find in the holy scriptures the meaning of the author who wrote it, what evil is it if an exegesis he gives is one shown to be true by you… (259).”  

The other method, which I had been exposed to at Biblical and which has made the most sense to me in recent times was what has been described as a Christotelic/Christocentric method of interpretation. That is to say that Christ is the end goal of the scriptures (TaNaK). Though I could not reconcile the two in my mind, I utilized both while interpreting. It is clear throughout these confessions that Augustine was caught between the tensions of the two as well. This comes to a head in the final chapters of the book. Concerning this, Augustine says while praying to God and speaking of Jesus:

“’In him are hidden all the treasure of wisdom and knowledge’ (Col. 2:3). For those treasures I search in your books. Moses wrote of him (John 5:46). He himself said this; this is the declaration of the Truth (223).”

The tension is described in singular paragraphs concerning the proper interpretation of Genesis and the utilization of both hermeneutics:

“… I see that two areas of disagreement can arise, when something is recorded by truthful reporters using signs. The first concerns the truth of the matter in question. The second concerns the intention of the writer. It is one thing to inquire into the truth about the origin of the creation. It is another to ask what understanding of the words on the part of a reader and hearer was intended by Moses, a distinguished servant of your faith… “

Augustine goes on to acknowledge the tension of seeking out authorial intent:

“… which of us can discover your will with such assurance that he confidently says ‘This is what Moses meant and this was his meaning in that narrative’ as confidently as he can say, ‘Whether Moses meant this or something else, this is true’? (263)”

After battling with the difficulties of fully knowing the authors intention in composing scripture, Augustine goes on to suggest that in light of what has recently been deemed the “Jesus Creed” (Matt. 22:37-39),  “On the basis of those two commandments of love, Moses meant whatever he meant in those books (265).” That is to say that interpretation done through the lens of Christ is not invalidated.

And so, summarizing this tension in his concluding prayer he writes:

“The understanding presupposed in my confessions is that if I have said what your minister meant, that is correct and the best interpretation, and that is the attempt I have to make. But if I have been unsuccessful in that endeavor, I pray that nevertheless I may say what, occasioned by his words, your truth wished me to say. For that the Truth also spoke what it wished to him (271,72).”