How could Augustine do that?

I've often wondered at the validity of Augustine's hermeneutical axiom that if a passage can be variously interpreted, the interpretation which encourages love of God and neighbour should be preferred.

Is that good exegesis? Can one just take an ethic of love as the norm for interpretation of these ancient texts? It sounds like a nice idea, but surely true interpretation involves hearing the text in and of itself, regardless of our ethical presuppositions?

I recently saw Augustines' move within the context of moves made by other church fathers and something went "click" in my head (as the Germans say). Irenaeus, for example, in his battle with the varying scriptural interpretations of the Gnostics, appealed to God's one redemptive purpose uniting both testaments as a context for interpretation. Origen spoke of multiple levels of meaning in Scripture in which the reader is led from external form to internal, spiritual sense, all as part of the divine pedagogy.

What unites these approaches is the conviction that the Scriptures are a witness to a unified theological reality. Though diverse in form, they are united by a single function, the kerygmatic, deictic one of "witnessing," pointing, or referring to this reality, the divine referent. Given ecclesial interpretation is an existential matter of profound importance, rather than an exercise in "dispassionate" curiosity about a dead religion, it makes sense that interpretation start from the position of the reality testified to. The movement is then circular, as we move from referent to text and back again, each pole enriching the other. That this is not necessarily a form of fideism (though in practice it often is) is testified to by the fact that it is only through the literal sense that spiritual was achieved. Just as the church confesses the risen Christ in the text of Jewish Scripture, the New is always testified to in terms of the old.

So coming back to Augustine, the validity of his hermeneutic should not be judged according to a theory of historical referentiality whereby a text only means what it's author intended, or what the literary framework constrains it to mean. This would arguably impose an alien category onto the text itself. Rather, Augustine should be judged by his ability to do justice to both the nature of the text and its true referent. If the texts really are prophetic, and if God really is a God of love, then I may have to rethink my views.

P.S. Check out Brant Pitre for a great quote from Origen on interpretation.

Ooh, a patristics carnival!

Up until now I've only ever been linked to, if at all, on biblical studies Carnivals (see Getz for the most recent contribution). I was delighted, however, to see that there is such a thing as a patristics carnival and that the extremely industrious blogger at The God Fearin' Forum has taken time to read my recent postings.

So thanks to Tim A. Troutman for his time and especially for the really quite exhaustive work he's done on all things patristic within the blogosphere. He divides the relevant blogging activiy into the following helpful subcategories:

Hall of Fame: My hand-picked recommendations.

Introduction to & Biographies of the Fathers. New to the fathers? This is the place to start.

General Patristics. Posts surrounded by asterisks are especially worth viewing and should have broad appeal.

General Patristics. Posts surrounded by asterisks are especially worth viewing and should have broad appeal.

Book Review: Books of interest regarding the early Church & patristic literature.

Apocryphal Corner

Patristic Obituaries

That really is a phenomenal and benefical amount of work.

Poetry Wilderness

“The poetic imagination is marginal within our dominant scientific culture. This tends towards a deadening literalism. In most traditional societies, poetry, myth, song and music were central to the culture. In our society these have often been reduced to entertainment. The hunger for the transcendent is still there in the human heart. As St. Augustine said, it is restless until it rests in God. But in our postmodern society it is harder for the preacher to evoke that ultimate human destiny which transcends our words. Few preachers are poets. I am not. But if the preaching of the word is to flourish, then we need poets and artists, singers and musicians who keep alive the intuition of our ultimate destiny. The Church needs these singers of the transcendent to nurture her life and her preaching.”

(Timothy Radcliffe OP, ”The Sacramentality of the Word,” in LITURGY IN A POSTMODERN WORLD, pp.133-147, here p.145)

Augustine on "the quest for the historical Jesus"

"So let us listen to the Gospel as though Lord himself were present. And do not let us say: "How unfortunate were those who could see him!" For many of those who saw him also killed him, while many of us who have not seen him have also believed in him. The precious things that came from the mouth of the Lord were written down for us and kept for us and read aloud for us, and will be read by our children too, until the end of the world. The Lord is above, but the Lord of truth is here! The Lord's body in which he rose from the dead can be in one place only; but his truth is everywhere."

Borg and Augustine on the Particularity of God

I'm a bit slow on responding to comments at the mo. Stephen asked some good questions on how to read the final form of the text given contradictions at that level. Read his comments and my response here. I'll get back to the others tomorrow!

Some thoughts for today:

Seitz cites from a report of a national conference called "God at 2000", held at Trinity Church Wall Street.

One of the most celebrated speakers was [Markus] Borg, who advocates a brand of pantheism that rejects notions of a personal God in favor of a broader universal spirit. "I grew up in a time and place where it was taken for granted that Christianity was the only true religion and Jesus the only way to salvation," Borg recalled with distaste. "That's why we had missionaries. ... I find it literally incredible to think that that God of the whole universe has chosen to be known in only one religious tradition".*

Seitz then compares the remarks of St. Augustine.

What are you then, my God - what, but the Lord God? For who is Lord but the Lord? Or who is God save our God? Most high, most excellent, most powerful, most almighty, most merciful, and most just; most hidden, yet most present; most beautiful, and most strong; stable, yet mysterious; unchangeable, yet changing all things; never new, never old; making all things new and bringing age upon the proud, though they know it not; ever working, yet ever at rest; still gathering, yet lacking nothing; sustaining, filling and protecting; creating, nourishing, and maturing; seeking, yet possessing all things. You love without passion; you are jealous without anxiety; you repent, yet have no sorrow; you are angry, yet serene; change your ways, yet your plans are unchanged; recover what you find, having never lost it; never in need, yet rejoicing in the gain; never covetous, yet requiring interest. You receive over and above, that you may owe - yet who has anything that is not yours? You pay debts, owing nothing; remit debts, losing nothing. And what have I now said, my God, my life, my holy joy - what is this I have said?**

At least one Trinity Conference speaker got it right when she said, "Surely there is no one participating in this conference who really believes that this conference is about God at 2000. This conference is about us at 2000."

*"Apostasy at 2000: Episcopal Institute Promotes Pantheism, Syncretism," by Mark Tooley, Touchstone (January 2001)

**Book 1, 4; The Confessions of St Augustine, Hal M. Helms, trans. (Brewster, Mass.:Paraclete, 1986), 3.