Augustine

For the Hebrew Bible to the Septuagint XV I I AU G U S T I N E O F H I P P O  3 5 4– 4 3 0  A comparative latecomer in the history of patristic exegesis, Augustine surpasses most of the ancient Christian interpreters of scripture by the intensity of his personal appropriation of the biblical text, and by the originality and the profundity of his interpretations. He would not have been consistent with his own life-long spiritual quest had he not struggled over long years to give himself a properly “Augustinian” expertise in the art of interpreting sacred scripture. However first he set out to learn the rules and principles of interpretation from his predecessors, considering it his duty to conform to their hermeneutical standards, and in no way to impose a new exegetical method of his own invention. Augustine’s creative contribution consisted in a deliberate synthesis of late antique rhetorical culture with the biblical hermeneutics already elaborated over several centuries inside the church community. Whereas in the works of other Christian interpreters, rhetorical culture and familiarity with scripture fused in a largely unreflected approach to scripture, for Augustine, these two streams, in their distinctive resources as well as in the complexity of their interactions, became a matter of fascinating inquiry. Thus while Augustine never tired of discovering new aspects of the biblical message, it was in exploring scripture that he explored himself as well. His exegesis became an original contribution to biblical exegesis not so much by the imposition of a new theoretical frame as by the freshness and intensity of his inner inquiry. Scripture allowed him to interpret himself, even more than he interpreted scripture. The focal importance of the “self ” in Augustinian exegesis is a key factor in the enduring relevance of Augustine’s hermeneutics right into modern times. The present survey of Augustinian writings calls for a chronological outline of the hermeneutical experience through which Augustine slowly reached his maturity as an interpreter of scripture. Hence the divisions of this very short presentation of his exegesis: (I) A Hermeneutical Apprenticeship; (II) A Theoretical Foundation: De doctrina christiana; (III) A Practical Exercise in Biblical Hermeneutics: Confessions; (IV) The ‘Truth’ of Scripture: De trinitate I–IV; (V) Exploring the Literal Sense: De Genesi ad Litteram I–IX; (VI) The Biblical Scholar; (VII) Augustine’s Ministry of the Word, (VIII) The City of God. h-Century Latin Christian Literature I. A HERMENEUTICAL APPRENTICESHIP For the years –, while Augustine lived in turn in Cassiciacum, Rome and Thagaste, before being ordained priest in Hippo, only those writings are considered which are of some significance for his future career as an interpreter of scripture. In Contra Academicos (Cassiciacum, in the Fall of ), where Cicero and Neoplatonists are omnipresent, one finds only one anonymous allusion to scripture: Nam mihi credite, vel potius illi credite, qui ait: ‘quaerite et invenieti,’ “for believe me or rather believe him who said: ‘Search and you will find,’ Mt :)” (II iii, ), a distinctly insignificant reminder on a Bible whose very functioning, at this point, seems to be quiescent in the lively arena of Augustine’s philosophical debate. Again in De beata vita (November  at Cassiciacum), a charming conversation between Augustine, his mother Monica, his son Adeodatus, his brother Navigius, two cousins, two students and the friend Alypius, only one biblical citation surfaces: “For this also is said: ‘I am the truth’ (Jn :)” (IV, ), among a striking display of references to literary and philosophical sources. The more personal turn of the staged conversation does not yet convey Augustine’s immersing himself into the sacred text. De ordine (Cassiciacum, also November ) is a more ambitious “discussion” of a philosophical nature (disputatio) in two Books between Augustine and friends. Numerous allusions and quotations exemplifying Augustine’s past education or current intellectual concerns (Virgil and Ovid, Tacitus and Terence, Cicero and Plotinus . . .) are mentioned at random in the vivid exchange of views, mainly in Book I, in which one notes only one very vague scriptural allusion on Col : (philosophos huius mundi evitandos), joined to an explicit quotation of Jn :, satis ipse Christus significavit, qui non dicit: ‘regnum meum non est de mundo,’ sed ‘regnum meum non est de hoc mundo’ (I xi, ). While the Pauline allusion, if real, and the Johannine quotation, have no impact whatsoever on Augustine’s thought, they do add a distinctive mark to the specific point of argument. It is worth observing that they intervene at the conclusion of De ordine which has been built up around an answer given by Augustine to the unexpectedly feminist request of his mother: numquidnam in illis quos legitis libris etiam feminas umquam audivi in hoc genus disputationis inductas?, “Did I ever hear women introduced in that kind of discussion in those books of your reading?” (I: xi, ). This isolated NT echo has the mark of a tribute paid by the son to the religious devotion of the mother, and suggests that, right up to the time of his baptism, Augustine of Hippo  Augustine still grounded his biblical allegiance in the maternal religiosity which had pervaded the years of his childhood. Soliloquiorum libri duo (Cassiciacum, late / early ), Augustine’s inaugural prayer (I, –) is emphatic and lyrical, written in a poetic prose which dispenses from any scriptural allusion. Augustine reaches a substantial definition of what he means by “God,” namely the objective response to all the wishes and requests of his longing for absolute transcendency. His philosophical mindset is self-sufficient as he shifts from prayer to the strictly conceptual analysis by which the Soliloquium becomes a dialogue between himself and reason. In Augustine’s understanding, ‘Soli’ is conversational in nature: the loquium of the self confirms its own inalienable consistency through its dialogue with reason. Therefore in the return to prayer in VI, , Deus, pater noster (a prayer which has less to do with the biblical invocation “Our Father” than with the vibrancy of Augustine’s own innate mysticism) Augustine’s words may meet biblical metaphors, exaudi me palpitantem in his tenebris et mihi dexteram porrige, “hear me as I struggle in that darkness and stretch out to me your right hand,” but they do not result in any explicit reference. While he quotes Cicero several times, or refers to Quintilian (XVI, ), or alludes to Plato and the Neoplatonists, and gives an explicit citation otherwise unknown of Cornelius Celsus (XII, ), Augustine’s tacit reminiscences of scriptural phrases remain hardly identifiable (I: i, ; vi, ), or at most very sporadic. They are generally located in the immediate context of prayer (I: i, : Deus, per quem mors absorbetur in victoriam, cf.  Cor :, followed by other short allusions of the same sort to Jn, Mt and Gal; I: i,  = Gn :; I: i, , cf Mt :,  Cor :; xiii:). In these instances, scripture gives a language to the personal emotion generated by the intellectual debate. It does not yet play a role in the definition of the “self ” as capable of divine transcendency, which is what is at the heart of the whole debate. De immortalitate animae was written in Milan in . This short essay On the Immortality of the Soul seems to have been included by accident in Augustine’s works: “The contortion of its arguments is so short and obscure” (Retractationes, , , ), that it tired even Augustine himself near the end of his life. Amazingly enough the exposition lacks any reference to scripture as well as any reference to secular literature. Only in the last eight of  capitula of De quantitate animae, a long philosophical dissertation (tam longum sermonem xxxvi, ), composed in Rome , are found, highly significantly for Augustine, the first explicit quotations from scripture introduced as such in one of his early treatises: Cor mundum, . . . Ps :; then a barely recognizable echo of Pauline phrases h-Century Latin Christian Literature in xxviii, , followed by an implicit quotation of Eccl : in xxxiii, , and an explicit reference to Paul with a paraphrase of  Cor :: apostolus Paulus parvulis se totum dedisse praedicavit (xxxiii, ), followed by a proper citation of Mt :: Dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi soli servies. The biblical references of this treatise, tenuous as they are, sound close to Augustine’s recent experience of baptism: they witness to the fervor of the neophyte, already testifying to his improving familiarity with the Pauline letters. Of a completely different order is Augustine’s use of scripture in the polemical essay De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et moribus Manichaeorum libri duo, also written in Rome . Now the controversy itself imposes a systematic quotation from the NT against Manichean interpretations. The same practice would carry more weight in Augustine’s other two anti-Manichean essays of the next years, On Free Choice, started in Rome in , and completed in Africa, possibly in Hippo as late as , and On Genesis Against the Manichees, written in Thagaste in . For the task (totally new for him) of defending scripture against heretical abuse, Augustine starts by taking shelter under the umbrella of episcopos vel presbyteros vel cuiuscemodi ecclesiae catholicae antistites et ministros (De moribus, I, ; J. B. Bauer, CSEL , ) and by invoking the apostolica disciplina (I, ). His use of scripture in these polemical treatises would not be determined by the rich background of his rhetorical culture, but it would conform to his recent entry into the institutional frame of the church. Therefore after an introductory set of considerations determined by reason, Augustine shifts into a form of discourse entirely regulated by the authority of divine revelation, communicated by “the election of the patriarchs, the covenant of the Law, the predictions of prophets, the mystery of God’s becoming man, the testimony of the apostles, the blood of martyrs, and the conversion of the nations” (I, , ). One proposition after another contributes its share of biblical allusions, quotations, or paraphrases. The author palpably enjoys taking advantage of his personal familiarity with Pauline letters, the very letters which his Manichean adversaries claimed to know so well. He refers to many OT passages also used by them, though in a way now thoroughly reprehensible to the recent convert. “In De moribus ecclesiae catholicae I, mainly composed in Rome, whose biblical richness reveals the author’s readings through its references, one finds in particular the first quotations from Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Qohelet, Proverbs, which were books recommended to the attention of the catechumens” (La Bonnardière , –). Some basic principles of interpretation take on a distinctive Augustinian tone, for instance that “Determination as much as piety is required; we may by the first progress in learning, by the other, understand what we have learned,” Et diligentia igitur et pietas adhi- the scriptural focus of Augustine’s polemic against his former fellow Manichees for the first time calls on allegorical exegesis. “analogical” (in OT and NT). argues against the teaching of the Manichees that evil results only from people’s free choice. In Book II and III. registered in both Testaments attest to the sanctification of the soul in a common declaration. which was addressed to his friend Honoratus. The very first biblical reference in Book I. Another traditional principle emphasized by main church apologists since the second century “There is only one God in both Testaments” utriusque testamenti deus unus est (I. in another anti-Manichean writing De utilitate credendi. The dialogue On Free Choice. In De Genesi contra Manichaeos. secundum historiam. De libero arbitrio. leads Augustine to root “the harmony of both Testaments” testamenti utriusque concordiam (I. so that is happens sometimes that the same data is taken over from the old into the new scriptures. Augustine’s concern to present a hermeneutically structured argument determines the whole essay (Weber . Here he carefully explains how to distinguish four possible senses of scripture: “historical” (what happened). still a member of the sect. added seven years later when Augustine was a presbyter in Hippo. in true “love” caritas. ). dating from –. ). Is : (the only one in that Book). in three Books. for instance: “According to allegory. biblical quotations occur more frequently in a somewhat homiletic style referring to Wisdom literature and the Prophets as much as to the Gospels and to Paul. Further on he concludes: “The two voices of the one God. In addition to Ambrose. altero fiet ut scientes inveniamus. a direct dependence on Origen’s Homilies on Leviticus and On Genesis is claimed by Weber. ut fiat aliquando illud quod item in novam scripturam de veteri assumptum est. –). is introduced as a “prophetic proscription” praescriptum enim per prophetam (I.” Quae duae voces unius dei in duobus testamentis signatae sanctificationem animae concordi attestatione declarant. in phrases with Greek terms. Immediately Augustine explains the foreign terms. A new stage in Augustine’s apprenticeship in biblical hermeneutics was firmly announced shortly after his acceptance of the presbyterate in . but figurative). and “allegorical” (not literal. ). ). . the typological interpretation of scripture is well secured. aetia: “cause”). following Altaner () and Teske (). “aetiological” (why it happened. but be understood figuratively” non ad litteram esse accipienda quaedam. Without the explicit invoking of the technical term. when one explains that something written should not be taken literally. secundum aetiologiam. ii. secundum analogiam. xviii. This teaching was communicated just as he received it. secundum allegoriam. altero ut scire mereamur (I. xvii. as learned from Ambrose.Augustine of Hippo  benda est. . completed at a later date. and at the same time building up the theoretical construct of his so-called “dialectic theology.” However the recourse to scripture stops there in the treatise and the hermeneutical teaching remains without much of an application. A THEORETICAL FOUNDATION: DE DOCTRINA CHRISTIANA (DDC) It is probably a distinctive mark of gifted intellectual leaders in the Christian movement to engage their creativity simultaneously on a more practical and a properly theoretical level. though in the “more appealing order.” “Augustine’s anti-Manichean writings are distinctively marked in their content by Neoplatonism” (Schäublin . Augustine does the same in starting De doctrina christiana a few months before launching the redaction of his Confessions. It would be his treatise On Christian Doctrine. Once more.  with insistent quotations of  Corinthians. a Neoplatonic one: “Augustins antimanichäische Schriften sind in ihrem Gehalt erheblisch neuplatonisch geprägt. thought out by Augustine himself before he could resume such a task. A theoretical foundation was needed. historia-allegoria-analogia-aetiologia” (Schäublin . Galatians and  Corinthians (littera occidit. Tyconius. ). ). he would elaborate in his definitive De Genesi ad litteram. Augustine’s comments on the four senses of scripture extend until the end of . II. sed figurate intellegenda (. That may be the main reason why his first attempt at a continuous commentary ends as early as with Gn :. having no relevance for the subsequent exposition. when deciding to make a valuable contribution to biblical hermemeutics. specially when expanding on “allegory. spiritus autem vivificat  Cor :). he intersperses these observations with insights of his own which much later. the hermeneutical statement remains an abstraction.” . Origen wrote his treatise On First Principles simultaneously with his Commentary on John. Indeed another interpretive approach seems to be practised in the contemporary De utilitate credendi. The author multiplies reference to the religious cosmology of other Christian commentators of Genesis. but at this stage he does not engage into any hermeneutic of the “literal sense” as such. Karl Barth would do the same in writing and rewriting his Commentary on Romans. the first Latin theoretician of biblical hermeneutics wrote his Commentary on the Apocalypse at the time when he focused on his Liber Regularum. ).h-Century Latin Christian Literature quae scripta sunt. De Genesi ad litteram inperfectus liber starts as an attempt at a continuous explanation of Genesis  by repeating word for word the statement about the four scriptural senses (modi) already made in De utilitate credendi. Just to know how to select quotations to contradict the scriptural claims of adversaries was not enough for ministering to the community. it summarizes past experiences and already announces Confessions. . “The chief purpose . A circular flow of creative motivation relativizes their chronological sequence. H. with the intensity of its statements and its condensed aspirations. . P. It takes advantage of the literary creativity generated by Augustine’s spiritual journey during that recent past. all direct datings are blurred. Augustine’s daily reading of scripture kept him well aware of the needed procedures for its interpretation.Augustine of Hippo  The project of DDC must have been on its author’s mind from the day that he had to face the pastoral duty of preaching the word of God. Indeed the contemporanity of the two major projects of DDC and Confessions highlights structural affinities. The first Book of DDC. xxxv. Book I recapitulates Augustine’s quest during the past ten years. linear and unified in its composition. is to make it understood that the fulfillment and end of the law and all the divine scriptures is to love” (I. In his early forties Augustine certainly would not have been true to himself had he not anchored his new project in a fresh reassessment of his inner self. For lack of evidence. ut intellegatur legis et omnium divinarum scripturarum plenitudo et finis esse dilectio. like two complementary expressions of a same authorial urge to express a self-awareness. Like the double face of a same coin. How would he answer the questions of the faithful puzzled by readings of the liturgy if he had not clarified for himself the main rules appropriate for understanding biblical texts? While the DDC directly addresses the pastoral requirements of that exegetical task. in biblical terms. Augustine’s fascination with scripture marks the author of the DDC who starts by contemplating scripture at the very core of the spiritual journey before expanding into the detail of hermeneutical and rhetorical rulings. R. Confessions starts with a long review of detailed incidents and life experiences before ending with the most amazing self-description. whereas. but enough is said by Augustine himself to allow us to locate the composition of the first nine Books of Confessions in the two years of interval between Book I and Book II of DDC. the next dramatic initiative bursting forth from the bishop’s religious genius. it was in a way more significant for its author’s idiosyncratic interests than of the social and ecclesiastic context in Hippo around . of the . At once. in the reverse order. On a theoretical level his hermeneutic of sacred scripture would mirror the vital trajectory of his own journey toward a spiritual goal. describes in forty short capitula the deepest personal motivation of the author even more than any exegetical theory: haec summa est. Even without this clerical charge. firm and clear in its distinctions. . Green. It rests on his inner vision achieved at the end of that decade since baptism. ). dictated in  at Thagaste. as well as the temporal realities “useful” to faith in God’s salvific action. . ). –. It is about knowing the right way to approach the divine realities which give Christian faith its foundation and original profile. the two parts are preceded by six preliminary distinctions: modus inveniendi/modus proferendi. frui/uti (. in other words. therefore it must be studied in the most thorough way possible. a home at which one arrives via those levels” (II. The same idea had already resurfaced in De vera religione. grounded in Trinitarian faith. Scripture is par excellence the primary source for such knowledge. with the theme of the seven stages in the spiritual journey from the “old” to the “new” . then professed as active in the history of salvation). Book I is divided into two parts: “I–The res. the actual accomplishment of the Law. cp. . written in Rome two years before De magistro. I. The second part of Book I submits the subjective experience of frui and uti to an analysis of the purpose of scripture. –.” and “II–The res. It speaks to us as the central revelatory agency made available in the church by God himself mediating through its written message all that God wants us to know for our salvation.” a notion which Augustine would rethink at the core of DDC I. tota lex pendet et prophetae—“Love your Lord God . –. and followed by a conclusion (. . hope and love. on which the whole Law and the Prophets depend. by which God is acclaimed as universal Creator. According to M. Moreau’s recent and illuminating proposal. –. objects of sheer enjoyment.h-Century Latin Christian Literature author’s spiritual identity in a commentary on Gn :– in Books XI–XIII. subjects of frui and uti (. in Mt : –: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum . Its consistent and accurate interpretation implies a total dedication of its readers’ faith. In DDC. In the first part of Book I the res are the eternal realities. its telos. the basic idea of the human soul passing through several stages of levels of being. from a “vegetal” level to the “very vision and contemplation of truth” where one reaches “in reality. –. objects of frui or uti (. and keep in mind throughout the composition of DDC. From the Soliloquies derives the inspirational Platonic “love. DDC I’s essential purpose is to explain what a Christian theory of biblical hermeneutics is all about. res/signum. ). he would revive from De quantitate animae.” The richness and density of both parts draws together the main strands of Augustine’s earlier creativity at work in his mind from Cassiciacum to Thagaste and is now placed at the service of the new bishop as he commences the writing of DDC. From De magistro. exemplified in Christ and church (Thus the first part evokes the two central affirmations of the Creed. . – “as a journey or voyage home”). ). )”. he borrows the crucial notion of “signs” only to amplify and deepen it before using it to structure the next two Books of DDC. if not ignore. but there is nothing comparable to Augustine’s apparent failure to complete DDC in –. More such thematic affinities between DDC and earlier writings of Augustine may be identifiable. or when several figurative meanings are equally possible. xxv. xxv. insignificant. We even noted one between DDC I and DDC II. short interruptions happened elsewhere. the old bishop felt obliged to complete that opus inperfectum. Book II deals with basic data which the Bible has in common with any other important writing: the very fact of the Bible’s being a work of literature and taking into consideration the peculiar style in which it is written leads Augustine in Book III to discuss the biblical style as seen from the outside.” Augustinian critics frequently tend to minimize. but. that the puzzling analysis of signa ambigua locked the author in a dead end. a unique case in the bishop’s prolific experience as a writer.Augustine of Hippo  man. Hill () suggested that a request of Bishop Aurelius diverted Augustine’s attention to another assignment. Lettieri () concluded that Augustine interrupted DDC when he realized that what he had written on revelatio in Ad Simplicianum . with a quotation of Lk :. when figurative phrases are wrongly taken as proper expressions to be understood literally. or De civitate dei. while other writings indeed remained “unfinished. in a Christian context. Augustine interrupted the redaction of DDC. by such an abrupt ending. would need to be reactivated several times after periods of busy distractions. Rather. Augustine’s theoretical foundation of biblical hermeneutics was shaken. At that point at the end of III. Various fortuitous reasons for that interruption are postulated: A.  was inconsistent with the hermeneutical and soteriological structure of DDC in . Strauss () argued on the basis of DDC III. for exploiting its sophisticated resources in order to teach how to interpret scripture. In all cases these hypotheses more . DDC is a replication of secular rhetorics calling on centuries old learning. The cultural difference between the biblical world and the world of its reader creates special difficulties. Even more without parallel is the fact that in . if not compromised. More recently. . Pincherle (). not at all as a challenge or a supplement to that learning. xxv. but it is not only a set of philosophical and religious commonplaces which one finds resonating. thought that the interruption was due to Augustine’s eagerness to continue his writing on Confessions. the three decades of interruption. more candidly. from a non-biblical culture. Certainly. Major works like De trinitate. and in the end. calculating that the initial work on Confessions had anticipated the composition of DDC I–III. for instance. insisting that the author’s outline and motivation for DDC remained unchanged. or that the interruption was purely circumstantial. G. . It took him thirty years to resume its composition. much more constraining at the end of his life than they were in the earlier writing of DDC in . ) sounded paradoxical given the exceptional importance which Augustine allows to Tyconius’s Book of Rules. the aged bishop reacts with strictly pastoral concerns. “Communication.” in DDC IV. Pollmann . III. () on the ethics of sacred eloquence: a final tribute paid to Cicero by the most eloquent and the most sophisticated of all of Cicero’s disciples in the episcopal office during the patristic age. . quae in scholis saecularibus et didici et docui (IV. a church expressly calling on his intellectual leadership. he had conformed to a personal agenda which had biblical studies as its first priority. in the same way that the rejection of Tyconius as “a Donatist and a heretic” (donatista hereticus III. XVI: “Tyconius”). i. still a matter of controversy (Bright . () on Christian eloquence. In fact. In both cases. Entering the public service of the church. after Books I–III had exposed the modus inveniendi. Augustine had accepted in  the presbyteral ordination. . Dulaey. Vercruysse ). .h-Century Latin Christian Literature or less tend to overlook the controversial citation of Tyconius introduced by Augustine at the second start of his writing on DDC in . Kannengiesser. A PRACTICAL EXERCISE IN BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS: CONFESSIONS After months of studious leisure at Cassiciacum. Book IV offers a very substantial lesson on () the Bible itself as teacher of sacred eloquence. In other words. and almost three years of a contemplative retreat at Thagaste where he probably spent much of his time in reading scripture. Through all these years.” qui forte me putant rhetorica daturum esse praecepta. Augustine . ). thus trivializing the extended commentary on the Tyconian rules carefully elaborated until the final line of DDC III (see chapter . makes sense exclusively within the parameters of the rhetorical culture familiar to Augustine. However the warning sounds paradoxical since the whole of Book IV will be filled with rhetorical prescriptions. DDC IV presents the modus proferendi. The author opens Book IV with a loud and clear warning for readers expecting him “to outline the precepts of rhetorics which I learned and taught in secular schools. not without requesting instantly from the local bishop a leave of absence with the specific purpose of improving his knowledge of sacred scripture. . . . Recent publications have succeeded in opening a new debate on that issue. it deals with the art of communicating the biblical truth “found” and critically established by applying the precepts inculcated in Books II and III. capable of opposing sectarian claims of Donatists and Manichees alike. to exercise the same degree of literacy in ecclesiastical culture which he had so brilliantly displayed in his secular past. ). The passion of his recent conversion fused with his newly acquired biblical knowledge drew Augustine to conceive a project highly significant of his introspective creativity. the dialogues with his son. determined to assume his new pastoral dimension. not only did he beg for help among church authorities like Aurelius of Carthage. Adeodatus. To be a member of the church could only mean for Augustine the presbyter. However his new life-commitment as a Catholic on the provincial scene of a church divided by the Donatist schism firmly urged him to submit his skills to the divine authority of scripture. Psalmic lyrics and Pauline affirmations would help him to project an image of his past journey. was now deprived of the spiritual support of Ambrose. but henceforth oriented towards a fruitful assimilation of biblical and spiritual values inside the new institutional frame of his life. his hierarchical superior (Letter ). but still inspiring model of Milan (Ambrose died April . already invested for six years with the sacramental dignity of the presbyterate and since April  sole bishop of Hippo after the death of Valerius. In order to face it. Augustine needed to redefine his whole person in the sacred terms of divine scripture. His public rejection of the Manichean sect had already entailed a few substantial essays. but primarily self-serving. The author. the only form of language appropriate in the church. namely a story of his life illustrating the spiritual . not aimed like in DDC at teaching others how to use scripture. in showing how a true sinner could eloquently also claim to be a true member of the church. but he also mobilized the many resources of his rhetorical expertise. His real challenge now was to gain a grasp on scripture no longer limited to the kind of polemics conditioned by his unfortunate nine years in the sect of Mani. his distant. as he had learned from Ambrose. That appeared to him to be his only responsible option in face of the troubled situation of the community of believers to which he would be dedicated for the rest of his life. illustrated in particular by De magistro.Augustine of Hippo  had kept alive the vivid memory of his rhetorical and professional past by which he surpassed most of his educated contemporaries in Roman Africa. Therefore scripture was for him the challenge to face. Eager to acknowledge such a fundamental need. With the genius of his own sensibility. Augustine responded to it with the literary inventiveness which he had so much enjoyed at Thagaste. Augustine’s hermeneutical approach to the Bible in Confessions was of a practical nature. the Confessions. he conceived a literary project for which the Christian tradition did not provide any precedent. A restless intellectual. Augustine himself at long last reached to the needed humility for opening “the Apostle’s book. et veni. and in silence I read: . . .h-Century Latin Christian Literature values by which he was re-defining himself through his scripture readings and through his service to the church. by which this famous rhetor converted from philosophy to the message of scripture. sell your possessions and give to the poor. but the biblical strata always remains slightly below the surface of the text and never becomes explicit as a citation. Book I. even with some allusive Gospel wordings. . implicit quotations and allusions included. In Book II.’ (Rm :). His anti-Manichean outbursts occasionally confirm his submission to the divine authority of scripture in Book IV. and come. Having established himself in the attitude of humble faith.” (Loeb . da pauperibus et habebis thesaurum in caelis. Not a single direct quotation of that sort imposes itself on the author of Confessions in the next five Books. vende omnia quae habes. In Book III he turns to the Bible after his reading of Cicero’s Hortensius. follow me” (Mt :). Even this locus classicus of the evangelical call to conversion. “Go. the autobiographical purpose gains some momentum. the author of Confessions can now successfully appropriate the sacred text. but a crucial one. . Some modern editor has counted up to seventeen hundred biblical references in Confessions. On the other hand. I opened it. But the picture of a massive use of scripture should not mislead. not in chambering and in wantonness . Augustine dares to punctuate the whole chapter . . but it does not entail any biblical quotation. crossing his mind at the climax of his own religious crisis: “For I had heard of Antony (the Hermit). one must wait until near the end of Book VIII (after Book VII had explained precisely what the books of the Platonists ignored in matters of spiritual humility) for encountering in Confessions the first explicit biblical quotation: vade. Although in Book VI. .” Helped by Alypius he also read: “Him that is weak in faith. for the first time in his life. of Jeremiah. receive” (Rm :). for instance. . is only a memory. In Book IX. . V. ). that by hearing of the Gospel which he once chanced to come in upon . far from being addressed to the author. Augustine’s purpose to “confess” himself in retracing the convoluted itinerary of his spiritual journey out of his childhood and adolescence by no means repudiates his growing familiarity with scripture. sequere me. . Paul and Job. In reaction to the philosophical pride of the Platonists and in deep admiration for Victorinus’s humility. He obviously continues to be inspired by scripture in his autobiographical narration. he celebrates the merits of Ambrose’s distinction between “letter’ and Spirit” in the exegesis of the Bible. starts just like another Soliquium with here and there prayerful lyrics mingling with the familiar voices of the Psalms. and VII. and then you will have riches in heaven.‘Not in rioting and drunkenness. Augustine adopts an inquisitive style and multiplies the admissions of his ignorance in such an intense discussion of Gn :–. he discusses the diverse exegetical opinions on the matter in presuming that multiple interpretations of scripture are to be treated as a set of philosophical opinions whose diversity is. in Augustine’s view. For the modern reader. It is noticeable that Augustine’s conceptual clarification about the nature of time does not require one single quotation from scripture that would count for his argument (only a historical circumstance is recalled by quoting Mt : in XI:). with only one direct. Divine scripture challenged the dedicated “self ” of the interpreter by imposing on him to place all his past learning at the service of the biblical littera. In Book XIII the powerful image of the “firmament of your book” introduces and concludes. . The notion of “heaven of heavens” helps Augustine to emphasize divine transcendency. or absence of space (a turn similar to the one which would be imposed much later on Immanuel Kant by transcendental subjectivism). In Book XII. abound with a few more of Matthew. in the final analysis. for that littera makes sense only. reference to  Cor : in XII. that the biblical commentary in itself becomes his confession. His “transition” on “memory” in Book X ends with a hardly perceptible echoing of  Cor :. John and Paul. “In the beginning. His reaction is comparable to the crossing of an ocean of cultural legacies: the full cycle of scholarly disciplines is invested in his attempt to determine the nature of time. In Book XI. though adapted.Augustine of Hippo  with comments on different verses cited in their natural order of Psalm . by enabling him to succeed in a coherent retrieving of his own cultural heritage. mainly of psalms. over the abyss of a millennium and a half of Western history. the literal enunciation of Gn:. Bright). or vice-versa (see the following contribution of P. . A last observation on these last three books of Confessions.” induces Augustine to wonder about the nature of time. of no importance given the transcendent nature of divine truth in scripture. Using the figure of Moses as author of the Book of Genesis for a literary inclusion of much significance (XII. Implicit paraphrases. )—firmamento scripturae tuae (XIII. but for the last three Books XI–XIII. –). a celebration of the works of creation prolonged until the end of the Confessions. firmamentum libri tui (XIII. given the fact of the original creation of all things. the same verse of Gn : turns Augustine’s attention towards space. ). these last Books of Confessions already announce the much more deliberate hermeneutical experimentation to which Augustine would submit himself in De Genesi ad litteram. . but they are very different in their use of scripture. . From the author’s very first observation in De Trinitate on “holy scripture which suits itself to babes” (I. ). Thinking over the sheer possibility. M. P. Les Confessions de Saint Augustin. he introduced Book I of De Trinitate by denouncing three categories of potential adversaries. “Der Aufbau der ‘Confessiones’ des Augustinus im Spiegel der Bibelzitate”: RechAug XXIV () –. I. the third being the most unacceptable: “They would seem both to know what they do not. K. Le “Confessioni” di Sant’ Agostino. which belong now to a demonstrative genre warranted by canonical rules. ). have purposed . M. Everton Park.. I–IV In a strong shift from the inventive fervor of the last books of Confessions into the rigorous demands of composing the De Trinitate. we must demonstrate according to the authority of the holy scripture. IV. Allen. The dogmatic aim of the work obviously entails its proper hermeneutics. see: Bright. ) an explicit and consistent biblical quotation enhances Augustine’s biblical arguments. –. as well as the content. the bishop of Hippo reverted to the teaching stance in which he had already composed the first three books of De doctrina christiana. al.. They have many features in common with the last three books of Confessions. Paris.. For Augustine’s use of scripture in Confessions XI–XIII. As in De doctrina christiana. Queensland. eds. Kienzler. “first. know” (I. . O’Rourke Boyle.. Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church. and no longer to the narrative genre of Confessions for which Augustine had fixed his own rules. Studio Introduttivo. who have written before me concerning the Trinity who is God. and cannot. Rome. The first four books of De Trinitate are an elaboration of biblical sources of Trinitarian thought.  (“Éléments dérivés: influence de la Bible. however. of trinitarian faith was for the bishop in itself a noble enterprise.h-Century Latin Christian Literature Pellegrino. THE “TRUTH” OF SCRIPTURE: DE TRINITATE. “Conversing with God and Others: Scripture in a Community of Discourse (Confessions Books X–XIII)”: P. whether the faith be so” (. Another basic requirement was to conform with the interpretive tradition of the church: “All those catholic expounders of the divine scriptures both Old and New whom I have been able to read. “The Prudential Augustine: The Virtuous Structure and Sense of His Confessions”: RechAug XXII () –.” –). as it is both disseminated through the scriptures. but the fact is that “this rule for interpreting scripture” leads him first to discuss the Gospels. what may be called the canonical rule. whether to that by which we understand the Son as less. ista regula intellegendarum scripturarum. ) about the two natures of Christ. the Father. It becomes the more intriguing to observe Augustine’s own contribution to the history of biblical interpretation in his application of biblical hermeneutics throughout De Trinitate. Augustine emphasizes a first “rule” for such hermeneutics: “Wherefore. for instance. introducing Jesus in “the form of a servant” before engaging into any consideration of the divinity of Christ. If Augustine was aware or not of here coming close to specific statements made by his “predecessors” we do not need to decide. “yet there are some things in the sacred texts so put as to leave it ambiguous (ut ambiguum sit) to which rule they are rather to be referred. Light of Light.Augustine of Hippo  to teach this doctrine according to the scriptures . God of God. as I have said. but yet that he is from him. of the Athanasian Contra Arianos where the discussion of the Logos Incarnate as a “servant” always follows extensive debates on the nature of his divinity. but equal to.” (. concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ. having mastered this rule for interpreting the scriptures. the unity and equality of the Trinity are intimated to our faith” (. . ). ) summarized by the Creed and supported by numerous proof texts. that we are to distinguish in them what relates to the form of God. for both of these are set forth for our contemplation to this end. ). in that he has taken upon him the creature. thus reversing the order.” per scripturas disseminatam et a doctis catholicis earundum scripturarum tractatoribus demonstratam tanquam canonicam regulam (. that he may himself be sought. . or to that by which we understand that the Son is not indeed less than. and has been demonstrated by learned and catholic handlers of the same scriptures. “In these and like testimonies of the divine scriptures by the free use of which. our predecessors expounded such sophistries or errors of heretics. At the start of Book II. in which he is equal to the Father and what to the form of a servant which he took in which he is less than the Father.” The “rule” already enunciated in the Preface is repeated at the top of the main exposition: “We hold most firmly. whether through his scripture or through the creature.” . Before ending Book I. Thus the dogmatic discourse rests on a judicious choice of scriptural quotations already debated at length by (mainly Greek) “predecessors” of past centuries. concerning the Son of God. the Preface announces a strong resolve to face the challenges of contemplating divine Trinity: “I will not be slow to search out the substance of God. we shall not be disquieted by apparently contrary and mutually repugnant sayings of the sacred books” (. when he carried the wood for the sacrifice of himself. In the Preface of Book III. . . ) before the end of Book II.” Those divine apparitions to Abraham. neither in eternity. then. I so far drink in. they did not. The book focuses on that issue. has altogether nothing changeable. not in truth. whereby he is. . His humble self-depreciation is balanced by a firm affirmation of “thy truth. Moses and others. by which all things were made which is the unchangeable truth.” and remembering the recommendation of De doctrina christiana in the case of scriptural ambiguities (cf DDC II . supported. for the essence of God. like the stone placed under Jacob’s head. nor any changes in that essence.” The purpose of Book III is to state the absolute transcendency of God before discussing OT “theophanies. ). whom it signified. not discounting the merits of his own research: “I myself confess that I have by writing learned many things which I did not know . . Augustine hastens towards the familiar territory of biblical symbolism much needed for his forthcoming demonstration: “Nor again. Without using technical terms Augustine refers to the kind of typology already practised inside scripture before it was further elaborated by his predecessors in the art of commenting on scripture. ‘And that rock was Christ. suddenly come into being in order simply to signify” (. A particular significative action was added to those already existing things. he repeats with an unusual insistence the debt of learning which he owes those former commentators with regard to the scriptural foundation of Trinitarian faith. What is read in scripture refers always to that truth personified in Christ. all things are simultaneously therein.” veritas tua: “And this truth. For that rock was a thing already created. nor in will. and after the mode of its action was called by the name of Christ. not only those things which are now in the whole creation. changeable though I am. as we call the Son a rock (for it is written. very greatly and aided by the writings we have already read of others on this subject. Augustine recovers the lyrical accents of prayer in his Confessions. “Because therefore the Word of God is one.” Without further technicality the author expresses once more his central conviction: interpreting scripture means accounting for divine truth as such. do not imply any visible essence of God. still close to DDC I. . . It is noticeable that in the Preface of Book IV.h-Century Latin Christian Literature Firmly leaning on the dogmatic conclusions of his unnamed “predecessors. which he took in order to signify the Lord. and also anointed. as that dove (Mt :) and fire (Acts :).’  Cor :). as far as in it I see nothing changeable .” The whole interpretation of Genesis I which Augustine . potentially and unchangeably. but also those which have been and those which shall be. can we so call the Spirit a dove or fire. . or as Isaac was Christ. In Augustine’s many-faceted literary output. He mentions no specific adversaries whose thought would bother him at the start of the work. EXPLORING THE LITERAL SENSE: DE GENESI AD LITTERAM I–IX The first nine books of De Genesi ad litteram were composed in  and . only to argue page after page until the end of Book I about all the possible meanings of each biblical word taken at face value. . based on his dogmatic concept of divine truth in scripture. For in the bishop’s approach. in the apparently innocent reception of the littera by Augustine. V. ). In truth he had never before faced the task at expounding for itself the biblical littera in its immediate enunciation and its natural order. . . the littera happens to be a formidable screen. At once he qualified the littera as “figurative.Augustine of Hippo  would develop later on in De Genesi ad litteram is announced here.” “No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense” (I. and goes on to wonder: “What meaning other than the allegorical have the words ‘in the beginning God created heaven and earth’ (Gn :)” (I. The only sacred authority to which he would submit the composition of his commentary would be the divine littera itself. He would fight his own deficient rationale about Genesis from one biblical word to another. Augustine had attempted to exercise a consistent use of scripture in the different literary genres to which belong Confessions and the dogmatic treatise De Trinitate. were progressively added to the unfinished work up to . De Genesis ad litteram would remain a unique attempt to write a proper commentary of scripture. and his theoretical outline on biblical hermeneutics in DDC. ). His only ‘adversary’ in this case would have been his own lack of a formulated understanding of Genesis I–III. like the last three books of Confessions. There is something paradoxical. Books X–XII. After his earlier refutation of Manichean ideas about the creation of the world. even puzzling. Augustine’s candor in turning to the risky challenge of a proper commentary is a mark of his genius. nor does he feel the need to call again on the canonical authority of “predecessors” or church institutions as he did in venturing into the composition of De Trinitate. He did not consider the last three books of Confessions as a proper commentary on Genesis I because they were more aimed at retrieving his inner journey in the light of Genesis than at focusing on the biblical text for itself. Though other commentators start interfering in his exegetical exercise.” “darkness. “to discuss sacred scripture according to the plain meaning of the historical facts. . hence we must not think of the matter in a human way. as speaking about “spiritual and carnal persons in the church” (II.” this commentator of Gn : – would conclude in recognizing his apparent failure. . a screen on which the interpreter would unremittingly project his questions and reactions. “certain commentators” (II. II. nobody distracts him from multiplying his own questions and common-sense observations. in recalling the beautiful image of the scripture-firmament in his former work: “My allegorical interpretation of . keeping the littera itself untouched and undisputed. unchangeable and fixed exemplars of his co-eternal Word. Through a consistent questioning of the biblical text (and of himself) about “light.h-Century Latin Christian Literature at once showing and hiding the meaning of God’s written message. Therefore. not according to future events which they foreshadow” (I. but he would wisely conclude: “God does not work under the limits of time by motions of body and soul. and reinforces its categorical requirements as the objective and definitive expression of divine truths. or again “certain writers” (II. Book II. ). .” “heaven and earth.” transcends human thinking.” “a certain commentator” (who is Basil of Caesarea. Taken one word after another. not without observing how irrelevant his behavior might be: “Perhaps this is an absurdly material way of thinking and speculating on the matter” (I. ). rational yet deficient as it may be. “interpretation” would mean allowing one’s own thought to be consonant with the littera. He is confident that “the authority of scripture in this matter is greater than all human ingenuity” (II. but that is not Augustine’s present purpose. Thus in front of the literal “screen” of scripture a drama develops in the interpreter’s mind. and that “the narrative of the inspired writer brings the matter down to the capacity of children” (II. but by the eternal. the text of scripture constantly imposes itself on the interpreter. ). . “can with good reason be understood figuratively. . . unchangeable.” “water. ). by definition. . on Gn :– or on Ps :. being “utterances of God.” The littera itself. . ). .” or better allegorically. ). He had kept true to his initial purpose. but plunging Augustine into a decisive crisis of a hermeneutical nature.” and the Spirit “stirring above the waters. ). line after line. . ). . as if the utterances of God were subject to time throughout the various days of God’s works. A true interpreter verifies that transcendency in exposing to the mystic evidence of the littera all his thinking. as do men and angels. such as “people who engage in learned discussions about the weights of the elements. Only once does the author refer to an interpretation that would deviate from the plain sense of the text under scrutiny. for Augustine. God willing. in view of what we have seen about the seventh day. . and “As I have already indicated. although how it could all be explained is another matter” (III. ). . . allows Augustine to dig out from “the evidence of scripture” other arguments in favor of the transcendent meaning of “day”: “Otherwise we might be forced to say. ). . That transcendent meaning. ). . Book IV recapitulates the consideration of the six days in the former books and ponders the biblical phrase of “God’s rest. it “must be understood not in a prophetic or . ).” or “morning”.” In that recapitulation one finds a new emphasis on what would become a distinctively Augustinian mark in the present commentary: The author introduces the Book by pointing out very precisely: “It is a laborious and difficult task for the powers of our human understanding to see clearly the meaning of the sacred writer in the matter of these six days” (IV. immediately examined through more reasoning. )”. Later on there will be ample opportunity to treat more thoroughly the nature of man” (III. or that the seventh day itself was not a creature” (IV.” “evening. . ).” proceeds in the same brilliant yet somehow pedestrian way as Book I and II.” That idea. . for a more thorough discussion” (III. only to conclude: “But now. Several questions are postponed: “Concerning this question there may be an occasion later on.Augustine of Hippo  this passage (Ps :. has nothing to do with “some figurative and allegorical way” of interpreting “day. he insists. ). Book III. a procedure which occasionally gives the author some satisfaction: “Considerable light is now thrown on this text [Gn I:] which seemed obscure at first” (II.” flanked with the severe caveat: “We must first drive from our minds all anthropomorphic concepts that men might have” (IV. . ). Thus the confession of ignorance generates the idea of seven recurrences of the same primordial “day. against the evidence of scripture that beyond the works of the six days a creature was made on the seventh day. . ). . . Augustine stresses the radical transcendency of God about the “rest” of the seventh day. “This theory [about a possible “baby boom” without the Fall] can be proposed. it is easier to admit our ignorance of a thing that is beyond our experience. After a brilliant summary of mystical numerology about the “six days. we shall later investigate more thoroughly the rest of the biblical account of the creation of man” (III. by bringing the littera close to daily sense experience. about “The works of the fifth and the sixth days. . ). It is easier to confess our ignorance of these matters than to go against the obvious meaning of the words of holy scripture by saying that the seventh day is something else than the seventh recurrence of the day that God made” (IV. ‘who stretches out heaven like a skin’) can be found in the thirteenth book of my Confessions” (II. . . I shall find some certain and final answer (about ‘the problem of the soul’). ). . it is through the experience of sacred “literalism” that Augustine deepened his distinctive attitude as an interpreter of scripture: “You must understand that this day (Gn :) was seven times repeated to make up the seven days. as I weigh these considerations. because sacred scripture was written under the inspiration of the one Spirit of truth” (IV.—the final statement of Book VI. “Scripture does not permit us to understand that in this manner the man and woman were made on the sixth day. which. “In this whole wide universe created by God there are many things we do not know” (V. the central element in the completion of De Genesi ad litteram. “If the foregoing conclusion is valid we are attempting in vain to find a literal meaning” (VI. And the two are one. as it was already the case in Confessions. . “Ignorance” will be repeatedly linked with interpretation: “In our ignorance (nescientis) we conjecture about possible events which the writer omitted knowingly. the commentary would often take on the shape of accumulated questions begging their answers. terrify the attentive with its depths. . ). “Nevertheless. but literally (IV. . ). . I know not” (VI. As in V. “Within the limits of our human intelligence we can know the nature of a being we have observed by experience in so far as past time is concerned. ). ). ). Here one reaches the ground of the interpreter’s intimate conviction: by divine inspiration the true nature of the biblical littera conveys enough of God’s own transcendency for enabling its interpreters to formulate such paradoxical notions as the one to which Augustine now turns. .  about Gn :. Holy scripture indeed. . “Whether in the present study. ). and nourish little ones with sweetness” (V. feed great souls with its truths. we are ignorant” (VI. The humble confession of “ignorance” by the “great soul” claiming here to perceive the “truth” of scripture will become more and more. ). In our efforts according to our limited ability we try with God’s help to see that no absurdity or contradiction have be thought to be present in sacred scripture to offend the mind of the reader” (V. the notion of the simultaneous creation of all things: “For this scripture text that narrates the works of God according to the days mentioned above. . ). he significantly observes. . I do not want to make any hasty declarations but rather to wait and see whether the text of scripture elsewhere is not against my interpretation” (VI. . ). . . and that scripture text that says God created all things together. does not exclude a variety of interpretations. but with regards to the future. . . and yet it does not allow us to assume that they were not made on the sixth day at all” (VI. In the following books of De Genesi ad litteram.h-Century Latin Christian Literature figurative sense”. are both true. speaks in such a way as to mock proud readers with its heights. . . determined as he was to give a full account of the very littera of Genesis and of the littera alone. The interpretation of scripture understood as pervaded by docta ignorantia. f. velut adhuc requirenda sunt (CSEL xxxvi. . he also repeatedly expresses (at least until XI. . L. . Those that are not certain have been proposed for further study” (transl. . . . as noted by Augustine himself. but the focus of his attention has become more distant from the biblical littera. . . . and of the answers found. Knöll. I. De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber.Augustine of Hippo  From Book VII De Genesi ad litteram engages into a changed mode of composition. . XI. would thereby receive its proper Augustinian mark. again. . It clearly shows that Augustine’s interpretive experience in De Genesi ad litteram. . ). In VII. have already received notice.. IX. the sin of Adam and Eve (Book XII. . : II. . . H. . . Each Book focuses now on given issues whose philosophical discussion is occasioned by the biblical text. . De Genesi contra Manichaeos.:. VI. Mutzenbecher. . on the “third heaven” is a later addition. –!) his firm determination to avoid allegorizing the text of Genesis (VIII. it is the origin and nature of the human soul referred to in Gn : which is at stake. . it is the “garden of Eden” of Gn :. P. . the origin of the human soul. CCSL LVII. more self-contained in philosophical arguments. with the much more important theoretical work De doctrina christiana and the personal inventiveness in De Genesi ad litteram. xxiv. VIII. J. not many have been established for certain. confirmed him in the highly inspiring attitude of intellectual humility which he had already increasingly emphasized in his Confesssions. ). X. . xxiv. ed. et eorum quae inventa sunt pauciora firmata. . . . . . in X. . In hoc opere plura quaesita quam inventa sunt. In that sequence of Books Augustine finds several occasions to admit the limits of his understanding (VII. . Retract II. . . . .).. Therefore the dramatic confession of “ignorance” bound with the hermeneutical inquiries about the literal meaning of Genesis in the former Books of De Trinitate no longer occurs. when he was in the midst of writing De Genesi ad litteram (completed in ). . XI. in IX. THE BIBLICAL SCHOLAR The two early polemical essays of an exegetical nature. . : II.  duodecimum addidi). . In Retractationes II. cetera vero ita posita. ed A. In VIII. . and finally in XI. Under . as Augustine called it as Letter  written in . f. the creation of woman (Gen :). Taylor . xxiv the aged bishop consistently noted about De Genesi ad litteram: “In this work their are more questions raised than answers found. ).  again on Romans.  on Titus. ). . and Possidius. Lagrange (). De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus The  Quaestiones are indeed extremely diverse. Collected on free sheets of paper by “brothers. dating from –. . as expressly stated by Augustine himself in Retract I. Epistolae ad Romanos inchoata expositio. in Augustine’s improvised community of Thagaste (Fall –mid May/August ). remains indispensable. .” De Bruyne. – on Romans. ). Introduction aux ‘Révisions’ et à la lecture des oeuvres de saint Augustin. . Also: M. and a late scholarly exercise on the Heptateuch. – on John. – on Matthew. Most helpful precisions on these scholarly papers are given by G. Added are a Commentary on Matthew –.  on Philippians. –. Severus.  on Colossians.h-Century Latin Christian Literature the present rubric are collected literary products of Augustine’s scholarly practice: a set of answers to specific quaestiones raised by the “brothers” of his monastic group during their common reading of scripture. again on John. – on  Corinthians. . The  Quaestiones (casually assembled and edited by the “brothers” but numbered by Augustine himself) start with a set of fifty. . . As a whole the second set of essentially biblical “diverse questions” dates from the leave of absence for bible study granted to Augustine when ordained priest in  Both sets of De diversis quaestionibus “testify to Augustine’s spiritual journey during the period starting when the biographical report of Confessions ends” (Mutzenbecher.  on Hebrews (some non exegetical Quaestiones are inserted here and there: Qu . they reflect a shift in favor of biblical studies after Augustine’s priestly ordination in  (Epist . Paris. fill up the three decades of his presbyteral and episcopal ministry. Madec.  (like Qu  edited with pseudo Augustinian elements) in Exodus. or by people like the Milanese priest Simplicianus. Profuturus. . some marginal notes on Job. –. For Augustine as “reviseur de la Bible. A second set consists of groups of quaestiones determined by biblical texts under scrutiny.  on Galatians. Epistolae ad Galatas expositio. two letters to Jerome.” such as Alypius. xliii). and are mainly philosophical. and close to Augustine’s biblical works of the time: Qu – on OT. De sermone domini in monte.  on James.-J. From lively discussions during the five or six years preceding Augustine’s episcopate (/) derived essays like De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber. Expositio quarundam propositionum ex epistola ad Romanos. All these written traces of Augustine’s life-long dedication to studying scripture.  Tit :.  Jn :–. strictly philosopical on body. soul. John the Baptist.  Phil :.  :–.  :.   Cor :.  Heb :. .  :–. doomsday. :. Mt :– etc.. :–. (. : non exegetical)  Ex –.  Gal :. :. Augustine’s .  Jas :. God.  Adv Apollinaristas  De quadragesima et quinquagesima  Heb :.  Rom :–:.). numerology.  De coniugio (Mt :. .  Cor :–). Logos = ratio or verbum. Sg : Jn :. Jn :–. the first quotation of scripture in Qu . ten virgins. In the first set of fifty quaestiones a very first allusion to scripture occurs in Qu . In Qu . :– Ps :. :. Only from Qu  on biblical references multiply. . and still in Qu . :–. on the miracles performed by Pharaoh’s magicians. :–. numerology.  Col :–. with a general rule: in omnibus scripturis summa vigilantia custodiri oportet et secundum fidem sit sacramenti divini expositio (.Augustine of Hippo  Qu               Gn : : Ex :. f. :–. full developments in Augustine’s exposition offer mainly a sequence of biblical quotations. .” Augustine proceeds by exploring the passage verse after verse in a continuous exegesis which actually exceeds the limits of the genre. . a passage ignored by Marcion. opposes the Manichean exegesis of two “Laws. attempted after the return to Hippo.  is about  Kgs :–. –). Bardenhewer.  on Rom –. . Without much editing we hear echoes of discussions entertained by Augustine and his friends during the happy years of their spiritual incubation at Thagaste. but used by Origen in defense of free will and divine justice. (See O. –. Qu. Inst div . . ) Of the same nature as the Expositio above. specially in the second half of Qu . . Expositio quarundam propositionem ex epistola ad Romanos In Retract I. . hence Augustine’s answer defends the OT. whereas in the second set (Qu –) the biblical text is center stage in each quaestio.  is about  Kgs : and :: is the literal meaning contradictory? Qu. Qu. Augustine would never use it. A similar use was already noticeable in Ambrosiaster. . The same question was raised by Manichees. De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum (Winter –: Perler Mard ) The work has been composed according to the genre of Quaestiones et Responsiones inaugurated by Philo on Genesis and Exodus. As a bishop. Epistolae ad Galatas expositionis liber unus (Retract I. Misc Agost .  on Rom :–. The first to mention it in a much later time would be Cassiodorus. Marcion had also wondered how God could “repent” and he had concluded that there was a different God in OT and NT. and in Augustine. Epistolae ad Romanos inchoata expositio (Retract I. Augustine explains that the short essay consists in answers given to “brothers” in . in Rom  and  (in /).h-Century Latin Christian Literature arguments are aiming towards the biblical quotations given at the end of the quaestio. In line with a tradition marked by . Qu.” the other for “death. and acclimated to Christian literature by Ambrosiaster ca. . . ) Another attempt quickly interrupted when found too difficult. After Qu . Qu.  treats  Kgs :.” one “good. . Qu. It is also free from polemics and Augustine’s answer remains purely exegetical. . They “are marginal notes added by Augustine to a codex. Augustine explains that the pytonissa does not mean that evil power can exercise its dominion over virtuous souls. with as central theme the progressive acquisition of Christian perfection in seven stages. Our Father. deals with Mt –. “Much is said in scripture which”) Augustine clarifies the somewhat “obscure. Qu. Ten years before Augustine. non servata pronuntiatio. the last two turn their attention toward contemplatio summi boni.  treats  Kgs :. . focuses on Mt . In Augustine’s own observation.Augustine of Hippo  Origen. discussing Beatitudes  and . . V. Augustine peacefully clarifi es the literal meaning. dating from . “It is expressed as to say . Book II. So much for the exegetical elements in De diversis quaestionibus. Eustathius.” (obscuram) sentence in Eliajah’s badly transmitted statement. De sermone domini The essay was composed between late August  and late  as a continuous commentary on the literal meaning of Mt –. the rest belonging to heresiology. that he knew also Gregory’s Homilies seems probable. Augustine would use that same division for commenting on vita activa and vita contemplativa. directly depends on Ambrose is certain. That Augustine’s exegesis. Ambrose had written on the same topic in his Commentary on Luke.  treats  Kgs :. collected and edited by disciples. Indeed the first five Beatitudes direct people towards bona opera. Gregory of Nyssa’s eight Homilies on the Beatitudes delivered during Lent . Ambrosiaster and Philaster. determined by the seven Beatitudes of Matthew (the eighth transcending the series is a symbol of eternity. ). but needs further verification. ac si diceret. In De consensu evangelistarum (. Book I. Adnotationes in Job They date from . though without being servile. but he contemplates them in their reverse order and in the light of the seven (not six!) requests of the prayer. In an eloquent paraphrase (Ita ergo dictum est. not without discreetly referring to his source. . Augustine links the beatitudes with the seven gifts of the Spirit according to Isaiah :–. they are the more difficult to understand as in many of them the biblical . commenting on Beatitudes –.” and by calling on the broader scriptural context (Multa sunt autem in scripturis quae. . –) The work was composed at the time when Augustine was writing Books XV–XVI of the City of God probably in / . For the Questions on Genesis. but “hastily” tamquam a festinantibus (Prooemium). ). ). . see Cavallera (). and the very text of the biblical book was severely questionable (Retract II.h-Century Latin Christian Literature phrases interpreted have not been noted. . but only valuable witnesses to Augustine’s study of the Bible. “words” and “particularities” of the Greek and Hebrew language taken over without explanation into Vetus Latina translations of the Bible are clarified. . THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD Enarrationes in Psalmos “The great biblical discovery of Augustine during his stay at Cassiciacum was the Davidic Psalms” (La Bonnardière . It consists of a minute exercise of literal exegesis on the first seven books of OT by which idiomata and proprietates. ). Madec. Paris. They were “published” only after Jerome’s death ().” (G. They are not proper books. Locutiones/Quaestiones in Heptateuchum (Retract II. The same must be said of the Expositio . Introduction aux ‘Révisions’ et à la lecture des oeuvres de Saint Augustin. lost). Ad Hieronymum presbyterum libri duo These libri are. ). Occasionally Augustine compares the Latin text with the LXX Greek. epistolae Iacobi (Retract II.  (). a discovery which he would reiterate and deepen throughout his pastoral activity until the day when psalmic verses copied in large characters would be posted on the walls were he was dying in . two letters given to Orosius in  for being delivered to Jerome.. As noted by the editors of St. the Enarrationes (a title in use only since Erasmus) “fall into four . De consenu evangelistarum (/) Expositio epistolae Iacobi ad duodecim tribus (before . in fact. Augustine on the Psalms in ACW. Quaestiones in evangelium Quaestiones XVI in Matthaeum VII. (d) proper sermons. . . similar to the City of God. The major results of that research are that Enn on Ps – were composed as early as . ): Jesus Christ is the celestial “Lord” of the earthly church extended to the limits of the human species according to the basic principle of ecclesiology systematized by Tyconius. let him detect endless possibilities for allegorical applications. In particular the Book of Genesis and the Pauline Letters remain permanently in the back . always inspired by Augustine’s vision of biblical salvation history. Psalmic verses are clarified when necessary in their literal meaning. dates from . four on Ps  and . and one at Utica. More constantly their spiritual meaning allows one or more allegories.W. and rhythms must have sent many a listener home chuckling with appreciation. –. three on Ps . possibly read aloud in church by his priests. Augustine’s last Enn. ) is representative of the unanimous chorus of praise magnified by modern critics.II: Zarb. Certain psalms demanded more than one commentary: there are two on many of them. the forcefulness and the penetrating simplicity of the spoken word. seven others at Thagaste. . their wordplay. “They have the freedom. A chronological list of the Ennarationes is printed in ACW .” Augustine explains all ups and downs of individual believers and of the whole “body” of Christianity. By focusing on the “Lord. M. Deux années (). pp. Recherches. added to the inexorable realism which characterizes all Augustine’s sermons to the people. as a universal and ongoing drama in which God operates universal salvation. (b) more detailed commentaries (Ps –). xv–xviii add La Bonnardière. Le Landais. in which the written commentaries often differ considerably from those delivered orally: (a) brief exegetical notes (Ps –).  and .” The imaginative perception of Augustine’s preaching style by Dame Scholastica Hebgin and Dame Felicitas Corrigan (ACW . joined with a religious imagination in constant alertness.Augustine of Hippo  classes.. One gathers the impression. from many of these lively homilies that they are addresses of a pastor of souls to a flock whom he loves and knows intimately. The thematic richness of Augustine’s sermons on the psalms adds to the thrill of their lively style. The preacher’s rhetorical skills. by referring to common experiences or to historical information. Some of the sermons on the psalms were preached at Hippo or Carthage (De Bruyne. assonance. Their homely metaphors and flashes of wit. and no fewer than thirty-two on Ps ! The dating of the Enarrationes was subjected to much scrutiny since W. whereas the commentary on Ps . ). The Enarrationes. with the help of grammatical devices. another one in CCSL XXXVIII. (c) dictated expositions in sermon form. depict a “spiritual history of humankind” (Pontet . though reading in given verses things that were not in them. STUDIES Pontet. with “ sermons preached at Hippo. H. Paris . Part III/ “Sermons (–) on the Old Testament” (Brooklyn NY ). Rondet. there is no clues at all for ” (). Augustine the Bishop. daily during Easter week and on many special occasions. Augustini in Psalmos. A strictly located error does not affect the general truth and if philologists disagree. In III/. Verbraken (). Malta . ). New York and Evanston.. They are best understood in the light of the Gospels which themselves call on the whole Bible.. P. of which only half are available in satisfactory editions. A Translation for the st Century. III/ “Sermons (A–A) on the New Testament” (). “When and where did Augustine preach?” (–). ten or fourteen times more of them being lost. Church and Society at the Dawn of the Middle Ages. S. “Deux années de prédication de S. “How have the Sermons come down to us?” (–). Paris .  at Carthage. starts by raising the most obvious questions: “What is to be understood by the Sermons?” (). III/ “Sermons (–) on the Old Testament” (). Hence.h-Century Latin Christian Literature of the interpreter’s mind.” (Pontet . a dozen at various cities. Van der Meer. Le Landais. in: RSR  (/) –.” first published in Italian in . theologians cannot protest. III/ “Sermons (–) on the New Testament” (). Chronologia Enarrationum S. M. namely at least twice a week.. counted by P. –. In the blinding light of the divine incarnation as he perceives it Augustine dispenses from any investigation of the literal meaning of psalmic verses. . Zarb.. “Notes d’exégèse augustinienne”. L’exégèse de S. M. the “General Introduction. . Augustin prédicateur. it practically never happens that he reads in them a truth that would not be in the Bible. Pellegrino forms the “General Introduction” to Edmund Hill’s superb translation: The Works of Saint Augustine.. given the variety of Latin terms used for them. Other Sermons A comprehensive survey of Augustine’s sermons by M. One psalm calls on another. in: Études Augustiniennes. F. given their number: . Augustin”. . but he never fails to anchor his Christian “dream-time” exegesis in scriptural evidence: “His rule was to interpret scriptural obscurities only in the light of other very clear passages. /B. /C. –. he would not hesitate to multiply questions about the biblical text which he would leave without answers. ). Just as in the written text of De Genesi ad litteram. ). or he could refer to the authority of learned predecessors or colleagues (Serm /C. . ). but polemics never prevail in his sermons over the pastoral care for the education of the faithful. –. .” passages “rather difficult to understand” or whose full explanation was impossible to provide in a short sermon. but also apparent contradictions between one passage and another. –. ). Sometimes the learned rhetor did not refrain from showing a preference for numeral symbolism (Serm . ). and to give some information for a skeleton plan of the lessons of the Sanctorale” (Willis . –). The bishop’s homiletic comments on scripture. Not only textual obscurities. being proposed with clarity so as to cure whoever wants to be cured” (Serm . the OT being only considered by him in regard to the NT. In front of the challenging text of scripture. . More than once. Easter and Pentecost. . when Augustine spoke from the cathedra. but in the final end it is always the pastoral leader whose voice one hears in the sermons. or between one gospel and another. he could claim direct knowledge of biblical manuscripts (Serm . Or he gave his interpretation reluctantly uneasy with his own thoughts. Indeed many valuable interpretations could compete about a given episode in the OT if only all of them showed fitting with the christocentric perspective of the interpreter. Augustine never misses the occasion to denounce heretical interpretations.Augustine of Hippo  Chapter  deals with “The Use of the Bible in the Sermons” (–). hampered the progress of his expositions. His obvious focus in the Bible was in the NT. The biblical readings in the liturgical assembly. “Many things have been read that are important and necessary. ). a . . . In fact every thing is important and necessary. far from avoiding difficult passages emphasize for the common believer what Augustine used to call biblical “mysteries. –. (Serm . such as those of Manichees or Donatists. . the preacher interrupted his comments in turning to prayer. joined with the singing of psalms entailed as many preached commentaries adapted to audiences and circumstances. begging for the needed intelligence of the sacred text. Augustine’s interpretive humility was for his listeners an excellent invitation to become humble in their turn. to the point that he occasionally asked his congregation to rescue him from his perplexity through prayer and moral support (Serm . With these sermons it is possible “to reconstruct the lectionary of Hippo for the seasons of Christmas. Thus the spiritual sense of the OT equaled for him the OT’s christological messianism. but some things in the scriptures are hidden in darkness and call for study while others are within easy reach. “known through a twelfth century edition. SC  (). –. Sermons pour la Pâque. . On the  folios of the collections.  () –. . conveniently called the “series Mainz-Lorsch. . Williams. Sermons for Christmas and Epiphany. . the discovery of Mainz confirming earlier datings by D. CCSL XXXVI (): Sermons – preached at Hippo in . De Bruyne. Dolbeau identified about twenty unknown sermons in a fifteenth century collection kept at Mainz (Stadtbibliothek I ): “Sermons inédits de S. For the Tractatus in epistolam Ioannis ad Parthos. Amazingly. called “Carthusian. Some Easter sermons of Augustine probably dating from  or . ed. . The second group of sermons (f. –. – and –v) transmit a series close to a lost collection of which only the titles have been preserved in a ninth century inventory of the Benedictine Abbey of Lorsch. dictated probably . Lambot. C. Augustine. R. sermons –. Lawler. f. St.” That second series was preached by Augustine from May to August  in basilicas of the region of Carthage. Poque.  and –have been studied and edited by S. . In  F.” That first group. . Dolbeau concludes: “This manuscript of the second half of the th century transmits a collection of sermons not only African. but with a more complete content of another collection. C. . Lambot. .” has been published by Dolbeau in AnBoll  () –. one “reads three groups of authentic sermons. Augustinus. . Augustinus. CCSL XLI (). . Augustin d’Hippone. –v). Agaësse. . –. –.  () –. see P. Guelf III. and shortly after.h-Century Latin Christian Literature leader capable of addressing directly the faith experience of his listeners out of his own inner conversion. chapter X. and in RBen  () –. . ed. ACW . Sermones I–L de vetere Testamento. Augustin dans un manuscrit de Mayence (Stadtbibliothek I ). SC  (). that second group of Mainz transmits a series of sermons included by Possidius in their liturgical order in his Indiculum. –. .” REAug .–Serm . preached during the Easter week .” is apparent. in Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV. a Carthusian one.  () –. . corresponding to two ancient collections of Augustinian tractatus. Also: T. but already established in . The first and the third group (f. . RBen . . Guelf V. RBen . . and C. and a cultural consensus inside the church for which the Bible was the exclusive mode of religious communication. .  () –. Augustine wrote Books IV–X. In –. A separate publication of these first three Books was well received. Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique. when the author was in his late fifties. he secured the division of each Book into numbered chapters. Augustin d’Hippone. Possibly a third partial publication of Books X–XIV happened in the meantime.  () –. Augustine added Book XVIII and in –.). in Marseilles and Paris two decades earlier.” REAug  () –). f. but never noticed by the many French specialists of Augustine. Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique. In . he completed the work at the age of seventy-four. R. and Books XIV–XVII in –. B. “Nouveaux sermons. Paris .Augustine of Hippo  Augustine’s lifetime” (). STUDIES Dolbeau.. Dolbeau identified more precisely in the homiliary of Mainz nineteen unknown sermons and parts of seven others by Augustine. the new sermons offer a rich addition to the writings of Augustine witnessing to his pastoral use of scripture. –. with thirteen of fifty fragments whose immediate context can now be located (REAug . Books XIX–XXII. of a whole set of Letters written by the bishop of Hippo. . followed without further delay by the composition of Books XI–XIII in –. –. . THE CITY OF GOD The City of God consists of twenty-two Books of which Books I–III were composed in –. Contrary to the new Letters.. ed.  () –. Mainz  offers a christological interpretation of Psalm  (F. F. “Textkritisches und sprachliches zu den neugefundenen Augustinpredigten”: Augustin d’Hippone. Paris . Another publication of Books I–X again drew encouraging responses. for instance. in the process of composing the work. A provisional publication of the second group has also been secured by F. The sensational finding of these sermons first announced in  is only comparable with J. three years before his death. A revised critical edition of the newly discovered sermons should soon become available. Dolbeau: “Nouveaux sermons de saint Augustin pour la conversion des païens et des donatistes. When he started the City of God he was fifty-eight years old. Divjak’s identification. and transl. Löfstedt. –.. Dolbeau. In . or sent to him.” REAug  () –. VIII. Indeed the “city of God” is mentioned in Heb :. aiming both to answer questions coming from non-Christians. Confessiones . Book XV paraphrases Genesis. Before discussing at length the origin and the nature of “concupiscence. and to teach the biblical story to the community of believers. and in Ps. Augustine’s interpretive rewriting of scripture actualizes the biblical story without changing it in any way but in stressing its enduring relevance. xv. Enarrationes in Ps. v that he found in scripture the notion of the “two cities. as an historical report whose veracity is beyond question. . . in  or . in –. where Augustine gives information about the circumstances which engaged him into composing De civitate dei. . In Book XIII. :–. ). The paraphrase amplifies and interprets the biblical narrative on the literal level. by predecessors. together with other scriptural passages punctuate Augustine’s text. .  (PL . . interpreted allegorically. probably before De civitate dei Book VI. –. –. see also the strong suggestions of Gal :– and Phil :–. he restricts his critical remarks only to biblical data.  (in the late s).” Augustine very deliberately states in Book XIV. i. as in Books X and XVII. Before Augustine. A massive quotation of prophets occupies chapt. xiv. Quotations from Genesis and the Pauline corpus.  (ca. as narrated in the Bible: dum tamne et illis historiae veritas fidelissima rerum gestarum narratione commendata credatur—“If only one also believes in the truth of that story as most accurately recorded in the narration of what happened. witnessing the constant proximity of the author to the sacred sources.” the carnal one and the spiritual one: quas civitates duas secundum scripturas nostras merito appellari possemus—“(two forms of human society) which we could rightly call two cities in accordance with our scriptures. xi. must be seen as real. :. Augustine declares that the very notion of civitas dei was given to him by scripture (see also v. Before embarking on De civitate dei. for the most part. in Retractationes II. – of Book XVIII. i–ix). Augustine himself touched on this theme in a number of works: De vera religione . c).h-Century Latin Christian Literature In I. . ). In line with traditional church apologetics. ).” The apostle Paul is the main authority for speaking about the bodily mortallity resulting from the Fall. :. Pauline quotations again prevail massively over Johannine and OT references. In Ps . From Book to Book of De civitate dei. . De catechizandis rudibus (ca. xxi. the Paradise of the origins (Genesis ). . and Ambrose. called for by the mention of Cyrus and the return of the Jewish deportees from exile.” In that discussion (XIV. this biblical motif had attracted the attention of Tyconius. and in Rv :. Interesting enough. . Rather than refuting in detail the materialistic projections of the “Millennarists. . his spiritual reading of scriptural statements gives him a final opportunity in “this immense work” (ingentis huius operis xxx. of which Augustine concedes: “I must confess that I totally ignore what he (Paul. the passionate believer and the scholar eager to transcend his own limited knowledge. gives the author an opportunity to express in full detail his view on the “thousand year” reign of Jesus at the end of time (Rv :–). ix. He concludes that the “thousand years” mean symbolically “the present time of his (Christ’s) first coming”—isto iam tempore prioris adventus (XX. XXI and XXII of De civitate dei deal with Hell and Heaven. ).” the overarching focus of Augustine’s paraphrase of the Bible. FontChrq (). . following in particular Tyconius’s teaching in this regard. The vivid sensibility of the author fills each line of the text with the same fire of eloquence that burned in the writings of his youth. Hoffman.” Augustine decides to discuss directly the scriptural passage. ) to celebrate the fulfillment of God’s salvific work on earth. SUPPLEMENTARY BIBLIOGRAPHY AUGUSTINE EDITIONS De utilitate credendi. a candid admission of ignorance immediately followed by a short summary of “human conjectures. ).Augustine of Hippo Each Book starts with a reformulation of the general theme of the “two cities. the sharp critic of society. In his seventies now. Book XX. –ix. ). all in one. the final destinations of all humans. vii. express Augustine’s final message to the world in the last part of his masterwork. but exclusively intended to let scripture speak for itself. An extended quotation of  Thes – in xix. but the substance of thought consumed in the last chapters of the City of God is more self-aware and communicative. Augustine receives from scripture an over-streaming inspiration for depicting afterlife. . The dedicated pastor. he gives back to scripture a commentary enriched with nonbiblical wisdom and logic.” and a broad survey of OT prophecies about the final resurrection (xx. in  Thes :) wanted to say”—Ego prorsus quid dixerit me fateor ignorare (xix. The aged Augustine excells in treating the topic with a realistic and systematic application of his familiar hermeneutics: his literal reading of biblical data calls again and again for investigations in philosophical and scientific matters. A. –xxx. helps to investigate the “mystery of iniquity” linked with Antichrist. The last two Books. ” Aug(L) (). Hyde Park. W..” Pages – in Fs. Gregoriana. Altaner. Schriften. —. “The Basis of Hope in the Resurrection of the Body according to Augustine.Y.h-Century Latin Christian Literature TRANSLATIONS Hill. Die Verheissung des Parakleten nach der Exegese des hl. —. —. Kearney. “The Rising of the Dead in the Works of Augustine ( Cor :–). Ed. . B. Augustin. “El salmo  en los escritos agustinianos. Augustine of Hippo..” Aug(L)  (): –. “S. N. “Augustinus und die neutestamentlichen Apokryphen. —. E. Alfeche. Hunter.” AugM  (): –.” ECarm  (): –. Theologia Crucis—Signum Crucis.” Aug(L)  (): –.” Pages – in Kl. Dinkler.” AB  (): –. “Augustinus und die biblischen Onomastica. with notes and introductions by D. Augustine.. The Works of St. “Zaqueo en la predicación de san Agustin.” Augustinus Magister (). S. R. STUDIES Abrudan. J. Marriage and Virginity.” Aug(L)  (): –. TU . —. R. M. Augustine. . Sermons: Newly Discovered Sermons. M. Andreae. . Schriften. Augustine: A Translation for the st Century I/. —. Albertine.Y. “Selected survey of the theme ‘spiritual sacrifice’ to Augustine. patrist. Augustinus. Sibillen und Sextussprüche. Augustine: A Translation for the st Century III/. D.” EL  (): –. . N. “Augustinus und die neutestamentlichen Apokryphen. G. “The Use of Some Verses of  Cor  in Augustine’s Theology of the Resurrection. Arbesmann. Edited by C. Diss. TU . Andresen. “Augustinus und Origenes.. “Groaning Creation in the Theology of Augustine. . Anz. R. Agterberg. Luther. .” Augustinus  (): –. Anoz. patrist. .” Aug(L)  (): –.” Pages – in Kl. Sibyllinen und Sextusaussprüche. E. The Works of St.” StTeol  (): –.. Augustin exégète de l’Ecclesia Virgo. “Zur Exegese von Römer  bei Bultmann. “Vechiul Testament în scirerile (scriptis) Fericitului (Beati) Augustin. —. Hyde Park. “Christ the medicus humilis in St. La resurrección de Cristo en los ‘Tractatus in Iohannis evangelium’ de San Agustín. G. “Agustín y Ticonio. Monografías de la Revista Mayéutica .” BSt  (): –. :).” AugL  (): –. Ayres. L.” AugSt  (): –. .” –. La réception des Écrits néotestamentaires dans le christianisme primitif . . M.’ disharmony of the gospels and the harmony of Tatian (Mt :f. John’s Prologue. Chr. Agustín. Manichaeism and Philosophy in the early Augustine. C. Edited by L. Bachmann. Babcock. Augustin und Paulus. Bardy. Juan.” Augustinus  (): –.” In Congresso Oxford  = AugM . C. Sevrin. Oxford: Clarendon. Academiae Alphonsianae. Salm. S. S. “Agustín y Ticonio sobre metafísica y exégesis.” StPatr  (): –.” REAug  (): –.G. Louvain: Peeters. L. Wickham and C. T. W. Augustine. . “Augustin. Salamanca: Univ. “Ezekiel and S. Stead. “Augustine and John Chrysostom: Commentators on St. H. —. Edited and translated by R. . “Zum ‘argumentum resurrectionis’  Kor :ff. Pamplona.P. Green. Geist und Buchstabe. Aspectos cristológicos de la humildad en los Trat.. Bammel. —. R. —. M. Bammel.” In Oxford Early Christian Texts. “Augustine and Paul: The case of Romans IX. Pontificia. *–*..” Aug  (): –. G. . Mk :f. “Augustine De Doctrina Christiana. Hunter.s (). Agustinos Recoletos. Bibl. Leiden: Brill. Diss. “Struttura logica dell’esegesi agostiniana di Genesi :–. “Pauline Exegesis. Azcona. sobre la apropriación latina de Pablo. A Comparative Study. R. S. Imagen del hombre y su puesto en la creación. D.” AThA  () –. C. de S. Paul. Diss. not a stick. “Allegoria. Edited by J.” LingBibl  (): –. Bagur Jover. “Augustine. “‘A staff only. La creacíon en los comentarios de san Augustín al Génesis. Baarda.. “Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram and Horace’s Satire . “La formation du concept de ‘Cité de Dieu’ dans l’oeuvre de saint Augustin.-M. nach Christoph Zimmer.” JBR  (): –. Babcock. .Augustine of Hippo  Arteaga Natividad. Est. D. P. P. Álvarez Turienzo. . assisted by E. SVigChr . Agustin sobre S.. Origen and the Exegesis of St. Ayer. Askowith. . Marcilla (Navarra): Centro Filósofico— Teológico PP. “Augustine’s Interpretation of Romans (AD –). R.. J.” Pages – in Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy in Late Antiquity: Essays in tribute to G. Aucoin.” Pages – in The NT in early Christianity. Balido.A. Regio media salutis. Lk :.” ScEs  (): –. Augustini. “Cinco Sermones de san Agustin sobre Rom . Messina: Ignatianum. .. “Augustine’s view of women. . . A. P.” Augustinus  (): –. —. . Effusione dello Spirito Santo e doni carismatici. Bernardelli. Les béatitudes évangéliques dans la prédication populaire de S. “Augustin commentateur de saint Paul et l’Ambrosiaster. Edited by M. Bernardi. San Agustin. G. S. . “Woman as the image of God in Augustine’s De Trinitate XII. Benito y Durán. Bastiaensen.” Augustinus  (): –.” Pages – in Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froelich on his Sixtieth Birthday. Milan: Vita e Pensiero.h-Century Latin Christian Literature Bartiaesen. “La teología de la historia en la Ciudad de Dios. Augustin.” Pages – in Fs C. “The Rhetoric of God in the Figurative Exegesis of Augustine. Agostino: Il procedimento di interpretazioe figurale. “La perdrix animal méchant figure du diable: Augustin héritier d’une tradition exégétique.” AugM  (): f.” WiWei  (): f. R. J. SPMed .” Aug(L)  (): –. P. —. Agustin en el “De Doctrina Christiana. D. T. C. ‘In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram’ (Gen :) in S. van. Beierwaltes. A. –. Becker. C. . Alle fonti della dottrina agostiniana del peccato originale. Pamplona: EUNSA. M. Agostino. A. Bernard. J. Eco). Báget Bozzo. Beatrice. Bentivegna. . Bauer. Diss. Basevi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Der Jakobusbrief bei Augustinus und die damit verbundenen Probleme der Rechtfertigungslehre. Estudio en los Sermones de san Agustín sobre Rom . Strasbourg. Problemi di semiotica testuale in S. in Pss.” Teológica . A. . Tradux peccati. —. Criterios exegéticos propuestos por S. –.” ChH  (): –. G. Mayer Signum pietatis. “Dilige et fac quod vis.. “Las citas de la Escritura.” SE  (): –. W. d’après les En. Turin. Bologna: Tesi di laurea (rel. como recurso de estilo. T. Augustin.” en el “Contra Faustum” y en el “De Consensu Evangelistarum. Rorem.’ Contributuon au problème de son authenticité. Burrows and P.” Aug(L)  (): –. “Augustins Interpretation von Sap.” Augustinus  (): –. . “Effusione dello Spirito Santo e doni carismatici. B. A. Bavel. Bergauer. Diss. la testimonianza di S. U. “Parallèles.” Augustinus  (): –. F. Benin. Vienna: Herder. Pablo en S. “Sacrifice as education in Augustine and Chrysostom. —. S. R. Bavel. J.” REAug  (): –.” Aug(L)  (): –. . la testimonia di sant’Agostino. La interpretación del NT. Agostino e le sue fonti. W. A. vocabulaire et citations bibliques de la ‘Regula S. “S. Augustine of Hippo  Berrouard, M. F. “L’enseignement de S. Augustin sur le mariage dans le Tract. , in Joh. Ev.” Augustinus  (): –. —. “L’être sacramentel de l’eucharistie selon saint Augustin. Commentaire de Jean :– dans le Tractatus XXVII, – et – in Johannis Evangelium.” NRT A /t/ (): –. —. “Deux peuples, un seul troupeau, un unique Pasteur; ecclésiologie de saint Augustin et citations de Jean :.” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana. Edited by F. van Fleteren. Villanova: Villanova University, –. —. “L’exégèse de saint Augustin prédicateur du quartième Évangile; le sens de l’unité des Écritures.” FZPhTh  (): –. —. “Le Tractatus , in Iohannis Euangelium de saint Augustin, la parole, le sacrament et la foi.” REAug  (): –. Beuchot, M. “La hermenéutica en S. Agustin y en la actalidad.” RevAG  (): –. Bianchi, A. Le Quaestiones in Genesim di Agostino. Aspetti formali e problematiche esegetiche. Università di Pisa A.A.: Tesi di laurea in Letteratura Cristiana Antica, . Bierzychudek, E. “La peregrinación del pueblo de Dios según S. Agustin.” RBI  (): –. Bochet, I. “‘La lettre tue, l’Esprit vivifie.’ L’exégèse augustinienne de  Co :.” NRTh  (): –. Bonner, G. “Augustine on Rom :.” StEv  (): –. —. “Augustine as Biblical Scholar.” Pages –,  in Cambridge Hist. of the Bible. Edited by P. R. Ackroyd. London, . —. “Augustine’s conception of deification.” JThS  (): –. —. “Augustine and millenarianism.” Pages – in Fs. H. Chadwick. Edited by R. Williams. Cambridge, . —. “The Significance of Augustine’s De gratia Novi Testamenti.” Aug(L)  (– ): –. Borgomeo, P. L’Eglise de ce temps dans la prédication de saint Augustin. Rome: Etudes Augustiniennes, . Bori, P. C. “Un’analisi dell ‘Adversus Iudaeos’ di Agostino.” Pages – in L’estasi del profita. Bologna: Il Mulino, . —. “Figure materne e Scrittura in Agostino.” ASE  (): –. —. “‘Eredità di Eva’ e ‘peccato originale’ nelle Confessioni di Agostino (V:–).” RSB  (): –. Bourassa, F. “Théologie trinitaire de S. Augustin.” Greg  (): –. Boyarin, D. “‘This we know to be the carnal Israel’ (Augustine on  Cor : in Adv. Jud.); circumcision and the erotic life of God and Israel.” Critical Inquiry  (): –. h-Century Latin Christian Literature Boyd, W. J. P. “Galilaea—a difference of opinion between Augustine and Jerome’s ‘Onomastica Sacra.’ ” Pages – in StPatr, /. Børresen, K. E. “L’anthropologie théologique d’Augustin et de Thomas d’Aquin; la typologie homme-femme dans la tradition et dans l’église d’aujour’hui.” RSR  (): –. —. “L’antropologia teologica di Agostino e di Tommaso d’Aquino; sua influenza sui rapporti tra donne e uomini nella Chiesa d’oggi.” Pages –, – in La donna nella Chiesa oggi. Edited by A. Caprioli. . —. Subordination and equivalents. The nature and role of woman in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, . —. “In defense of Augustine; how femina is homo?” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana. Edited by T. van Bavel. Louvain, . Brandenburger, E. “Paulinische Schriftauslegung in der Kontroverse um das Verheissungswort Gottes (Röm ).” ZTK  (): –. Brezzi, P. “Una ‘civitas terrena spiritualis’ come ideale storico-politico di sant’Agostino.” Pages – in vol.  of Augustinus. Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, . Bright, P. “Augustine and the thousand year reign of saints.” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana. Augustinus. Presbyter factus sum. Edited by J. T. Lienhard, E. C. Muller, and R. Teske. New York: Lang, . —. “Biblical Ambiguity in African exegesis.” Pages – in Augustine of Hippo. De doctrina christiana, a classic of western culture. Edited by D. W. Arnold and P. Bright. Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, . Bright, P., ed. Augustine and the Bible. The Bible Through the Ages . Notre Dame, Ind., . Brun, O. ‘Qui me voit, voit le Père’ (Jn :). La place de ce verset dans la théologie d’Augustin dans les En. in Pss. Diss., Inst. Catholique de Paris, . Brunner, P. “Charismatische und methodische Schriftauslegung nach Augustin’s Prolog zu De doctrina christiana.” KuDo  (): –; –. Burns, J. P. “The interpretation of Romans in the Pelagian controversy.” AugSt  (): –. Burns, P. “Augustine’s Distinctive Use of the Psalms in the Confessions: The Role of Music and Recitation.” AugSt  (): –. Campelo, M. M. “Teologia de Pentecostés en san Agustín.” EstAg  (): –. Canning, R. “‘Love your neighbour as yourself ’ (Mt :); S. Augustine on the lineaments of the self to be loved.” Aug(L)  (): –. —. “Augustine on the identity of the neighbour and the meaning of true love for him ‘as ourselves’ (Mt :–) and ‘as Christ has loved us’ (Jn :).” Aug(L)  (): –. Augustine of Hippo  Cantalamessa, R. “‘Ratio paschae.’ La controversia sul significato della Pasqua nell’Ambrosiaster, in Giralomo e in Agostino.” Aev  (): –. Cantaloup, P. Les rapports des deux Testaments dans le Contra Faustum de S. Augustin. Diss., Institut Catholique de Toulouse, . Cantelmi, A. “La Sacra Scrittura nelle Lettere di Sant’Agostino.” Euresis  (): –. Capánaga, V. “La doctrina augustiniana de la gracia en los Salmos.” Augustinus  (): –. —. “La doctrina augustiana de la gracia en los Salmos.” StPatr  (): –. —. “El néctar de los salmos en san Agustín.” AugM  (): –. Carleton, A. P. John Shines Through Augustine. Lutterworth Press, . Carosio, L. Ricerche sulle fonti all’esegesi agostiniana della Genesi. Diss., Turin, – . Corpus Christianorum. Vol. , Catalogus verborum quae in operibus Sancti Augustini inveniuntur. I Tractatus in Evangelium Ioannis. Eindhoven: Thesaurus Linguae Augustinianae, . Corpus Christianorum. Vol. , Catalogus verborum quae in operibus Sancti Augustini inveniuntur. II. Enarrationes in Psalmos –. Eindhoven: Thesaurus Linguae Augustinianae, . Corpus Christianorum. Vol. , Catalogus verborum quae in operibus Sancti Augustini inveniuntur. III. Enarrationes in Psalmos –. Eindhoven: Thesaurus Linguae Augustinianae, . Corpus Christianorum. Vol. , Catalogus verborum quae in operibus Sancti Augustini inveniuntur. IV. Enarrationes in Psalmos –. Eindhoven: Thesaurus Linguae Augustinianae, . Cattaneo, E. “L’unità dei due Testamenti in due pagine di Origene e Agostino.” Pages – in La teologia biblica. Natura e prospettive. In dialogo con G. Segalla (Saggi, ). Edited by E. Franco. Rome: Editrice A.V. E., . Cavalcanti, E. “Il significato dell’esegesi letterale in Basilio e in Agostino. Omelie sull’Esamerone e De Genesi ad litteram I–III.” ASE  (): –. —. “La Genesi alla lettera (Agostino) tra ‘ e ‘.” ASEs  (): –. —. “Dai ‘testimonia’ all’ ‘armonia delle Scritture.’ La raccolta dei profeti nel libro XVIII del De civitate Dei.” ASE  (): –. Cayré, F. “La philosophie de la paix dans la cité humaine d’après saint Augustin.” Année théologique (). —. “Le docteur des deux cités.” RUO  (): –. Ceriotti, G. “La preghiera dei Salmi in S. Agostino (I parte).” Ren XVI/ (): –. —. “La preghiera dei Salmi in S. Agostino (II parte).” Ren XVII/ (): –. h-Century Latin Christian Literature Chaix–Ruy, J. “La Cité de Dieu et la structure du temps chez saint Augustin.” Pages – in Augustinus Magister, vol. , Etudes augustiniennes. Paris, . Châtillon, F. “Orchestration scripturaire (en S. Aug. – Rom :).” R MAL  (): –. Chevalier, L., and H. Rondet. “L’idée de ‘vanité’ dans l’oeuvre de S. Augustin.” REAug  (): –. Christian, W. A. “Augustine on the Creation of the World.” HThR  (): –. Cilleruelo, L. “S. Augustine intérprete de la S. Escritura.” CDios  (): –. Cipriani, N. “Dio nel pensiero di s. Agostino,” in Dio nei padri della Chiesa: hanno collaborato, A. Bonato et al., –. Dizionario di Spiritualità biblico-Patristica i grandi temi della S. Scrittura per la lectio, no. . Rome: Borla, . The City of God. A Collection of Critical Essays. Edited by D. F. Donnelly. New York, . Cizewski, W. “The meaning and the purpose of animals according to Augustine’s Genesis commentaries.” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana. Augustinus. Presbyter factus sum. Edited by J. T. Lienhard, et al. New York: P. Lang, . Clancy, F. G. “St. Augustine, His Predecessors and Contemporaries, and the Exegesis of  Tim :.” StPatr  (): –. —. “San Agustín, sus predecesores y contemporáneos y la exégesis a  Tim :.” Augustinus  (): –. Clancy, F. G. J. St. Augustine of Hippo on Christ, his Church, and the Holy Spirit; a Study of the ‘De Baptismo’ and the ‘Tractatus in Iohannis Evangelium.’ Diss., Oxford, . Clarke, T. E. The Eschatological Transformation of the Material World according to St. Augustine. Diss., Gregoriana, . Coassolo, G. P. “‘Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie’ in S. Agostino.” Convivium Dominicum (): –. Cocchini, F. “Cosmologia e antropologia nell’interpretazione agostiniana di Rm : – (De div. quaest. LXVIII, q. ),” –. —. “Le Quaestiones di Agostino sull’Esodo: osservazioni storiche, esegetiche, dottrinali.” ASE  (): –. —. “La città di Dio gloriosa e pellegrina secondo Agostino.” PSV  (): –. —. “Pluralità e confluenza di tradizioni esegetiche e di dispute dottrinali nella interpretazione agostiniana di Gv .” Pages – in Studi sul cristianesimo antico e moderno in onore di Maria Grazia Mara = Aug  (). Rome: Instituto Patristico ‘Augustinianum,’ . —. “Dal De diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII. Note di esegesi e di storia (qq. LI–LXXXIII).” Pages – in Agostino d’Ippona, “De diversis quaestionibus actoginta tribus,” “De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum.” Lectio Augustini . Rome: Città Nuova, . the Holy Spirit as Bond of the two Testaments in Augustine. G. Estudios sobre la Ciudad de Dios . Berkeley. Cremer. . J. E.” Pages – in La Genesi nelle Confessioni. Calif. da. . Atti della giornata di studio su S. colloquy:  Oct. “Plus quam homo. Congar. . Paris.” Pages – in Signum pietatis. Edited by C. “Memory and Scripture in the conversion of Augustine. Geburtstag. Edited by A. vol. S. .” Did(L)  (–): –. Colunga. “Schriftgezag en Kerkgezag bij Augustinus. Festgabe für Cornelius Petrus Mayer OSA zum . M. Courcelle. . Costa Freitas. J. um tema de antropologia Agostiniana. . Protocol of the .” Estudios sobre la Ciudad de Dios. A. . L. Edited by H.” TThZ  (): –.” Aug  (): –. Acta. Histoire de la recherche: son état présent. Y. Zumkeller. A conflict of Christian hermeneutics in Roman Africa: Tyconius and Augustine.” NedThT  (): –. H.” LouvSt  (): –. Dassmann. Meynell. Cole-Turner.) und der Einfluss seiner Exegese auf die mittelalterliche Theologie. “Concordia. politics and desire. Agostino.” Pages – in Impacts. B.  (): –. Collin.  dicembre  (Academia Latinati fovendae. “Augustine of Hippo precursor of modern biblical scholarship. CDios. —. from Augustine to the friars. R.. Cristiani. Calgary: Univ. Augustin a-t-il lu Philon d’Alexandrie?” REA  (): –. G. “A imagem e semelhança de Deus. Augustin expositor de las profecías en la Ciudad de Dios. Santità e umanità dell’Evangelista Giovanni fra Agostino e Giovanni Eriugena. R. P. Kannengiesser. Études Augustiniennes. Würzburg: Augustinus. “The Jews as killers of Christ in the Latin tradition. M.” Pages – in Grace. S. “Voix patristiques à l’écoute de l’Écriture: La tradition augustinienne de la parole intérieure. W. “Die Auslegung der Prophetien in Augustins Gottesstaat (span).” TThZ  (): –. F.: Center for Hermeneutical Studies. vol. Coward. —. “Tempo e parola della creazione nel libro XI delle Confessioni. Coyle. essays on Augustine. . “Civitas Dei et Ecclesia chez saint Augustin. “Anti-heretical issues in the debate over Galatians :– in the letters of St. . “Schriftverständnis und religiöse Erkenntnis nach dem heiligen Augustinus. Collins.Augustine of Hippo  Cohen. ). Der Beitrag Augustins zur Auslegung des Fastenstreitgesprächs (Mk : – parr. Roma.” Tr  (): –. K. A. “S. Dankbaar. “Überlegungen zu Augustinus Vorträgen über das Johannesevangelium. —. P. . Augustine to Jerome.” AugSt  (): –. Rome: Herder.” REAug  (): –. F. A. Apocryphen.: Saint Bede’s Publications. J. G. Steenbrugge. . de Jonge.” Augustinus  (): –.. Édition critique. selon S.” Pages – in vol. Freiburg: Herder. . —. II. J. —. xix. Dekkers. A propósito de ‘Adnotationes in Iob :–’ de san Agustin. “Augustine on the Interrelations of the Gospels. De Bruyne. Edited by R. Ind. Sanders. De doctrina christiana. . Altes und Neues Testament. “Inferas—inducas: A propos de Mt : dans les oeuvres de S. B. T. Louvain: University Press-Peeters. “De ministro donatista a ministro católico.” RAM  (): –. . Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Augustin. Delamare. Gryson. . semantica dell’innovazione da Agostino a De Sanctis. .  of The Four Gospels .” REAug  (): –. Bartelink. Van Segbroeck. Petersham. “Preparatio cordis ad plura perferenda. Verschiedenes. Augustin. Eph). Della Terza. : Saint Augustine. Augustin expliquait les Psaumes. Gal. II.” Pages – in Aevum inter utrumque. et al. J. Diss. Deléani. praevaricatores.” REAug  (): –.” VS  (): –. J. R. Demeulenaere. Arnold and P. . “Le sermon  de S. S.” Pages – in Instumenta Patristica. Kirchenväter. “Les citations bibliques dans le ‘De Civitate Dei.. Delaroche. —. . “Teoria del signo. recherche sur l’interprétation de Mt : à partir du Nouveau Testament et les oeuvres de Saint Augustin. Vol. H. “Un texto de san Agustin sobre la vida eremetica. Série Antiquité .  (Mt :ss). Adnotationes in Iob :–.’ ” Revue biblique  (): –.” Pages – in Philologia Sacra.: University of Notre Dame Press. . “Lorsque S. Bastiaensen Eulogia. Biblische und patristiche Studien für Hermann J. P.” RBen  (): –. A. Notre Dame. Saint Augustin lecteur et interprète de Saint Paul dans le De peccatorum meritis et remissione (hiver –). L’enfant et le Royaume. Augustin. Edited by D. W.h-Century Latin Christian Literature Dawson.  et xx. Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes. Frede und Walter Thiele zu ihrem siebzigsten Geburtstag. Fs. B. S. Lectura alegórica y impulso del alma en De Doctrina Christiana. I. “Le Christ et la prière. Paris: Inst. Edited by F. Fs.” Aug  (): –. Edited . Augustin sur la marche de Jésus et de Pierre sur les eaux.Bright. Delforge. Vol. De Sermone Domini in Monte I. E.” Augustinus  (): –. “Le sermon  de S. Cath. An Introduction to the History of Exegesis. Edited by G. D. Deloffre. H. “Un emprunt d’Augustin à l’Écriture: ‘Redite. M. D. Fs. Mass. De Bovis. Padua: Liviana. Tradizione ed esegesi. Augustin sur l’invitation de Jésus au jeune homme riche. ad cor’ (Isaïe :b). A Classic of Western Culture. Frans Neirynck. “Un commentaire pseudo-augustinien sur trois épîtres pauliniennes (Rom. de Margerie. D. De Luis. “Esprit Saint et charité.” Latomus  (): –. “The hermeneutics of De libero arbitrio III: Are there two Augustines?” In StPatr. Doucet. Djuth.” Pages – in vol.” BLE  (): –. Édition du texte original.Augustine of Hippo  by M. Augustin découverts à Mayence. Steenbrugge: La Haye. Augustin et la Première Épitre de S. Instr. . Dolbeau.” Pages – in Philologia Sacra. Un premier bilan. Un éclatement de la notion de servitude chez Ambroise. —. /c. Kirchenväter. Augustin?” RSPhTh  (): –. . J. F. —. Augustin sur l’Épiphanie. Hist. “Sermons inédits de S. “L’exégèse latine ancienne de  Thessaloniciens :– sur la possession de notre uas. Diviak. “Servi . —. Altes und Neues Testament. “Allégories du retour dans le Contra Academicos de S. Paris: Beauchesne. Demeulenaere. Biblische und patristische Studien für Hermann J. Augustin et Rufin.  of Philologia sacra. Vetus latina .” StPatr  (): –. CRAI.” RBen  (): –. Adnotationes in Job –. “Les sermons de S.” Pages – in Le livre de Job chez les Pères. “Sermons inédits de Saint Augustin. . Frede und Walter Thiele zu ihrem siebzigsten Geburtstag. Edited by R. . Frede and W. Une théologie de l’agapè. . D. —. “Job: l’Église et la tribulation. D. “Allégories du retour dans le “Contra Academicos” de saint Augustin.” –. Edited by R. H. Patr. Augustin. Gryson. II. M. Jérôme. “Origine et essor d’une variante de  Th : dans les citations de Jérôme. Apocryphen. “El hombre como imagen de Dios en la especulación Agustiniana. —. Freiburg: Herder.” CrSt / (): –. Doignon.” AugM  (): –. schémas classiques et éclairages chrétiens. Gryson. L’exégèse augustinienne de  Jn . Strasbourg: Centre d’Analyse et de Documentation Patristique. . M. Freiburg: Herder. —. Dolby Múgica. Verschiedenes. . “Zur Textüberlieferung der augustinischen Expositio in epistolam ad Galatas. Augustin.  et . “La première exégèse augustinienne de Rm : et l’unité formulée ‘more tulliano’ des quatre vertus dans l’amour. J. –.  (): –. Dideberg. facientes voluntatem Dei ex animo (Eph :). —. .” NRTh  (): –. Van Uytfanghe and R. Fs. . . S. Augustin prêchés en . J. —. “Le sermon  de S.” RBen  (): –. Jean. . del C. I. I. Sermo super verbis Apostoli ad Galatas. Théol.” Latomus  (): –. Cahiers de Biblia Patristica . Thiele. —. ” AugSt  (): –. “From Pagan Literature to the Pages of the Holy Scriptures. “Die Osternachtspredigt Augustins sermo  (Guelferbytanus ). C. “Absurditas in Augustine’s scriptural commentary.” Pages – in Fs. –. —. D. Ferrari. Dulaey. “L’exégèse augustinienne de Jean :. Person-Exegese und Christologie bei Augustinus: zur Herkunft der Formel una persona. “Sprachverständnis und biblisches Hören bei Augustin. Agostino. Judaism and Israel in the theology of Saint Augustine—how he links the Jewish people and the land of Zion. B. Kalamazoo.” TU  (): –. Diss.” Aug(L)  (–): –. Edited by E. —.” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana. Augustine’s Confessions as Exemplary Propaedeutic. H. —. . C. the uses of Peter (in Augustine). van Bavel. Mich.” Augustinus  (): –. Livingstone. Faul..: Cistercian Publications. .. “Los signos en los Tractatus in Ioannem. –. Duval. Eborowicz. R. Mélanges T. M. M. Origenes y Agustín ante la exégesis de Eph :. Philosophia Patrum. “Forma Petri—Petrus. Pont. Duchrow. Dubois. —.” Imm – (): –. —. —. Göttingen.’ ” BFCL  (): –. Kerygma and Logos. —. Principii di esegesi biblica nel ‘De doctrina christiana’ di S.” Aug(L)  (–): –. ‘Dieu veut que tous les hommes soient sauvés. Leiden: Brill.” REAug  (): –.). “Le bâton transformé en serpent.” AugM  (): –. W.-M. Sponsa Christi. . R. “Ecclesia.h-Century Latin Christian Literature Doucet. U. Andresen. Fernández Ramos. Louvain. Augustine. “L’exégèse augustinienne de  Tm :. Eno. Evans. Univ. . J. “Augustine’s ‘discovery’ of Paul (Confessions . L.. “The tree in the works of St. Y. Ritter. Einleitung und Übersetzung.” Pages – in StPatr .’ ” Aug(L)  (): –. “Grammatical Exegesis and Christology in St. “Isaiah and the early Augustine. “The peculiar appendage of Augustine’s ‘Enarratio in Psalmum LXI. M. Federico. figura Ecclesiae. A.” Augustinus  (): –. “La sixième Règle de Tyconius et son résumé dans le De doctrina christiana. Drobner.” DR  (): –. “Jews. F. L’exégèse augustinienne d’Ex :– et Ex : –.” Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie  XII (): –. Edited by A. G. “Saint Augustin et le Commentaire sur Jonas de saint Jérôme. Lateranensis.” REA  (): –. R. Augustine.” Aug(L)  (): –. L. C. —. Goulet-Cazé. Figueireido. Mt :s. “Arise! A scriptural model for Augustine’s conversion. S. “Fragment inédit d’un sermon perdu de Saint Augustin sur le psaume ..’ La fortune de ce texte du Ve au XIVe siècle. “L’esegesi dei testi pneumatologici del Quarto Vangelo nell ‘In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus’ e nel ‘De Trinitate’ di Sant’Agostino. “Zur interpretatio christiana des Ps  in den Enarrationes in psalmos Augustins.” TThZ  (): –. —. “Augustine on Paul against the Manichees and the Pelagians. Fransen. —.-O. “Sur une image hiéronymienne.” VigChr  (): –. P. —. au delà de Sagesse :.” RSPhTh  (): –. et Cité de Dieu XVII. Frahier. –. Ex : . “Ad gloriam corporis.” REAug  (): –.” RBen  (): –. . Pépin Sophias maietores. Fitzgerald. “S. El ‘corpus paulinum’ en las obras antimanqueas de San Agustin. J. à partir de Lc :ss. J. “La typologie du sabbat chez S.” Ang / (): –. .’ ” Pages – in Fs. —.” Aug  (): –. G. “Vile Bodies: Paul and Augustine on the Resurrection of the Flesh. “Sentido eclesial católico de la “Civitas Dei”. E. from John of Patmos to Augustine of Hippo.. .” Pages – . Fredriksen.” REAug  (): –. Augustine’s Early Interpretation of Paul. Folliet. “Augustin.” AugM ().” Lat  (): –. —. Fontanier. . “Les trois catégories de chrétiens. L. I.. A.” REB  (): –.-M. Diss. J. J. le visage sidéral de Jésus (Ep . J. Paris.” REAug  (): –.” Pages – in Studi Card. Fischer. Turin. Paris: CNRS. Pellegrino. on Ps : quiddam siderum). ‘corpus quod corrumpitur adgravat animam. M. Foubert. Edited by M. Fontaine.. Agostino. . Fiestas Le-Ngoc. Grégoire et Isidore. —.” RechAug  (): –. —. F. “A teologia dos Salmos em S. Augustin. “La double citation de I Rois ou Samuel : par saint Augustin (Confessions XIII. —. Folgado Florez. B. Diss.” In Mém Gelin. “Apocalypse and redemption in early Christianity. Son interprétation millénariste entre  et . Princeton. “Un passage du Tractatus in Joannem .” REAug  (): –. Pamplona.Augustine of Hippo  Ferraro. . G. Augustin: ‘Enarratio in Ps :. esquisse d’une recherche sur le style des Moralia in Iob. “Les citations de Actes : et Tite : chez Augustin.” Pages – in Grégoire le Grand.. “L’interprétation du récit du jugement dernier (Mt :–) dans l’oeuvre d’Augustin. “Problèmes Scripturaires” REAug  (): –. ” CDios  (): –.” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana. “Comunidad y moralidad. . E.b bei Augustinus: die Geschichte eines fruchtbaren Missverständnisses. Giacobbi.h-Century Latin Christian Literature in Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich on his Sixtieth Birthday. Y. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Convegno di Torino – ottobre . dialogos.” AugM  (): –. Gaeta. La Chiesa in S. Ciudad de Dios. New York: Peter Lang. . —. Gallus. Dio. Agostino I. “Antropologia de S. Burrows and P. Interpretación exegética del Génesis en la Ciudad de Dios. Gallicet. Freeman. Teske. Gerlin. S. “‘Non dico: Diabolus fecit’ (Agostino. O. . Augustine. —. . McGinn. Serm. Frot. T. Augustin. L’âge d’homme. “Note sur l’utilisation de la parabole de l’Enfant Prodigue dans l’oeuvre de Saint Augustin. A. W. Estudios sobre la Ciudad de Dios. daimon. G. E. “Tyconius and Augustine on the Apocalypse. C. Mistero di communione. Gandillac. . “Exegetische Interpretation der Genesis in Augustins Gottesstaat.” CDios  (): –. Geerlings. Arch. —. “Veritas latina. Emmerson and B. W. Edited by J. .” Pages – in Fs. . Rome: Città Nuova. de. “Figure and History: A Contemporary Reassessment of Augustine’s Hermeneutic. Fürst. M. Saxer Memoriam Sanctorum venerantes. Diabolos. Cr.” ASEs  (): –. TübTSt . Muller and R. Studien zur Christologie und Christusverkündigung Augustins. Garcia de la Fuente. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. “Cité des hommes et Cité de Dieu. A. K. T. C. Ist.” REAug  (): –.” WiWei  (): –. “Jesaja . Edited by R. . “Principia exegetica S. Augustini ad Gen : applicata. Les dossiers H. Kritische Anmerkungen (span). A. Milan: Bompiani.” Pages – in The Apocalypse in the Middle Ages.” Pages – in Saint Augustin. J. . Vatican: Pont. ). “La conscience de la charité fraternelle d’après les Tractatus in  Jo de S. Christus Exemplum. V. . Presbyter Factus Sum. Rorem.” REAug  (): –. prescripciones paulinas a los Corintios interpretadas en la Regla de san Agustín. Garcia Grimaldos. Augustins Haltung gegenüber Hieronymus’ Bibelübersetzungen. M. Lienhard. . Edited by M. Agustin en los commentarios al Genesis. Mainz: Grünewald. “Le Regole per l’interpretazione della Scrittura da Ticonio ad Agostino. il diavolo e l’uomo nelle prediche di Sant’Agostino..” Pages – in L’autunno del diavolo. vol.” VD  (): –. J. Gallay. . —.” DissAb  (–): . —.’ ” RBen  (): –. Diss. . C. E. Augustine’s ‘De Genesi ad litteram. P.” Pages – in Hommage à M. The place of chapters – in the argument of the Epistle to the Romans. “Eglise et Cité de Dieu chez saint Augustin. Glorie. González. Guéroul. Louvain: Publications universitaires. A. Augustin (de Gen –).” RechAug  (): –.’ . Augustine’s De Genesi ad Litteram. Godet. M. – ‘Tractatus Psalmorum. —. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity ... John Chrysostom. La preoccupación arriana en la predicación de San Agustin. Dekkers Corona Gratiarum I. —. —. Gorman.. Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum. “A Study of The Literal Interpretation of Genesis (De Genesi ad Litteram). “La estructura teológico-fundamental de los Sermones pascuales de san Agustin sobre la resurrección de Cristo. . . “The text of Saint Augustine’s ‘De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus. “Maria en el commentario de San Agustin al Evangelio de San Juan. Gorday. and Augustine. —. . Gilson. and Augustine. González. Vanderbilt University. J. A study of the Romans exegesis of Origen. Diss. Romans – in Origen. Augustine’s De Genesi ad Litteram. T. “Das ‘zweite Aenigma’ in Augustins Opusculorum Indiculus cap. —. V. Goldschmidt.” AHDL  (): –. “Marginalia in the oldest manuscripts of St. “Eugippus and the origins of the tradition of St. S. González Montes.Augustine of Hippo  Gilbride. Les métamorphoses de la Cité de Dieu. “The unstudied commentary on Genesis in Monte Cassino . Augustine’s Interpretation of the Pauline Antithesis between the Letter and the Spirit in his ‘De Spiritu et Littera’. Principles of patristic exegesis. Institutum Patristicum ‘Augustinianum.” Augustinus  (): –. Goulven. J. St..” REAug  ().’ ” RechAug  (): –. Diss. “Exégèse et axiomatique chez S.” EE / (): –. F. John Chrysostom. “An unedited fragment of an Irish epitome of St. . M. . Paris. —. Augustine’s De Genesi ad Litteram. Diss. L’image de Dieu en l’homme dans les Enarrationes in Psalmos de Saint Augustin. V. M. New York: Mellen.’ ” Pages – in Fs. . “A Carolingian epitome of St.” Man  (): .-M.” Scr  (): –. X. Catholic University of America. “Le Christ des païens d’après le De consensu euangelistarum de saint Augustin.” REAug  (): –. . E. “Il tema del ‘sangue sparso’ nel commento di S. Grech. Augustinus und das AT. Ruggiero. Vattioni.” Pages – in Atti della Settimana Sangue e antropologia biblica nella patristica. V. Leuven: University Press.. Tübingen. Edited by H. Schrift. Manicardi and F. J. “Warum bringt Augustin in den letzten Büchern seiner Confessiones eine Auslegung der Genesis?” TLZ  (): –. . Von der Bibel bis Augustinus. Unité et structure logique de la “Cité de Dieu” de saint Augustin. G. Gruiec. D. “Evangelizzazione e Bibbia in Agostino. Entstehungsgeschichte des Erbsündendogmas. “La presenza in filigrana di Origene nell’ultimo Agostino (–). . in Pss. “I Principi ermeneutici di sant’Agostino. Fragmenta semiotico-hermeneutica. Edited by E. Guy. La catholicité de l’Église dans les ‘En. L’ermeneutica nel De Doctrina Christiana. . Ermeneutica e teologia biblica. Grotz.h-Century Latin Christian Literature Gousmett. essays on Augustine. Diss. A.” Pages – in Liturgia ed evangelizzazione nell’epoca dei Padri e nella Chiesa del Vaticano II.” Pages – in Atti del IV Simposio di Efeso su S. Grasso. Calgary: Univ. S. Pontificio Ateneo ‘Antonianum. “La presenza di Origene nell’ultimo Agostino (–). “Augustine’s methods of biblical interpretation.” Der Seelsorger  (): –. P. Daly. . Meynell.” EvQ  (): –. Rome: Borla. BEThL . “Gv – nella catechesi della chiesa d’Ippona al tempo di s.” Pages – in Grace. Studi in onore di Enzo Lodi. Warum bringt Augustin in den letzen Büchern seiner ‘Confessiones’ eine Auslegung der Genesis? Diss. —. Augustin. –.” Greg  (): –. in Origeniana Quinta. . E.’ de S. . Rome: Istituto Francescano di Spiritualità. Gregoriana. politics and desire.’ . Paris: Etudes augustiniennes. eine Texthermeneutik für den Umgang mit der Hl. Agostino. J.” BiLi  (–): –. C. Bonn: Linguistica Biblica. —. Grill. Edited by F. —. Edited by R. Bologna: EDB. “Creation order and miracle according to Augustine.-C. —. K. Agostino. una valutazione. .” Aug  (): –. —. Sezione Seminario regionale. .” Lat  (): –. Agostino al Vangelo di Giovanni. —. Hamilton. –.. P. Grossi. “Augustinus und die Psalmen.. J. Munich: Reinhardt. “Pietro e Paulo nella predicazione di S. Forum Theologiae Linguisticae . Güttgemanns. Gross. “Der hl. Problemi di esegesi. . J.” pages –. —. Studio Teologico Accademico Bolognese. Rome. Giovanni Apostolo Turchia: La Chiesa e la sua storia . Muller. G. Edited by F. R. Patr.” Pages – in Letture cristiani dei Libre Sapienziali. Augustine’s Sermons on the Prologue of John’s Gospel. Der Briefwechsel zwischen Augustinus und Hieronymus und ihr Streit um den Kanon des Alten Testaments und die Auslegung von Gal :–. G. Lang. C. .Augustine of Hippo  Hamman. E.. J. —. Edited by C. Hist.’ de S. . Hebblethwaite. “The immateriality and eternity of the word in St. New York: P. . Cristo Rey y Sacerdote en las ‘En. Inst. . and R. . P. P. “L’esegesi biblica del Sermo  di Agostino. Hockey. A. Edited by J. Presbyter factus sum. Paris: Études Augustiniennes.” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana. A. Augustin et la virginité de la foi. Hennings. Augustin sur les Psaumes.” EgT / (): –. J. Hesbert. Fordham.” Pages – in AugM.” StPatr  (): –. Hendriks. in Jo. Vienna. Teske. —. SVigChr. Heintz. Augustin. M.” AugM (): –. Heidelberg. Augustinus Bergpredigtexegese. Ev. Ev. A. J. M. Pss. Hubaux. Andresen. F. Leiden: Brill. T. Augustinus. Les plus belles homélies de S. Der Briefwechsel zwischen Augustinus und Hieronymus und ihr Streit um den Kanon des Alten Testaments und die Auslegung von Gal :–. R.” Pages – in Fs. Lienhard. Herder. . Paris: Beauchesne. “Saint Augustin. “Platonisches und biblisches Denken bei Augustinus. “St. “S. Humeau. Augustine and John :–. Une étude des ‘Tractatus in Joh.” Aug(L)  (–): –. “‘Who is free from sin?’ The figure of Job in the thought of St. Dinkler: Theologia Crucis—Signum Crucis. Imizcoz. la Bible et la théologie spirituelle. R.’ y ‘Tr. Holl. Paris: Beauchesne.” VetChr  (): –. The links between sexuality and original sin in the writings of John Chrysostom and Augustine. Théol.. /. Hardy. . Die exegetische Methode Augustins untersucht an seinem Werk.’ de S. –. Augustinianum. Nach seinem Frühwerk De sermone Domine in monte libri duo. .” AAB  (): –. Augustine. . Isola. Actualité de la Révélation divine. Heaney-Hunter. Bolgiani. Harrison. Zur Geschichte einer Metapher. “St. Hermann. “Saint Augustin et la crise de la fin du IVe siècle. Diss. Pamplona. . “The Incarnation and Revelation in Augustine’s Tractatus in Iohannis Evangelium.” JAC  (): –. Augustine’s interpretation of Matthew :. —. . E. Diss. C. . A. A. “Das steinharte Herz. Diss.. Augustin. . J. G. C. Augustin relativement aux Septante dans sa discussion avec S.  vols.” Pages – in Fs. “Augustine’s De doctrina christiana in world-historical perspective. (Comm. Edited by J. Untersuchungen zu ‘De musica’ im Kontext seines Schrifttums. Collectanea Augustiniana . Christentum und Geschichtlichkeit:Untersuchungen zur Entstehung des Christentums und zu Augustins “Bürgerschaft Gottes. A. Augustine’s enarratio in Psalmum :.” Pages – in Charisteria Augustiniana Iosepho Oroz Reta dictata. —. Aurelius Augustinus und die Musik. van. New York: P. a classic of western culture. C. and R. Kevane. “Réflexions sur la position de S. J. Augustine. . Cassiciacum . Augustin. Muller. Journet. T. “The Eucharistic gift.” VigChr  (): –. Bright. E. G. A Propos du ‘Tractatus de psalmo ’ de Jérôme.” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana. I. Jackson.” REAug  (): –. “Enarratio in Ps : Science de la révélation et progrès spirituel. C. ‘s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum. E. Augustinus.. van Bavel. Schrift. Jacob. “A propos d’une ancienne formule sur l’unité des deux Testaments. “Formica Dei. G. T. P.” Pages – in Augustine of Hippo. The Four Gospels Edited by F.” RThom (). Bruning. Edited by D. Presbyter factus sum. van Seegbroeck. J. Augustinus en de H. F. MartinAchard.d. Edited by R. De doctrina christiana. Notre Dame. Kilmartin.” Pages – in Bulletin du Centre Protestant d’Études . Itterzon. E. M. Jouassard. Jéröme. –. de. W. “Note sur l’Église sans tache ni ride. Würzburg: Augustinus. (= Augustinus –. Lang.” EThL  (): –. Kato. Fs. B. Keller. –). D. n. Edited by B. Augustine in Eph :). . Jackson. Kamlah. W. “Local setting and motivation of De doctrina christiana. J. . Arnold and P. Ind. . Kannengiesser.s. Louvain: Peeters. P.h-Century Latin Christian Literature Istace. Neirynck. “Augustine on the interrelations of the Gospels. “Der Aufbau der ‘Confessiones’ des Augustinus im Spiegel der Bibelzitate. Jay. E. Augustine of Hippo’s tractate  on John : . . “Jérôme et Augustin lecteurs d’Isaïe.” Aug(L)  (): –. H.” RechAug  (): –. Kienzler.” VD  (): .” Aug(L)  (–): –. Yale. —. Teske. The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. Madrid. Jonge.” Stuttgart. .” RechAug  (): –. “La voix chez Origène et saint Augustin.: Notre Dame University Press. . K. Lienhard.’ Diss. “St. Jepson. T. “Le livre er du ‘De Doctrina Christiana’ de S. “The interrupted De doctrina christiana. Semantics and Hermeneutics in St’ Augustine’s ‘De doctrina christiana. —. Augustin.” ÉcPrat. RelAn  (–): –. Augustin. “Tu es Petrus. A. Kirschner. “Endzeitprognosen zwischen Lactantius und Augustinus. “La Chananéenne (Mt :–).” REAug  (): –. les livres des Chroniques et d’Esdras dans l’oeuvre de saint Augustin.” Pages – in Preaching in the Patristic Age. “Le Thème de la ‘terre’ dans le Psautier d’après les ‘En. “Quelques remarques sur les citations scripturaires du De gratia et lib. Augustin.-M. La Bonnardière.” Irén  (): –. RelAn – (–): –. Koetting.” ÉcPratHÉt.” Etudes Augustiniennes. Edited by D.” REA  (): –. Augustin. AT: II. Livres Historiques. Augustin. : Les douze Petits Prophètes dans l’oeuvre de S. —. Augustin à l’occasion de fêtes de martyrs. —. —. “Les trente-deux premières En.” AugM (): –. G. R. Hunter. “Le Livre de la Sagesse dans l’oeuvre de S. arb. Augustine and the Rabbis on Ps  (). – . Augustin. G.’ Augustin.” REAug  (): –. “Recherches sur l’Épître aux Galates dans l’oeuvre de S. New York: Paulist. “Le Cantique dans l’oeuvre de saint Augustin.” ÉcPratHÉt. Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou. in Pss. Augustin. Préfiguration de l’Église des Gentils d’après S. . —. dictées de Saint Augustin.” REAug  (): –. —. La péricope ‘Mt :–’ dans l’oeuvre de S. “Biblia Augustiniana. —.” Pages – in Epektasis. N. .Augustine of Hippo  –. . in Pss. B. —. “Two Responses to Epochal Changes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. —.” REAug  (): –.” StPatr  (): –. —.” VigChr  (): –. “Les livres de Samuel et des Rois. —. “Ps : et l’interprétation de Rom :– dans l’oeuvre de S. —. “Les commentaires simultanés de Mt : et Jo : dans l’oeuvre de S. “Anima justi sedes sapientiae dans l’oeuvre de saint Augustin. “Le verset paulinien Rom : dans l’oeuvre de S. “Saint Augustin et les Libri Tegnorum. —. RelAn  (–): –. —.” REAug  (): –. . in Psalmos’ de S.” HJ  (): –. “Les En.” REAug  (): –. —. —.” Augustinus  (): –. Knauer.” RechAug  (): –. Paris. —.” RechAug  (): –. “Biblia Augustiniana. Augustin. Psalmenzitate in Augustins Konfessionen. préchées par S. Augustin. “L’épître aux Hébreux dans l’oeuvre de S. chez S. Langa.h-Century Latin Christian Literature —. Mohrmann. Ottawa. . Friend.’ ” Aug(L)  (): –. Lavallee.” EeT / (): –.” Pages – in Saint Augustin et la Bible. A. . Augustin sur la femme forte (Prv ).” RBen  (): –. Lauras.  B . “La autoridad de la Sagrada Escritura Contra Cresconium. Edited by H. Lambot. “Deux cités. Augustin sur les fëtes de Päques (Exode). Jérusalem et Babylone. “Psalm  and Augustine’s monastic ideal. Lamotte. Paris. Gregory of Nyssa and St.” Aug(L)  (– ): –. –.” Aug(L)  (): –. L. “Jean : et la prédestination du Christ à la Gloire. Lamirande.. Lamberights. “Saint Augustin et la fin du monde.-I.” RSR  (): –. Augustin: De Susanna et Joseph.” CDios .” Pages – in Etudes sur l’ecclésiologie de saint Augustin. “Une série pascale de sermons de S. deux conceptions d’Adam. Lamirande. Edited by A. Princeton. “L’actualité des ‘Tractatus in Iohannem’ de saint Augustin.-L. Lauras. . “Le sermon de S.” Pages – in Mél. . “L’Eglise céleste selon saint Augustin.” RechBib (). C. XII. M. “St. É.” Pages – in Etudes augustiniennes. Marrou. “Augustine on the Creation-days. (). P. Lawless. . Formation et évolution d’un thème central du ‘De Civitate Dei. E. J. Rondet.” Pages – in Etudes augustiniennes. —. G. B. G. Julian of Aeclanum and E.” RSR  (): –.” Ang  (): –. “La ‘Cité terrestre’ d’après H. “El matrimonio ‘en Cristo’ y ‘en la Iglesia’ según san Agustín (Eph : ). Augustin et ses prédécesseurs. livre X. and Mediaev. Larrabe. Augustin sur les jours de la Création. “Augustine. J. Studies. “Les sermons de S. . A. “Le règne de l’Eglise et des saints. Rondet. ch. G.’ ” CDios  (): –. —. —. Ladner. —.” EstAg  (): –. Paris: Beauchesne. C. Laurentin. “Le sermon  de S. “Análisis agustiniano de ‘crescite et multiplicamini’ (Gen :). “Le thème des deux Cités dans l’oeuvre de saint Augustin. “Le sacrifice de la Cité de Dieu:Commentaire du De Civitate Dei.” Pages – in Late Class.” JETS  (): –. Lafont. . A. ch. “Julian d’Éclane et Augustin d’Hippone. Pagel’s ‘Adam. Paris: Aubier. Augustine on the Symbolism of the Cross (in luce Eph :). —.” RBen  (): –. —. M. and H.” Augustiniana  (): –. and the Serpent. Eve. fuentes de los commentarios de Basilio y Agustin sobre el Génesis . J. Presbyter factus sum. . “Origen and Augustine: Preaching on John the Baptist. “La Genesi nel libro XII delle Confessiones: ermeneutica. G. Rome: Borla. “L’oasis d’Élim et les ministères dans l’Église. D. Cladistic Analysis and St. Oroz Rega.” Aug(L)  (): –. J. Edited by J.” –. D. . “Listening to Augustine. “De ‘Hemelse Kerk’ in haar aardse toestand volgens Augustinus.” RSR  (): –. H. Lehmann. T. —. Rome: Anselmiana.” Augustinus  (): –. Lobato. Paris: Aubier.Augustine of Hippo —. predestinazione. Augustin. —. “Die Autorität des Apostels Paulus nach Augustin. Lee. Tractate  on John ix. Teske.” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana Augustinus. Lang.s (). A. “The ‘prophet’ Abraham in the writings of Irenaeus. “‘The glue itself is charity’: Ps : in Augustine’s thought. —.” CrSt  (): –.” KTh  (): –.” Aug(L)  (): –. . “La seconde partie de l’In Jo de S. van der. M.. “Habilidad exegética de Agustín: Jn :–. Lettieri. Le Blond. A. C. “Augustine’s Use of Rhetoric in his Interpretation of John :–. Lof. —. Il senso della storia in Agostino d’Ippona. New York: P. —. Lécuyer. “Martha en Maria in de prediking van Augustinus.” AugSt  (): –. “Verdad y libertad. L.’ ” Aug(L)  (): –.” SJTh  (): –. Locher. “La crisi del De doctrina christiana di Agostino.” AugSt  (): –. J.” –. “Het probleem van het primaat van Petrus bij Augustinus naar aanleiding van zijn uitleg van Galaten :–. and R. F. Le Landais. Vagaggini: Lex orandi lex credendi. “L’exégèse exacte et objective des théophanies de l’AT dans le ‘De Trin. Lienhard. E. J.” AugSt  (): –. creazione. Lenihan.Békés.” Pages – in San Agustin en Oxford = AugM . M. R. San Agustin y Santo Thomás exégetas de Juan :. Augustin et la date du commentaire. Muller. . Tertullian.” Pages – in Fs. Edited by G. Ambrose and Augustine. —. .” AugSt  (): –. “Numerical Taxonomy Revisited: John Griffith. —. “The use of Scripture in Augustine’s theology. A. C. “The just war theory in the work of Saint Augustine. J.” NAKG  (): –. Edited by J.” DC  (): –. Loewen.” NedThT  (): –. Lienhard. H. G. il “saeculum” e la gloria nel “De Civitate Dei”: Cultura cristiana antica. J. Les conversions de S. —. Augustine’s Quaestiones in Heptateuchum. “Espiritu de Dios sobre las aguas. —. T. . “Zu Augustins Schrift De sermone Domini in monte. Excerpta classica . J. Essai sur les citations de l’Ép. Luis. L.” ASEs  (): –. Luis Vizciano. Mainz: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Note complémentaire. —. St. de.” EstAg  (): –. A. “Connaissance de Dieu et action de grâces. “Augustin et Rm : avant la controverse pélagienne. G.” Orph  (): –. M. Diss. G. Mara. “Die Autorität Paulus nach Augustin. A propósito de Adnotationes in Iob xxxix. “Storia ed esegesi nella Expositio epistulae ad Galatas di Agostino. –. A. Madec. —. B. – de S. la retórica clásica al servicio de la exégesis patristica. de Lubac.” EstAg  (): –. H.” WiWei /– (): –. G. La Patrie et la Voie. apologética y teologia. Théol. —. JJC . . Agustin. “Augustinus—Exeget oder Philosoph? Schriftgebrauch und biblische Hermeneutik in De uera religione. La doctrine des âges du monde. Paris: Desclée. —. “Zur Eschatologie des älteren Augustin (De Civ. B. aux Rom :– dans l’oeuvre de S. Luneau.. .” CClCr  (): –.” In Mél.” RiCP  (): –. Théologie historique .” RevAg  (): –.). Flasch. . . Lyonnet.” VigChr  (): –.” Bib  (): f. “De ministro donatista a ministro catôlico. Poncio Pilato en la obra agustiniana. . –. de. P.” CDios  (): –. “Influssi polemici nella interpretazione Agostiniana di Gal :. —. Los hechos de Jesús en la predicación de san Agustín.h-Century Latin Christian Literature Logik des Schreckens: Augustinus von Hippo. —. . .” NRTh  (): –. Manrique. P. Dei . Augustin. Löfstedt. Lohse. —. Edited by K. P. “La Sagrada Escritura como ‘Testamento’ de Dios en la obra antidonatista de S. Beauchesne. Agustin. “Exégesis. Gregoriana. Augustin. Augustin. Maher. L’histoire du salut chez les Pères de l’Eglise. “A propos de Rom : dans l’oeuvre de S. “Augustin et le néoplatonisme. Loi.” Augustiniana-Lv  (): –. “Note sul commento di Agostino alla lettera ai Romani. . van der.” Aug  (): –. S. le Christ dans la vie et la pensée de saint Augustin. Valladolid: EstAg. —. Augustine’s Defense of the Hexaemeron against the Manicheans. Lössl. “Rom : chez S. De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum I .” RechAug  (): –. “Interpretación y utilización de la Biblia en San Agustin. .” Pages – in Paideia cristiana. Marin. —. Turchia: La Chiesa e la sua storia . exposición de algunas proposiciones de la Epist. —. —.” VetChr  (): –. “Notas sobre el commentario de San Agustín a la Carta a los Romanos. di Bernardino. Pontificio Ateneo ‘Antonianum. Studi di Antichità Cristiana . Paolo Apostolo. —. Miscellanea in onore di Monsignor Victor Saxer.Augustine of Hippo  —.’ .” Pages – in Ricerche patristische in onore di Dom Basil Studer OSB. “Dalla Expositio epistulae ad Galatas di Agostino. —. “Agostino e la Lettera ai Romani.” Pages – in Le epistole paoline nei manichei. aspetti della polemica antimanichea. . Ries. Mariafioti. et al. note sulla fortuna di allegoria in ambito latino. Epifania della Parola .” Pages – in Αγάπα ἤ ἐλπίϚ. Studi in onore di Mario Naldini. Edited by G. Studi storico-religiosi di Ugo Bianchi. A. “L’itinerario dell’uomo secondo Agostino: da ‘spirituale’ a ‘carnale. Città del Vaticano: Pontificio Instituto di Archeologia Cristiana. —. “Note sulla fortuna dell’esegesi agostiniana di Mt :–. Edited by S. D.” Augustinianum  (): –. —.” SROC  (): –. Sussidi patristici . Rome: Istituto Francescano di Spiritualità. Rome: Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale. Sfameni Gasparro. . Edited by V. “Nota sulla tradizione giovannea presente nel Quis dives salvetur. . – nell’ambito dell’esegesi patristica.” Pages – in La Lettera ai Romani ieri e oggi. M. “Ricerche sull’esegesi Agostiniana della parabola delle dieci vergini (Mt : –). i donatisti e il primo Agostino. . Cipriani. —. —. Edited by G. Aug .’ da ‘carnale’ a ‘spirituale’.” Pages – in Atti del II Simposio di Tarso su S.” QVetChr  (): –. . —. “Agostino e la polemica antimanichea.” VetChr  (): –.’ .” Pages – in Memoriam sanctorum venerantes. “L’influsso di Paolo in Agostino. “Agostino e l’interpretazione antica di Gal :.” AugM  (): –. Rome: L’ ‘Erma’ di Bretschneider. . “Interpretazione agostiniana di Rm :. Rome: Institutum Patristicum ‘Augustinianum. Edited by J. Sant’Agostino e la Nueva Alleanza. Grossi and A. L’interpretazione agostiniana di Geremia xxxi. “Note sulla Espositio epistulae ad Galatas di Agostino. Bologna: EDB. —. Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana. Privitera. “L’interpretazione agostiniana del peccato contro la Spirito santo nella Epistolae ad Romanos inchoata expositio. ad Romanos. Rome. Il ruolo di Paolo e del suo epistolario. —.” VetChr  (): –. “Nomen quasi notamen. . F. H. —. . —. . Rome: Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale. Acta. Mayer. W. . “Prinzipien der Hermeneutik Augustins und daraus sich ergebende Probleme. Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of Saint Augustine. Gerhard Dautzenberg zum . Cambridge: University Press. . . “Herkunft und Normativität des Terminus regula bei Augustin. Rom : nel ‘De moribus Ecclesiae catholicae’ di S. Dr. Roma. –. litt. theol. —. Edited by C. Augustine. L. Studi in onore di Mario Naldini. Gregorianae. Univ.” VetChr  (): –. Giessener Schriften zur Theologie und Religionspädagogik des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie und Katholische Theologie und deren Didaktik der Justus—Liebig—Universität . impf. Ottawa.h-Century Latin Christian Literature —. una nota su Aug.” VetChr  (): –. Mazzola. —. Martinetto. “Note sul commento agostiniano a Io :–: la bucella e il traditore svelato. Giessen: Selbstverlag des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie und Katholische Theologie und deren Didaktik. K.’ Der Grundgedanke des Prologs in Augustins Schrift De doctrina christiana und das Problem seiner Datierung. —. J.” Pages – in Paideia cristiana. note introduttive. J. “‘Res per signa. . . “I fideli ‘chiamati alla sapienza’ secondo Agostino.” REAug  (): –. Markus. Geburtstag am . “Nomen quasi notamen. Pont. C. Mateo Seco. impf. . Agostino. —. Mazzeo. Mayer. “Las citas de Jn: en la obra de san Agustin.” Aug(L)  (): –. “St. A. —. Marrevee. —. and G. . Rome: Herder. A.” Pages – in La Genesi nelle Confessioni.” FKTh  (): –. Atti della giornata di studio su S.” RevAg / (): –. “Retorica ed esegesi in Sant’Agostino.” VetChr  (): –. .” Pages - in Augustinus-Lexikon. Agostino. “L’approccio di Agostino alla Genesi ed i suoi primi Commentari. Januar .  dicembre . Gen. Una nota su Aug.” JHI  (): –. litt. Herrn Prof. Diss. The Ascension of Christ in the Works of St. Müller. “Allegoria. R.. Gen. A.” Augustinus  (): –. Augustine’s Rhetoric of Silence (de typologia et allegoresi). Academia Latinati fovendae. Schmalenberg. “La exégesis de San Augustín en  Cor : y  Jn :.. “Kenntnis und Bewertung der Zeichen als Voraussetzung der Bibelhermeneutik nach Augustinus.” Pages – in Nach den Anfängen fragen. Quaderni per l’Università. di C. I. Pref. Spiritus und Littera bei Augustin. “Interpretación agustiniana de algunos salmos difficiles (.) di Agostino.Augustine of Hippo  McCallin. “The Scriptural Basis of St. Augustine’s ‘De Diversis Quaestionibus LXXXIII Liber Unus. the allegory of man and woman with regard to Imago Dei. La doctrine chrétienne—De doctrina christiana. Eine historisch-hermeneutische Untersuchung zu  Kor :b. “The Latin Text of Mt ff. ). J. . Meis. J. . . J. Diss. Annotation et notes complémentaires d’I.” Bibbiae Oriente  (): –. . Mizzi. C. Miralles. /. “La Interpretación de los salmos en S. —. Augustine’s De sermone Domini in monte. Mosetto. XIX. Quaderni per l’Università. A. M. “Augustine’s spiritual quality. M. –. J. Brescia: Morcelliana.” Pages – in Tra il Nuovo Testamento e i Padri.. Brescia: Morcelliana. “(Rom :s) ‘The righteousness of God’ from Augustine to Luther. “Esegesi agostiniana di Gv . Menestrina. Madec. “The Latin Text of the Gospel Quotations in St. Sér I: Opuscules.” CBQ  (): –. “L’epistola  de sententia Iacobi Apostoli (Giac.) di sant’Agostino. Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes. di C.” ST(V)  (): –. Augustin. Y. revu et corrigé. vol.” EstAg  (): –. G. from rhetor to theologian. E. Laurier Univ. –.” Aug(L)  (): –. “L’Epistola  de sententia Iacobi apostoli (Gc . A. De Civitate Dei. McGrath. Miyatani. Moreau. “The Christological Unity of Saint Augustine’s ‘De Civitate Dei. Oeuvres de S. Most. A. Moreshini. “La formula delle consecrazione eucaristica in una citazione biblicai di S.” PaVi  (): –. et G. Mielgo.. McGowan. B. A. Moreshini. J. Bibliothèque Augustinienne. McGuckin. R. “Paz y violencia según san Augustín. Augustine’s Arithmology. G. in St. Agostino. W. McWilliam. . F. Waterloo: W.” Pages – in Tra il Nuovo Testamento e i Padri. . A. —. Saint Augustin. Heidelberg. and G. Introduction et traduction de M. Agustin.’ ” Aug(L)  (): –.. –. Bochet.” ScrTh  (): –.’ ” In REAug  ().” TyV  (): –. —. “Did Augustine’s Christology depend on Theodore of Mopsuestia?” RSLR  (): –.’ Gal :– nell’esegesi di Agostino e Gerolamo. J. “‘Quia reprehensibilis erat.” EL  (): –. Pref. Augustine. . M. —. Texte critique du CCL.” REAug  (): –. ” Villanova: Univ. Studi sulla letteratura cristiana antica offerti a Salvatore Costanza Studi tardoantichi .” SE  (s): –. L’Écriture Sainte comme règle de foi et de moralité dans l’Église d’après les ‘Enarrationes in Psalmos’ de saint Augustin.. Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt.” Pages – in Eriugena. . Ratzinger. Edited by W. Presbyter factus sum. Mutzenbecher. New York: P. “Usus and fruitio in Augustine.” Pages – in Polyanthema. –.” JThS  (): –. in Ps.. De doctrina christiana I. J. Oden.” Thought  (): –.” BiLi  (): –. J. H de.” REA  (): –. Occhialini. . Teske. “Augustinus ‘Civitas Dei’ und die Geschichtstheologie der Bibel. A. O’Meara. Nemeshegy. Augustinus’ Bemühung um den biblischen Gott des Zornes. Diss. Augustine’s Confessions. “La tradition manuscrite de l’Abrégé d’Hippone et le canon des Écritures des Église africaines. Southern Methodist University.. Messina: Sicania.” SE  (–): –. J. “The theological structure of Augustine’s exegesis in the Tractatus in Evangelium Iohannis. in ev. Ioh. Diss. . De spe in En. St. Ottilian. and R. J. Dominant Images for the Church in Augustine’s Enarrationes in Psalmos: a Study in Augustine’s Ecclesiology. “Osservazioni sull’VIII libro delle Confessioni. —. Beierwaltes. . Noronha Galvno. J.. “Isaiah’s mothering God in St. Baier. T. I. Augustini. . Edited by J.  (): –. O’Connell. “Über die Zuschreibung der von den Maurinern so benannten Quaestiones XVII in Evangelium secundum Matthaeum an Augustin. Obersteiner. The Theological Structure of St. C.” Pages – in Fs.’ Diss. “‘Magnorum virorum quendam consensum velimus machinari’ ( D). E. J. . Eriugena’s use of Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram in the Periphyseon. – . R.” REAug  (): –. . “Weisheitschristologie und Weisheitspneumatologie bei Augustinus. Marquette University. C. Augustine’s “De Genesi ad Litteram. eine Untersuchung des Tractatus in Johannis Evangelium. P. Pont. Augustinus. . Edited by W. “Un passage du Tract. Niewiadomski. U.” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana. The creation of man in St. —. P.” Estudios sobre la Ciudad de Dios. G. M. “The De Genesi contra Manichaeos and the Origin of the Soul. Paciorek. Diss. Augustine’s Exegesis in His ‘Tractatus in Iohannis Euangelium. Norris. Lublin. Lateranensis. A. S. Muller..h-Century Latin Christian Literature Munier. “Die Sorge um die ganze Bibel. O. :. Lienhard. Lang. vol. Univ. —. J. O’Donovan. ” Lectio Augustini . ACFÉB.” AnBib –/ (): –. Cinq études d’Augustin sur le début de la Genèse.” REAug  (): –. —. Augustin.” Pages – in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre..” Neotest  (): –. Rome: Città Nuova. “De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus. —. col. “What was God doing before he created the heavens and the earth?” Aug(L)  (): –. Montreal: Bellarmin-Desclée. . J.” ERT / (): –. Perrot. Pont. Vitae Spiritualis Magister . —. Augustine on the Education of a Preacher. Pont.” SMSR / (): –. Pellegrino. “Doppioni e varianti nel commento di S. Cinq études sur les premiers versets de l’Écriture.. Calif. R. ‘canoni eusebiani. “‘Primitiae spiritus’ (Rom :). Gregorianae.” TrinJ / (): –. “Lo studio della Bibbia nella spiritualità di S.” RechAug  (): –. G. Agostino. Agostino a Giov.” “De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum. . Pépin. Palmero Ramos.. A.” Pages – in S. . L.” Aug(L)  (): –. Manichaean anti-Genesis polemic and the Vitium curiositatis in Confessions III. Augustine and the Latin version of Acts. Perrone. Petersen. Peace. “Il ‘De consensu Evangelistarum’ ed i. L. —. .’ ” Bib  (): –. “To Behold and Inhabit the Blessed Country: Revelation.” HThR  (): –.” Pages – in Agostino d’Ippona. Recherches. :–. E. Diss. –. Augustin et la fonction protreptique de l’allégorie.Augustine of Hippo  Pagels. “St. J. E. J. Scripture and Infallibility. “Appunti sull’uso della Bibbia nei Sermoni di S. Petzer. ‘Ecclesia Mater’ en S.” RivBib  (): –. “The politics of Paradise. “Augustinus und die Psalmen. Claremont. Paris: Cerf. “San Paolo nelle Confessioni di Sant’Agostino. Peters. . . Augustinus. Augustine. Gregorianae. An Introductory Guide to Reflections upon Augustine. M. C. O. Univ. Occasional papers of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity .” RHR  (): –. Remarques sur une citation paulinienne des Confessions de S. Diss. .” Anima  (): –. . Agostino. Inspiration. Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis – versus that of John Chrysostom. Penna. “Il genere delle quaestiones et responsiones nella letteratura cristiana antica fino ad Agostino. R. —. Teologia de la imagen en los escritos antidonatistas. —. Augustin et le début de la Genèse. Univ. H. Perler.. “La descente aux enfers et la prédication aux morts. —. “St. –. —. Adam and Eve and the Serpent in Genesis –. Pelland. “Le maniement des prépositions dans la théorie Augustinienne de la création. “S. “Aenigma Salomonis. Wolfgang Speyer. Pamplona. De doctrina christiana IV. (Beati) Augustin. London: Hodder and Stoughton. “Le quaestiones di Agostino su Genesi. Giosuè e Giudici. Per foramen acus. “Osservazioni sulla presenza del corpus paolino nelle Quaestiones di Agostino su Deuteronomio. J. Agostino.’ ” RSLR  (): –.” AnTol  (): –.” RSLR  (): –. —. Agustin. “Qualche osservazione sul consetto di armonia cosmica in Agostino e Cassiodoro alla luce di Sap. Lyons. Diss. U. —. T. —. Fs. A. —. Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum. M. Poque. “El De doctrina christiana: ‘Una obra catequética’” Augustinus  (): –. . Chartulae.” ASE  (): –. B. A. —. JAC..” RBen  (): –. A. I: Het Woord Gods bij Augustinus. Zu Enarratio in Psalmum ”. –. . S. Pizzolato. R. Augustine. Agostino. “L’alternative “dictées ou prêchées” pour les Enarrationes in Psalmos de saint Augustin. Pizzani. Augustin. I. Ramos Martin. Univ.” StTeol  (): –. “L’exégèse augustinienne de Prov :–. . Pollastri. The Word of God According to St. . Augustin sur la première Épitre de S. Augustin. . Thèse supplementaire. il cristianesimo antico di fronte alla pericope evagelica del “giovane ricco.” ASE  (): –. “Les lectures liturgiques de l’Octave Pascale à Hippone d’après les Traités de S. Quacquarelli. —. Recherches critiques sur les commentaires des Psaumes attribués à S.h-Century Latin Christian Literature Pérez Velázquez.” RBen  (): –. Analyse des Inhalts . “Psalmii în predica Fer.” Studia patristica mediolanensia . Raveaux. L’influence de l’Épître aux Hébreux dans les oeuvres principales de S. Pont. struttura dell’opera e motivazioni storico-dottrinali. Ratzinger.” Pages – in vol. “Herkunft und Sinn der Civitas-Lehre Augustins. S. .  (). Pontet. Augustin. J.” Sap  (): –. De theologie van Augustinus.  of AugM. “L’exégèse de S. F. “I principi esegetici di S. Augustinus..” ASEs . II. M. Ergänzungsband  (): –. Gregoriana. B. Diss.. Pablo en las obras antipelagianas de S. L. “Studi sull’esegesi agostiniana. “Augustinus und der Astrologe. Jérôme et à S. Diss. Agostino ‘emendator.” RBen  (): –. . Primmer. Polman. Kampen: Kok. Quinot. “Studi sull’esegesi agostiniana. prédicateur. G. Paris. Milan. A. – . Popescu. (): –. S. “Il nesso ‘sapientia-eloquentia’ nel trattato esegetico di S. D.” Aug. Jean. Agostino ‘explanator’. Prete. —. La interpretación de las epistolas de S. und das Heil der Heiden bei Augustinus und Thomas. Rondet. —. Lateinische Editionen und deutsche Übersetzungen (–). “Le symbolisme de la mer (cf. Brescia: Paideia.” Pages – in Signum pietatis.” REAug  (): –. J.” Rev. Mayer. Agostino teorico dell’interpretazione: Filosofia della religione TS . Ripanti. Strasbourg.” Pages – in StPatrist XVI Oxford . “La Bible chez S. Fac. “Thèmes bibliques: Exégèse augustinienne (résumé + discussion). J. Riedl. Würzburg: AugustinusVerlag.. “La S.” Salesianum  (): –. Chicago: Univ. R. a la luz de las formas fundamentales del amor. “S. Eckermann and A. “La estructura de la Ciudad de Dios. —. /. . G.” Aug  (): –. Cassiciacum . Agustin. interpretation and alterity in Augustine. Apoc :) chez S. Recchia.” CDios  (): –. G. . Reid. Religion and Postmodernism. . Petrarch. . Escritura como fuente de vida espiritual según S. A hermeneutical investigation into the contributions of Augustine’s exegesis for contemporary interpretation. “Röm :ff. Cassiciacum . Festgabe für Cornelius P. Berlin: Akademie. Edited by W.: Augustinus. “La memoria di Agostino nell’esegesi biblica di Gregorio Magno. “Römer  in den Enarrationes in Psalmos.” Schol  (): –.” REA  (): –.” AugM ().  (): –. G. Agostino perenne maestro di ermeneutica. H. . J. . —. V.. Diss. Sussidi patristici .Augustine of Hippo  und Untersuchung des geistesgeschichtlichen Hintergrunds. Livingstone. Krümmel Cassiciacum. Würzburg: Augustinus – Verlag. Remy. An analysis of Augustine’s exegesis of Romans Five. E. Robbins. tranquillitas ordinis. Augustini. Théol. Wü. Ring. Levinas. Román de la Immaculada. Riggi. i Donatisti e il primo Agostino. de Espiritualidad (). Kafka. D. Le epistole paoline nei Manichei. “Il problema della comprensione nell’ermeneutica agostiniana.. Le Christ médiateur dans l’oeuvre de saint Augustin. C. Ries. Diss. “Augustine’s De consensu Evangelistarum and the historical education of the Venerable Bede. Ray.” AugM (). Rome: Augustinianum. Augustin et chez les manichéens. Edited by E. Rivera De Ventosa. Prodigal son/elder brother. Augustin. Repertorium annotatum operum et translationum S. —. I. T. A.” Augustinus  (): –. M. . . Cath. “Pax. Soutwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. . Gregor. Augustine’s Confessions. “La typologie augustinienne de l’Hexaéméron et la théologie du temps. S. . . J. Agostino.’ ” AugM  (): –. Vega.g. Sanchis. —. “Le symbolisme communitaire du Temple chez S. Fac. Salmon. Le sermon sur le Ps . Salas. A. augustinien de Act :– entre  et . J. Patrist. —. W. Univ. Baden-Baden: Bruno Grimm. Augustin.” BFCL . “La typologie augustinienne de l’Hexaéméron et la théologie du temps. —. de.” RAM  (): –. “Chronologie augustinienne. Augustin.” RivBib II/ (): –. Sampson. de. La dottrina cristiana.” Hist(B)  (): –.’ ” REAug  (): –.-A. En in Ps :. L’exégèse augustinienne de la parabole du Bon Samaritain. El Escorial. La typologie de l’Église dans le prédication et l’exégèse augustiniennes. “Le thème du Cantique Nouveau dans l’oeuvre de S. Iserloh. Le comm. —. O. Ruana de la Haza. . Agustin (e. Intr. Rousseau. Manns.” CDeos  (): –. Roover. —.” BLE  (): –. “‘Praeparatur voluntas a Domino.” APraem  (): –.” Pages – in Festgabe Joseph Lortz.. Zach :. P. “S.” Pages – in Misc. T. “Essais sur la chronologie des ‘Enarrationes in Psalmos’ de S. Mc :. . A.” StMon  (): –. “Samaritanus ille. A. P. Gregoriana. —. Augustin. “Pauvreté monastique et charité fraternelle chez S. de Lubac. Rondet. —. vol. Lortz and P. “Notes d’exégèse augustinienne. . “El pan de vida en los ‘Tractatus in Ionnem.h-Century Latin Christian Literature —. “Una fórmula ‘chiástica’ en S. . –.” RAM  (): –. —. Sage.” In Mél. Abbaye d’Averbode.” MD  (): –. Psalterium et Cithara. Letture cristiane del primo millennio . Diss. A.” ScEc  (): –. “Augustin d’Hippone et l’interprétation de Lc :. Augustin et les ‘Psaumes des Montées’.” BLE  (): –. .” In Excerpta ex Diss. “Il testo e l’interpretazione dei Salmi al tempo di S. Augustin. Gen :). e note di L. .” RSR  (): –. Edited by E. Pontif. –. “Petite introduction à la lecture des ‘En. Alici. (): –. Girolamo e di S. “Essai sur la chronologie des ‘Enarrationes in Psalmos’ de S. Belgique. —. Roover. –. in Pss’. . Diss. “La Parabole du Pharisien et du Publicain dans l’oeuvre de Saint Augustin. —. M. theol. H. “La ‘koinônia’ biblica y la ‘communitas’ agustiniana.” RSR  (): –. Théol . The Scriptures in St. D. Strasbourg. “L’exégèse patristique de Luc : des origines à Augustin. A. C. Milan: Edizioni Paoline. —.. Augustin (III) Sermons indépendants (sur les Ps –). Agostino D’Ippona. J.” EvQ  (): –. H. A. a proposito di Quaestiones in Matthaeum . —.Augustine of Hippo Sanguinetti Montero. Sieben. “Latent Narrative Patterns. dos. christ. I–III. M. “Sacra Scriptura. Kardinal Prings (). Commentarii in Psalmos. Scalabrella.’ . C. Schaublin. S. Santos Ferreira.” AugM (). W. Zu Augustinus Conf. und X. .” Pages – in Fs. Montevideo: Ist. “[Due note su testi di Agostino e] Arnobio il Giovane. “La Samaritana segno di riconciliazione. “La parabola della zizziania in Agostino. M. “Augustin. (–): –. “Pneumatologia de Santo Agostinho. Schwoebel. Shanzer.” Pages – in Mémorial Dom Jean Gribomont (–).” Festgabe J.) Psalm. “Kleine Theologie der Hoffnung. “Some letters of St.” ASE  (): –. . J. Schrama. Franz Dornseiff. Augustine’s Sermons. and Literary Unity in Augustine’s Confessions. IX. Schildenberger. Gratuidad y respuesta del hombre a Dios. Augustine (to Jerome. Simonetti. “Prima lectio quae recitata est. Simon. “Note sul testo di alcune Enerrationes agostiniane.. Scholz. Rome: Institutum Patristicum ‘Augustinianum. “Die ‘res’ der Bibel.” VigChr  (): –. J. H. estudio en las ‘Enarrationes in Psalmos’ de San Agustin. Diss. “La portée historique des théories de la lecture (Réflexions à la lumière du De doctrina christiana de saint Augustin). “Die Kirche als Braut des Hohenliedes nach dem hl.” RFIC  (): –. Schultz. Bemerkungen zur Inspirationslehre Augustins.” HPR . “Der Psalter und die Bekehrung der VOCES und AFFECTUS. J. D. B. —. la lettura di Agostino. über das Verhältnis des Interpreten zum Text. Semple. The liturgical pericope in light of St.” StudiumR  (): –.” EA / (): –. Kiel. on exegetical questions). . Schmidt. Augustinus. A. Diss. Teólogica Soler. S. “Gegenwartsbedeutung exegetischer Grundsätze des hl. (.” BJRL  (–): –.” ThPh  (): –. Christus bei Augustin. “Augustine on Rhetoric and the Bible.” Did(L)  (): –. Scorza Barcellona. Allegorical Choices. M.-J.” VigChr  (): –. .-P.” RThPh  (): –. Augustinus. Studia Ephemeridis ‘Augustinianum’ . H.” REAug  (): –.” Augustiniana  (): –. Zur Predigt des heiligen Augustinus über den . “Augustine and the OT Canon. F. Sasse. De doct. W.. Schobinger. . P. De utilitate credendi. Eine Analyse von Augustinus. “Augustinian biblical exegesis and the origins of modern science. J.” RHPr  (): –. Aug.” Aug  (): –. . Würzburg: AugustinusVerlag.” Pages – in Fritz Saxl (–) Memorial Essays. Stark. . Spanneda. Rome. Edited by E. —. —.” EstJos  (): –. Edited by A. C. Jain and R. Barth.” ASE  (): –.h-Century Latin Christian Literature —. J. Solignac. . . –. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. . C. “La Genesi nelle Confessioni. ad litteram de S. S. A. Springer. Les sources de l’exégèse augustinienne. P. Rome: Herder. Solá. Sermon . . Van Fleteren. “Mt :– chez Augustin.” Pages – in La Genesi nelle Confessioni. Agostino esegeta e teologo nel commento al quarto Vangelo. Agostino. Starnes. Siniscalco. Il mistero della Chiesa nel pensiero di S. “Image de Dieu.” TU  (): –. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag. Academia Latinati fovendae. Smalley. “La connaissance angélique et les jours de la création (Gen : dans le De Gen. F. de P.” Pages – in Ricerche patristiche in onore di Dom Basil Studer OSB. Sant’Agostino. opposition de K. di Bernardino. Acta. RelAn  (–): –. “Due note agostiniane. Soennecken. F. Somers. H. Sassari. . “De adumbratione SS. “Die Rolle der Frau in Augustins ‘De Genesi ad litteram. A.’ ” Pages – in Signum Pietatis.” REAug  (): –. Atti della giornata di studio su S. Edited by J. “L’ermeneutica biblica di Agostino. Edited by V. Augustine’s Use of Scripture in his Anti-Jewish Polemics. —. Trinitatis in VT sec S. Milan: A.” PalCl  (): –. Augustine. Agostino.. Spadafora. G. Margreiter.” VigChr  (): –. Festschrift f. B. . . Mondadori.” Pages – in Probleme philosophischer Mystik. Il libro XIII. ed. ‘vestiges de la Trinité’. M. “S. L’istruzione cristiana. Zumkeller. Smid. Augustin). Karl Albert z. Roma. “The Pauline influence on Augustine’s notion of the will.  dicembre . Smallbrugge. L. “Les notions d’‘enseignement’ et de ‘parole’ dans le De magistro et l’In Ioannis Evang. siebzigsten Geburtstag. —.” ÉcPratHÉt. “Prima Clavis Sapientiae. “Intra in gaudium Domini tui—Note su una citazione di Matteo (:  e ) nelle Confessiones di Agostino: esperienza mistica e beatitudine celeste. “La paternided de San José en San Agustin. Scrittori greci e latini. . . Grossi and A. F. Tr. Diss. . Augustin and Abelard.” CleR  (): f. “Le texte biblique d’Augustin et les manuscrits de ses oeuvres exégétiques. C.” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana. . Nelson. —. Schnaubelt and F. B.” Augustinus  (): –. “Agostino d’Ippona e il Dio dei libri sapienziali. Christ’s graced humanity as locus of divine power in Augustine’s tractates on the Gospel of John. “Spiritualità giovannea in Agostino (osservazioni sul commento agostiniano sulla Prima Ioannis).” In Atti del I Simposio di Efeso su S. “La ermenéutica biblica de San Agustin en la carta  a San Jerbnimo. Edited by L.” AugSt  (): –. L. Bolgiani.  als Belegstelle für Augustins Erbsündenlehre. F. Padorese.” in Atti del II Simposio di Efeso su S. “La expresión imago Dei (Gen :–) en la reflexión agustiniana. the exegesis of the parables of the field and threshing floor. Lang. –. Augustine’s Use of Scripture. Edited by L. Frankfurt: P. “Lordship over weakness.” AER  (). Göttingen. G. “The use of the Old Testament in St. la chiesa e la sua storia . Washington. C. “Psalm . Diss. First . Turchia. Turchia. Paolo apostolo. Tabet. “I ‘Tractatus in Ioannem’ di Sant’Agostino. G. Giovanni apostolo. M. Rome. Diss. in Atti del IV Simposio di Tarso su S. Rome: Inst. History and hermeneutics. “Augustins ‘De doctrina christiana’ als kirchliche Hermeneutik. Schriftauslegung und Schriftbeweis bei Augustin. . “Le lettere paoline nelle teologia trinitaria di Agostino.. —. Suda. . la chiesa e la sua storia . Malton. Niederwimmer zum . “Spiritualità giovannea in Agostino (Osservazioni sul commento agostiniano sulla Primo Ioannis). –. Patr. Stefano. —. Augustine’s De civitate dei. M. Giovanni apostolo. Rome: Inst. Straw. Hermeneutics and the holy Spirit. Tabet Balady. Padorese. “S.Augustine of Hippo  —. Schriftgedanke. Swift. Fs. K. J. F. A. Christianisme d’hier et d’aujoud’hui. Padorese. Stell.” –.” In Atti del II Simposio di Efeso su S. —.” Augustinus  (): –. “St. la chiesa e la sua storia .” Pages – in Die Kirche als historische und eschatologische Grösse. Padorese. L. f.Edited by L. Suda. T.” Pages – in Letture cristiani dei Libre Sapienziali. –. Francescano di Spiritualità. Rome. Sauer. Rome. Augustinianum. —. . M. Turchia. Strauss. Préaux. . Libre. –. .” Pages – in Mémorial J.” pages –. . M. . Edited by F. Edited by W.. Trinitarian insights into a hermeneutical impasse.” Pages – in The Bible and european literature. Giovanni apostolo. Brussels: Univ. Studer. Edited by T. E. “La exégesis biblica agustiniana y los origenes de la ciencia moderna. Edited by L. A.” AugSt  (): –. Tanner. “Augustine as pastoral theologian. J.” Augustinus  (): –. Pratscher and G. J. Augustin et l’inerrance biblique. Stransky. S. . Stengers. . R. Princeton Theological Seminary.” Pages – in Diakonia. Geburtstag. “Defining ‘Gloria’ in Augustine’s City of God dans. Toribio. Teselle.” Univ. . . Augustine (Mayence ). Melbourne: Academia Press. “Nature and Grace in Augustine’s Expositions of Gen :–. Fs A. Augustine’s view of the original human condition in De Genesi contra Manichaeos. Presbyter Factus Sum. “El prólogo de san Juan en la obra de san Agustín. —. A. Osborn. J. J. Termes. Eve and Adam: Augustine and the Allegorical Tradition. Augustine’s De Genesi contra Manichaeos. Edited by E. “Sur le péché en S.-Louis. . F. B. J. “The image and likeness of God in St. Augustin. Teske. “Homo spiritualis in St. the Three Hebrews and a newly discovered sermon of St. Juan de S. Taylor. St. J.” RechAug  (): –.” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana. T.h-Century Latin Christian Literature conference. Lienhard. “The Seven Maccabees. . “Serpent. Tkacz. Augustine. “Les ‘deux cités’ dans la littérature chrétienne. Edited by J. Diss. —.” FrRu /– (): –. et al. M. Edited by R. was du liest?’ (Apg :). Mainz. “S. “St. Augustin. –). K. “‘Verstehst du auch. J. Augustine De Genesi ad litteram liber duodecimus. —. Agostino. “Agustin de Hipona (s. – may. C. “El Homo spiritualis en el De Genesi contra Manichaeos. F. Melbourne. “Augustinus und der ‘ältere Bruder. R. Thieme. Gregoriana. —. P. A.” Kairos  (): –. El concepto de ‘vida’ en los Trat.” Aug  (): –. sobre S. A. E.’ Zur patristischen Exegese von Lk :–. J.” EE  (): –. C.” PSV  (): –. “Agustín ¿interpretb mal a Ticonio?” Augustinus  (): –. F. Daly. “Understanding Augustine Misunderstanding Tyconius. Muller. TeSelle. Augustine’s first Commentaries on Genesis. —.” StPatr  (): –. uso exegético y teológico. Urgan.” Etudes  (): –. Stohr. P.” Pages – in El origen divino . H.” AugM  (): –. Trummer. E. —. .” Mayéutica  (): . Louvain.” Pages – in Origeniana Quinta. Tournier. “Origen and St.” REAug  (): f. E.” AugSt  (): –.” Pages – in Universitas. Trigueros. A. Thonnard. IV–V. Teske. “Augustinus und der ältere Bruder (Lk :–). Tilley.” REAug XLI (): –. J. New York: Peter Lang. Trapé. and R.. “La formación de Eva en los Padres Latinos hasta San Agustin inclusive. Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus. . .” StPatr  (): –. “La manducazione spirituale nella dottrina eucaristica di s. F. . . and J. Pont.” RevSR  (): –. Vannier.” AugSt  (): –. —. Louvain: Peeters. —. T. “Per Speculum et in aenigmate:  Corinthians : in the Writings of St. “Exégesis agustiniana de Sb . Festgabe für Cornelius Mayer. —. A. and Pelagianism. Fédou.. Louvain.” Pages – in Signum Pietatis. J. Pourkier. Greek Authors after Nicaea. Freibourg/S: Univ.” “formatio” chez saint Augustin. Diss. significado de la expressión ‘mutuum adiutorium’ hasta San Agustin.” Pages – in Origeniana Sexta. Madrid. “Saint Augustin et la création. “Augustine’s Exegesis of Wisdom :. Vásquez Gómez. L. .  vols. Gregoriana. Van Bavel.” Pages – in Collectanea Augustiniana.” RechAug  (): –. Van Fleteren. Alexandre.Augustine of Hippo  del poder. “Aspects de l’idée de création chez S. J. with the collaboration of M. “Le rôle de l’hexaéméron dans l’interpretation augustinienne de la création. Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag. . Van Bavel. Dorival and A. Papers presented at the Eleventh International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford . Vannier. Louvain: Peeters.” StPatr  (): –. (= Augustinus – [–]: –). Edited by A. “Origène et Augustin..” Pages – in StPatr Vol. Vanneste. “Saint Paul et la doctrine Augustinienne du péché originel. Edited by G. M.” AnBib –/ (): –. especially in Saint Augustine. Edited by T. A. T. Augustin. Veer.  août –  septembre . “Woman as the Image of God in Augustine’s De Trinitate XII. Van der Lof. —. Estudio filológico e historia de la interpretación de Jn :a. Augustin (Omne quod non est ex fide. . Interpretación patristica del Génesis :–. J.” AugM  (): –. M. —.” Pages – in Charisteria Augustiniana Iosepho Oroz Reta dictata. XXVII. Paradosis . Augustine. Cappadocian Fathers. Wolinski. Le Boulluec. Origène et la Bible/Origen and the Bible. Zumkeller.” RSPhTh  (): –. Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum. “Rom : b dans l’oeuvre de S. peccatum est). interprètes de la création. . .-A. –. “Creatio. van Bavel. Univ.-A. Estudios de Filologia Neotestamentaria . Augustine. —. Chantilly. . J. Cordoba: El Almendro. de. “Le rôle de l’Hexaéméron dans l’interprétation augustinienne de la création. M. Donatism. A. . “The Creator and the integrity of Creation in the Fathers of the Church. —.” AugSt  (): –. “El papel del hexamerón en la interpretación agustiniana de la creación. “Tertullian and Augustine on Titus :–.” Augustinus  (): –.” “conversio. P. “Augustine’s Use of Scriptural Admonitions Against Boasting in His Final Arguments on Grace. Vincent. Augustin sur l’AT. —.” TyV  (): –. S. Jerónimo y Agustin. Villegas. Augustin.” EE / (): –. P. Pa. . Weaver. Augustin et leurs épigones. d’après les Enarrationes in Psalmos. “La Rencarnación del Verbo y la Iglesia en San Agustin. R. Inst. .” RBen  (): –. Saint Augustine’s Monasticism in the Light of Acts :–. M.” Aug(L)  (): –. Diss. —. La prière selon saint Augustin d’après les Enarrationes in Psalmos. L’hymne aux Philippiens dans l’oeuvre de saint Augustin. O. Verbraken.  (): –. “Le Sermon  de Saint Augustin sur les Béatitudes selon Saint Matthieu.’ ” NRTh  (): –. maître de prière. —. J. Verwilghen. Augustine Lectures.: Univ.. “From Paul to Augustine: Romans : in Early Christian Exegesis. de. “The Straw. —. A. Vogüé.” SE  (): –.-P.” RBen  (): –. Origène. Verbraken. THist . D. the Tusculan Disputations and the Rule of St. M. Teologia de simbolos biblico-eclesiales. Weaver. Wachtel. Ambrosio. Velasquez. “Le sermon  de saint Augustin sur les généalogies du Christ selon Matthieu et selon Luc. B. Villanova. .” RechAug  (): –. A. . El Salmo  comentado por Hilario. —. A.” RBen  (): –. —. “Le Christ médiateur selon Ph :– dans l’oeuvre de saint Augustin.. cath.” RBen  (): –. . Algunas consideraciones en torno a ‘gloria. “Civitas Dei. the Beam. Paris: Beauchesne. Augustine—On a Surprising Augustinian Exegesis (of Mt :–). Saint Augustin. “Les plus anciens exégètes du Premier livre des Rois.” StPatr. ch. . . Vergés. A. ThH . “Gloriosissimam Civitatem Dei. H. Diss. Paris: Beauchesne. . Verheijen. —. .” AugSt  (): –.’ ” Augustinus  (): –. “L’édition critique des sermons de S..h-Century Latin Christian Literature Veer. “‘Revelare–Revelatio.’ Éléments d’une étude sur l’emploi du mot et sur sa signification chez S. Sorbonne. “Le sermon  de Saint Augustin sur la guérison des deux aveugles de Jéricho. “Cuatro padres ante un psalmo. Ecclesia und Kirche. Bonn. “La prière selon saint Augustin d’après les ‘Enarrationes in Psalmos. de.” VTQ / (): –. Christologie et spiritualité selon saint Augustin: l’hymne aux Philippiens.” Pages – in Beiträge zur Geschichtstheologie des Aurelius Augustinus. P. St.. L. “Fluchpsalmen in augustinischer Sicht. —. O.” TGL / (): –. Überlieferung zu Augustins Interpretation des Sündenfalls in De Genesi contra Manichaeos. Le Père et le Fils selon S. —. Calgary: Univ. Diss.” CuMon  (): –. Weber. “Tipologia en el ‘De Genesi adversus manichaeos’ de San Agustín. . Meynell.” Pages – in La sagesse biblique. “Teologia y simbolismo en ‘De Genesi adversus Manichaeos’ de S. Wenning. —. G. —. Augustinus. Augustine’s Text of the Acts of the Apostles. Fr. Welch. . .. Diss.” StEv. Étude des Tractatus – sur l’Évangile de Jean. Louvain-la Neuve. Westra. —. De l’Ancien au Nouveau Testament.  (): –. “Cristo. D. Welch. H. Wermelinger. “Die Sünde wider den Heiligen Geist nach der Auffassung des hl. J. H. . “La Sagesse chez les Pères de l’Église (de Clément de Rome à Augustin).  (): –. Eva und die Schlange.” Sal  (): –. Edited by H.” CSEL .. Wisløff.” TGL  (): –. en la controversia antidonatista de los ‘Tractatus in Johannis Evangelium’ I–XVI de San Agustin.” Strom  (): –. “St. –.” ThPQ  (): –. “Augustin og Hieronymus om de Jødekristne og Moseloven [Norwegian: Augustine and Jerome on the Christian Jews and the Mosaic Law]. Actes du . politics and desire. G. G. Agustín. P. Verbo creador y redentor.Augustine of Hippo  —.. P.” RelCult  (): –. —. “Augustinus und die Einheit der Kirche dargestellt nach seiner Homilie über Psalm . “Der Einfluss des Manichäismus und des Ambrosius auf die Hermeneutik Augustins. Weismann. La foi au ‘Verbe fait chair’ dans le De Trinitate de saint Augustin.” Augustinus  (): –. Edited by J. Weber. Louvain. Wolinski. “Le canon des Latins au temps de Jerôme et d’Augustin.” TTK  (): –. Augustinus (Sermo ).” Strom  (): –. “Biblia y vida monástica en San Agustin.” REAug  (): –. “Loa avisos escriturarios contra el orgullo en san Agustín.” CuMon  (): –. “Augustine and poetic exegesis. Kaestli.-J. C.-D. in Le canon de l’Ancien Testament.” Pages –.” Pages – in Grace. F. J. sa formation et son histoire. Willis. —. “Principios de exégesis biblica en el De Doctrina Christiana de San Agustin. Augustin. A. “Adam.-J. Geneva: Labor et Fides.” Strom  (): –. —. essays on Augustine. “Introducción a la lectura e interpretación de los ‘Tractatus in Iohannis Evangelium’ de San Agustín. “Wesenszüge der Psalmenerklärung des hl. J. Edited by J. The History of its Interpretation. Zwinggi. “Augustins geistliche Auslegung des Johannesevangeliums. —. D. Gregoriana. LD . contra Manich. Ein systematisch orientiertes Gespräch zwischen Augustinus und der Phänomenologie. Zincone. “Augustine: His Exegesis and Hermeneutics. .” The Priest . Agostino e nella ‘Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam’ di S. Kampen: Kok Pharos.” ALi  (): –. Münster: Aschendorff. “St. “The Epistle of James in Augustine and his Pelagian Adversaries: Some Preliminary Observations.” JThS  (): –. Zimmerman. B. Zarb. Zocca. . Extractum ex ‘Angelicum’ ()–(). Chronologia Enarrationum S. Part : Antiquity. (): –. Scholten. Ambrogio. Ein Versuch Augustins. : From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until ). Paris: Cerf. “Theophanietexte in der Exegese des Augustins. the Biblical Scholar. Edited by G. JAChe. J. “Tractatus – of St. Edited by J. J.’ a supplementary list. S. “La veridicità dei Vangeli nel ‘De consensu Evangelistarum’ di S. Haran. Trublet. D. Patr. . Brekelmans and M. /. . Wickert.” Pages –  in Letture cristiani dei Libre Sapientiaziali. Edited by F.” Pages –  in Christliche Exegese zwischen Nicaea und Chalcedon. E. Pont. Univ.” RechAug  (): –. A. –. “Die fortlaufende Schriftlesung im Gottesdienst bei Augustinus. —. Augustine’s in Joh. F. Augustine. Wyrwa. Schöllgen and C.” Aug(R)  (): –. Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum. S. Zedda. ). “Naked but not ashamed.” DT / (): –. “Sapientia e libre sapienziali scritti agostiniani prima del . * * * .h-Century Latin Christian Literature XVe Congrès de l’ACFEB (Paris. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. A. “Biblische und altchristliche Leitbilder des klösterlichen Lebens im des hl. De Gen.” Doctor Seraphicus  (): –. . Wolmuth. Zacher. Zumkeller. Sæbø.. In co–operation with C.” Pages – in Stimuli. . S. van Oort and U. Vol. —. Augustinus. Bolgiani.” Aug(L)  (): –. die ersten drei Kapitel von Genesis zu erklären und zu verteidigen. Rome: Inst.” Sc : –. Augustini in Psalmos. Edited by M. Augustinianum.” Pages – in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann. “Il tema della creazione dell’uomo ad immagine e somiglianza di Dio nella letteratura cristiana antica fino ad Agostino. “The manuscripts of the ‘Tractatus in Johannem. Yates. A. Wright. A. Diss. La Valetta: St Dominic’s Priory IV. ). Augustine faces squarely the complexity of the hermeneutical problems posed to the biblical interpreter precisely as minister of the Word (in spite of a thirty-year hiatus in the completion of the writing). chr. Duane W. it is in this extraordinarily concentrated and mulivalent work that Augustine devotes precise attention to hermeneutical issues. Arnold and Pamela Bright. Thagaste.). very different in genre and purpose. Augustine writes not only as a master practitioner but also as an insightful theorist of biblical . with the last four books marking a significant moment of the crystallization of his thought.) for the development of Augustine as a biblical exegete is not immediately obvious. the journeyman of Rome. Ind. De genesi ad litteram is characterized by his newfound confidence in tackling the notoriously difficult text of Genesis. The biblical apprentice of Milan. are all infused with a new sense of mastery. or as the interpreter of the Word of God. where the poverty and frailty of being and of understanding are paradoxically transfigured. Although the importance of the Confessions (Conf. the Christian is plunged into an abyss of mystery. H.” in De Doctrina Christiana: A Classic of Western Culture (ed. and De genesi ad litteram. “The Interrupted De Doctrina Christiana. a phase that was to produce three significantly new initiatives: De doctrina christiana. ten years after his baptism. At this phase of his activity as biblical interpreter. It is in these three works that Augustine elaborates his maturing grasp of hermeneutical principles with a pointedness and a sweep of vision that is remarkable. It is in these books that Augustine forges strong links between an anthropological and a christological basis of biblical interpretation. THE LOWLY ACCESS TO MYSTERY The first decade of Augustine’s episcopacy was marked by a new phase of his activity as biblical commentator. Notre Dame.Augustine of Hippo  AUGUSTINE: THE HERMENEUTICS OF CONVERSION A SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION by Pamela Bright I. to embark upon a series of projects which. in significantly different ways. was now. The Confessions is an important witness to this new phase of Augustine’s maturing as a biblical interpreter. These works. Charles Kannengiesser. In De doctrina christiana (De doctr.: University of Notre Dame Press. After at least three earlier attempts at interpretation. the kenosis of the Incarnation. Whether as the self in search of God. and then Hippo Regius. Confessiones. . –. would define his contribution to biblical hermeneutics. to know you” (noverim me.) is followed assiduously in the Confessions: “May I know you who know me. “To know myself. Augustine. cf. Rather it announces a focus on Augustine’s reflection on the intersection of a theology of the needy and wounded self in the process of “re-formation.). Augustine records his reflections on the need for the interpreter to be aware of the proper scope of scripture to build up love (finem praecepti esse caritatem. Confessions ( vols. . St. XII .). Conf. . XII . May I know as I also am known” (cognoscam te. ). De doctr. on the other: “All too frequently the poverty of human intelligence has plenty to say. repr. O’Donnell.. See also James J. Henry Chadwick. ). Oxford: Clarendon. Confessionum Libri XIII (Turnhout: Brepols. R. While both the Confessions and the De doctrina christiana share similar perspectives about the scope and character of the scriptures. ). as early as his catechumenate days.. but what Augustine emphasizes in the . and of the proper characteristics of scripture in being conformed to the “human condition” (humana condicio). but also as a theorist of the underlying suppositions of the ministry of the Word. Sancti Augustini Opera. De Doctrina Christiana (Oxford: Oxford University Press. X . . Conf.” on the one hand. . The title of this study. Lucas Verheijen. chr. P. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina XXVII. noverim te. Sol. The program announced in the Soliloquies. “The Hermeneutics of Conversion. . Augustine Confessions (Oxford: Oxford University Press. In the early years of his episcopal career.h-Century Latin Christian Literature interpretation. as Augustine argues in the prooemium to De doctrina christiana: “All those matters could have been done by angels but the human condition would have been degraded if God would not seem to want to minister his own words to human beings through human beings” (prooemium ). XII . The translations of the Confessions in this essay are taken from Chadwick. and a theory of biblical hermeneutics founded on a kind of existential espistemology.). cognitor meus. for inquiry employs more words than the discovery of the solution” (Conf.) The fractured self seeking wholeness and the multi-worded search for truth are themes that are intertwined throughout the final books of the Confessions: “In my needy life [in hac inopia vitae meae]. I do not mean only the theory and principles of hermeneutics. cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum. . ). H.” is not intended to signify an analysis of the process of conversion. what is peculiar to the Confessions is that these principles are examined in the context of the process of conversion. my heart is much exercised by the words of your holy scripture” (Conf. . Green. . To speak of Augustine as theorist. Thomas Finan and Vincent Twomey. of mountainous difficulty and enveloped in mysteries (excelsam et velatam mysteriis). which so persuasively move me to confession. Conf. See now how stupid it is. sed omnium nostrum. has the same lowly . . The proud. as interpreter. I have not known. and bring me to a free worship. is called to conversion. just as the acknowledgement of the “poverty of human intelligence” should temper the tenacity with which opinions are clung to in such discourse. “St. it is a lie. XII . a text lowly to the beginner but. make my neck bow to your yoke.) It is hardly surprising that Augustine. which is the principle of everything he said in the texts we are attempting to expounding. . And this is what met me: something neither open to the proud nor laid bare to mere children. the interpreter.) In this sense. the biblical interpreter. III . ).” for your truth does not belong to me nor to anyone else but to us all whom you call share it as a public possession” (quoniam veritas tua nec mea est nec illius aut illius. (Conf. the self-in-conversion.). Dublin: Four Corners Press. rashly to assert that a particular one has the best claim to be Moses’ view.Augustine of Hippo Confessions is that the seeking of this vital knowledge must be undertaken in the pilgrim mode of humble seeking: I therefore decided to give attention to the holy scriptures and to find out what they were like. and Augustine. See n. come to discover that the entry into the sublimity of mystery. . XIII .” in Scriptural Interpretation in the Fathers: Letter and Spirit (ed. so destructive of the “enemy and the defender” who resists your reconciliation by defending his sins. on further reading. I have not meet with other utterances so pure. Augustine on the ‘mira profunditas’ of Scripture. (Conf. The “access” may be lowly.) Augustine is always aware of the paradox of humility and sublimity in the exercise of the ministry of the Word. (Conf. Thomas Finan. Lord. The proper “scope” of scripture to build up charity. among so large a mass of entirely correct interpretations which can be elicited from those words. should rule hermeneutical discourse. but the “sublimity” of the divine mystery is celebrated throughout the Confessions: For we have not come across any other books so destructive of pride. XII . the recurring motif of scripture’s combination of altitudo and humilitas. solitary interpreter holding to a singleness of truth is revealed as an empty and boastful liar: When it is “mine alone. both for the self and for the biblical interpreter. and by destructive disputes to offend against charity itself. ’ (Is :. In your name we are baptized. as the real source of our thanksgiving—the “confession of praise” for our re-formation in the image of the Triune God (Book XIII): Proceed with your confession.’ your mercy did not abandon our misery. This is the special insight that marks the character of the hermeneutical principles adumbrated in the final books of the Confessions. Among us also in his Christ God has made a heaven and an earth. formatio chez S. “Creatio. and Holy Spirit (Matt :). imparted by doctrine.-A. repr. ). Augustin. XII . Our darkness displeased us. . :). and you said: ‘Let there be light’ (Gen :). (Conf. . Rv :). my faith. holy Lord my God. for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near’ (Mt :. M. it was ‘invisible and unorganized’ (Gn :).h-Century Latin Christian Literature access. and suddenly we ‘who were once darkness are now light in the Lord’ (Eph :). But because your ‘Spirit was borne above the waters. while the “not-yetness” of the self in the web of time (Book XI) and the incompleteness of the unformed earth/self (Book XII) are revealed. “Paradosis” (Fribourg. holy. Say to the Lord your God: ‘Holy. THE SELF.’ and ‘your judgements are like the great abyss’ (Ps :. and Holy Spirit. and we were covered by the darkness (Ps :) of ignorance. my fellow citizens and pilgrims” (X . . . n.) Book X: The Wounded Self Book X begins with a careful enunciation of the purpose of the Confessions: to encourage his readers. Son. light was created. conjoined with me in mortality.” coll. UN-FORMED AND RE-FORMED (CONFESSIONS X–XIII) The neediness and incompleteness of the human condition is a central theme in the final books of the Confessions. Son. meaning the spiritual and carnal members of his church. Vannier. Father. :). paradoxically. conversio. Father. For you ‘corrected man for his iniquity. in your name we baptize. We were converted to you (Ps :). Moreover. II. . . before our earth received form. It is this neediness that draws the Divine Physician to us (Book X). ‘Do penitence. .) to take heart through his double “confession” of praise and lament—praise to God for what Augustine him. “shareres of my joy. He embarks with this crowd of witnesses on the inner journey into “the fields and vast palaces of memory” (et venio in campos et lata praetoria memoriae. See Pierre Courcelle. ). are the distorted mirror images . You lift up the person whom you fill.). The famous cry. because I am not full of you. . I am a burden to myself. of “the eyes” (cf. .) This “confession” sets the stage for the second half of Book X. grounded in you.). to set one’s joy on you. You are the physician. . XIII . . gladness. . in the frame of  John :. Lord. X . beauty so old and so new: late have I loved you.–. But for the present. See I do not hide my wounds. Book VI). Courcelle suggests that the Soliloquies refer to the barrle against the temptations of the flesh while the De Ordine focuses on intellectual difficulties. . and the poison of curiosity are the passions of a dead soul. “See how widely I have ranged. . . and the hydra-headed manifestations of pride and ambition (“the pride of life”). Book VIII). The continuing unruliness of sense images (“of the flesh”). and culminates in the cry: “That is the authentic happy life. X . ‘Be not conformed to the world. See also Conf. Book VII) and of “the pride of life” (cf. de Boccard. “Late have I loved you. I shall never have ‘pain and toil’ (Ps :).. . then that acquired by a lifetime of learning through the liberal arts (de doctrinis liberalis.’ Rm :. and there is no other” (X .) housing three great storehouses—first that laid down by the senses (X . I am the patient. (X .–). fear and sadness” (X . searching for you in my memory” (X . .” encapsulates the wrong-headed seeking for happiness of his former life: “See you were within and I was in the external world.Augustine of Hippo  self had become by God’s grace.). and finally that laid up by the recollections of affections—the “four perturbations of the mind. This is the real thing.). and his lament over his past sinfulness.) and the principles of numbers and dimensions (X . and I was not with you. The seeking for God through the inner depths of self leads to Augustine’s reflection on the basic human drive for happiness (X . Recherches sur les Confessions de Saint Augustin (Paris: E. the difficulty of curbing the appetite for “curiositas” (“of the eyes”). .” . cupidity. But this painful introspection in terms of “woundedness” has been well prepared for in the earlier reflection on the inner self. within the rooms of the palace of memory. You were with me. an analysis of the depth of the woundedness of the human condition. the pleasures of lust. the concupiscences “of the flesh” (cf.” This leads to the final acknowledgement: When I have adhered (Ps :) to you with the whole of myself. and my entire life will be full of you. and causede by you. “The haughtiness of pride. .). who live in a multiplicity of distractions by many things. Confessions III.). O’Donnell. “distended” between past. In the very face of the vulnerability of fallen human nature.. Scholars refer to diastasis in Enneads III . and future. and leaving behind the old days I might be gathered to follow the One. the Mediator—Augustine begins Book XI with a reflection on the ministry of the Word. :) in my Lord. As Book X draws to its end.). he takes up the burden and privilege of ministry (XI . ‘Your right hand upheld me’ (Ps :. under grace. into an “extension” towards the Mediator (XI . X . Augustine draws together the multistranded discourse of Book XI: ‘Because your mercy is more than lives’ (Ps :). see how my life is a distention in several directions. As the Word. resounds in his ears in the narrative of the creation of heaven and earth. ‘forgetting the past’ and moving not towards those future things which are transitory bu to ‘the things which .h-Century Latin Christian Literature of the positive faculties of memory: the storehouse of sense perception (X . . et dexteram tuam invocavi ad salutem meam. Augustine launches into justly famous reflection on time. and of the range of human emotions (X . –. and I have invoked your right hand to save me” (ideoque considervai languores peccatorum meorum in cupiditate triplici. in the closing sections of Book XI it is not so much the abjection of neediness that is emphasized. present. the self (XI . so that ‘I might apprehend him in whom I am apprehended’ (Phil :–). through the words of scripture. See the survey of scholarship in James J. However. This emphasis on tension or distraction (distentio animi). culminating in his meditation on the self-in-time. Augustine turns to Christ. of knowing (X . X .–)..–. the ministry which he confirmed as his vocation in the closing section of Book X.).). . Book XI: The Self-in-Time Having established the human condition (existentially) as one of need—a neediness which impells a reaching out to Christ.). Rather. the divine physician: “So under three forms of lust I have considered the sickness of my sins.). for Augustine the pain of this existential awareness of being “distended” between past and future is transformed. reinforces the notion of neediness and vulnerability of the human condition established in Book X. the Son of man who is mediator between you the One and us the many. this near fracturing of self. like the shift in tone between chapters  and  of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. ) Book XII: The Two Abysses: the Self and the Scriptures While time and eternity dominate Book XI. that you made heaven and earth.” “that no experience of time can ever touch. . It is true that no experience of time can ever touch what has so close and adherence to immutable form that. . However. . .” the “heaven of heavens” and the “earth and the abyss. Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes Press. (X . “L’apport des nouveaux sermons à la christologie. it is questionable that his attention to the problems of the “truthful diversity” (XII . Marie-Anne Vannier discusses Augustine’s treatment of mutability as a source of hope in her study of one of the newly discovered sermons of Augustine (Dolbeau ). . became the center of inquiry in Book XI. so too. ). .) that becomes the preoccupation of Book XII. .” “next to nothing” (prope nihil .” Augustine a major part of Book XII to the problem of the diversity of scriptural interpretations. . XII . the inmost entrails of my soul. I flow together to merge into you. . S. not stretched out in distraction but extended in reach. Augustine is . quam fecisti de nulla re paene nullam rem. Just as the self-in-time. Lord.” Augustin Prédicateur (–) (Collection des Éditions Augustiniennes . rather than the question of eternity. (XII . . not by being pulled apart but by concentration. until that day when. heaven and earth are the focus of Book XII. In contemplating the abyss of the first day of creation. it is the potential for conversion of the “almost formless earth” that captures Augustine’s attention: It is ture. which allows it to receive form and to undergo change and modification. Madec. it undergoes no changes.) In what seems at first glance a digression from his contemplation of the two “creatures. . for all the wonderful passages devoted to the contemplation of the “heaven of heavens. It is true that every being that is formed out of that without form is itself first unformed and then formed.” it is the “unformed earth.) of scriptural interpretation is a digression.Augustine of Hippo  are before’ me. It is true that you made not only whatever is created and endowed with form but also whatever is capable of being created and receiving form. It is true that formlessness which is next to nothing (prope nihil) cannot suffer temporal successiveness. It is true that of all things with form nothing is closer to formless than earth and the abyss. The storms of incoherent things events tear to pieces my thoughts. . –. though mutable. It is true that everything mutable implies for us the notion of a kind of formlessness. purified and molten by the fire of your love. Indeed. there is the abyss of neediness and vulnerability of the human condition: “To the lower abyss he calls in the words: ‘Be not conformed to this world. Yet the depth is amazing. The second concerns the intention of the writer. On the other.) Augustine argues that the fullness of meaning intended by Moses cannot be grasped in its singleness by later interpreters. . XIII . To concentrate on it is to experience awe—the awe of adoration before its transcendence and the trembling of love” (Conf. the profound depths of scripture: “What wonderful profundity [mira profunditas] there is in your utterances! The surface meaning lies open before us and charms beginners.h-Century Latin Christian Literature logically drawn to the contemplation of another abyss. which was to benefit many expositions. is the special focus of Book XII. In fact the complexity of the truth revealed by Moses requires an unfolding in multiple interpretations: A spring confined in a small space rises with more power and distributes its flow through more channels over a wider expanse than a single stream rising from the same spring even if it flows down over many places. On the one hand. the abyss of the scriptures. using longer and more complex channels of discourse. So also the account given your minister (Moses).). while carefully orchestrated through the last books of the Confessions. It is one thing to inquire into the truth about the origin of creation. but be reformed in the newness of your mind’” (Rm :. The two “abysses”are intertwined. (XII . another that. my God. the depth is amazing. Speaking of those interpreters who refuse another’s (in this case Augustine’s!) interpretation he comments: . The “depth” of the scriptures has the practical result of affecting the very mode of scriptural discourse: I see that two types of disagreements can arise when something is recorded by truthful reporters using signs. one this way.) The point is that truth cannot be “grasped” or possessed in a single unfaltering glance (at least in the human condition). From this each commentator. . The first concerns the truth of the matter in question. The presence of “the abyss” is palpable throughout the Confessions. neither can it be possessed by the individual interpreter. XII . (XII . Conf. with all its diversity and multiplicity. uses a small measure of words to pour out a spate of clear truth.). Thomas Finan. a distinguished servant of your faith. to the best of his ability in these things may draw what is true. It is another to ask what understanding of the words on the part of the readere and hearer was intended by Moses. In a similar inversion (or conversion).) necessitates a multiplicity of true interpretations.). They have no knowledge of Moses’ opinion at all. or to the individual at different stages of life. not because it is theirs.” (XII . ranging from the “almost nothingness” of the earth on Day One to the “re-formation” of the human being in the image and likeness of God in Day Six. I will see the ‘salvation of my face’ (Ps :–). This “earth” —which is us (as he claims)—is called from “almost nothingness” in Book XII to fruitful multiplicity in Book XIII (XIII . so that the word of scripture can nourish both the simple and the sophisicated. (XII .). you were. For in his mercy he was ‘borne above’ the dark and fluid state. your good fire. Yet the depth is amazing. just as I respect what they say when their affirmation is true. The tone of thanksgiving is maintained as Augustine reflects on the Trinity: “Behold. and Holy Spirit.). We climb ‘the ascents in our heart’ (Ps :). XIII . the Trinity. which goes before all that you made me to be. XII . ‘who shall vivify even our mortal bodies through the Spirit who dwells in us’ (Rm :).) Book XIII: The Human Condition as a Pilgrim State Book XIII begins with a prayer of thanksgiving: “Before I existed. Son. creator of all creation” (XIII . Conf. as we move upwards ‘to the peace of Jerusalem’” (Ps :. but because it is true. and I had no being to which you could grant existence. and all out of which you made me” (XIII . not because it is true. There is a constant imagery of our life as pilgrimage: In the morning I will stand up and contemplate you. but because they are proud. This prayer continues in the contemplation of the Spirit: “By your gift we are sest on fire and carried upwards: we grown red hot and ascent. my God. or can be adjusted to the needs of the community as a whole. the very “privation” of the words of Genesis (parvo sermonis modulo. but because it is their own. Lit by your fire.) It is significant that Augustine has set this careful reflection about hermeneutical theory and exegetical practice in the context of a complex meditation on the Six Days of Creation. In other words: “The surface meaning lies open before us and charms beginners.). Father. Nevertheless here I am as a result of your goodness. which was our . but love their own opinion. we grow red-hot and ascent. my God. Otherwise they equally respect another true interpretation as valid.Augustine of Hippo  They do not say this to me because they possess second sight and have seen in the heart of your servant (Moses) the meaning which they assert. Conf. and sing ‘the song of steps’ (Ps :). . They have no need to look up to this firmament and to read so as to know your word. They ‘ever see your face’ (Mt :) and there. .) In Book XIII the human condition. . You have set them in order above this firmament which you established to be above the weak who are on a lower level (super infirmitatem inferiorum populorum) so that they could look up and know your mercy. I will not turn away until in that peace of this dearest mother. XIII . So too is the process of interpretation an ongoing ecclesial “colloquy”: both the self and the biblical interpretation share the same pilgrim status. From him during this wandering pilgrimage. we have received an assurance that we are already light (Eph :).) However. I believe. XI. immortal and kept from corruption. groaning with inexpressible groanings (Rm :) on my wanderer’s path. “I will enter my chamber” (Mt :) and I will sing you songs of love. ‘my God my mercy’ (XII . By choosing and loving they read the immutability of your design. or as Augustine phrases it. (Conf. . Let the peoples above the heavens. the “weak who are on a lower level. Their codex is never closed. Everywhere creation is filled with God’s “multitudes. praise you. In a paradox that Augustine would appreciate. They are both marked by a fragility.h-Century Latin Christian Literature inward condition. the City of God: There are. you gather all that I am from my dispersed and distorted state to reshape and strengthen me forever. Multiplicity is announced as a mark of the goodness of creation. without syllables requiring time to pronounce.” is contrasted with the fullness of the apprehension of truth of the happy citizens of the heaven of heavens. XIII . they choose.). The process of conversion as a life-long pilgrimage to the Sabbath rest of the Holy City.). Let them praise your name (Ps :–). nor is their book ever folded shut. XIII . and XII. announcing in time what you had made in time. (Conf. they read what your eternal will intends. and remembering Jerusalem my mother. your angels. They read. they love.” this incapacity to attain to the whole of truth in a single angelic glance. an incompleteness which is the human condition. just as In Books X. so too in the final book of the Confessions there is a transfiguration of a privation into a blessing. . abundance and increase” with the voices of your messengers (ministers of the Word) “flying above the earth in the open firmament of your book . They ever read and what they read never passes away. It is this very “weakness. their words sounding to the ends of the earth” (Conf. that is transposed into blessing. where are the first-fruits of my spirit (Rm :) and the source of my certainties. . For you yourself are a book to them and you are ‘for eternity’ (Ps :). other waters above this firmament. But there is a very real distinction between a “limitation” and a “negation.Augustine of Hippo  the phase of his ministry that is most marked by his newfound mastery of biblical interpretation is also the phase where he fully assumes the limitations of hermeneutics. and the truth. the man Christ Jesus’ ( Tim :). higher than the superior parts of your creation. healing their swelling and nourishing their love. (VII . . and it is the awareness of neediness and vulnerability that is foundational in the process of conversion. In the inferior parts he built for himself a humble house of our clay. the humble Jesus. you know immutably. They see at their feet divinity become weak by his sharing in our ‘coats of skin’ (Gn :). in that ‘the Word was made flesh’ (John :) so that our infant condition might come to suck milk from your wisdom by which you created all things. it is the lowly access to salvation modelled and incarnated by the Word of God: I sought a way to obtain strength enough to enjoy you. To possess my God. They are no longer to place confidence in themselves.) is the precious first gift of the Creator to the “almost formless earth” through which the selfin-time strains forward towards the “Self-Same” the Immutable One: To know you as you are in an absolute sense is for you alone. raises those submissive to him to himself.” An awareness of a limitation is an awareness of a need. I did not know what his weakness was meant to teach. eternal truth. but did not find it until I embraced the mediator between God and man. “I sought a way to obtain strength enough to enjoy you. You are immutably. ‘I am the way. He called and said. . I was not yet humble enough. The restless angst of the human condition (Conf.” Conversion is the turning of the self towards God. but rather to become weak. ‘who is above all things. . God blessed forever’ (Rm :). I . The food which I was too weak to accept he mingled with flesh. and in the very turning from self-sufficiency is the discovery that the multiple. but I did not find it until I embraced ‘the mediator between God and man. and the life’ (John :). In theological terms. In your sight it does not seem right that the kind of self-knowledge possessed by unchangeable light should also be possessed by changeable existence . In their weakness they fall prostrate before this divine weakness which rises and lifts them up.) Augustine tells us clearly that in his own journey towards conversion he had discovered that self-sufficiency is the antithesis of conversion. you will immutably. Your Word. By this he detaches from themselves those who are to be made his subjects and carries them across to himself. fractured self is transfigured in the image and likeness of the Godhead whom one sees at one’s feet. or rather a re-turning to the Father. THE WORD MADE FLESH: THE CHRISTOLOGICAL FRAME OF HERMENEUTICS It is hardly surprising that the principles that govern the interpretation of scripture elaborated in the Confessions are informed by Augustine’s central Christological insight of the humility of the Word made Flesh. XIII . so too the Incarnate Word assumes the limitations of the human condition. Notre Dame. soul.: University of Notre Dame Press. like the Prodigal Son. while he who has ascended a certain way may be edified by the “soul” as it were of scripture. and spirit with the three “senses” of scripture: The individual ought then to portray the ideas of holy scripture in a threefold manner upon his own soul. Augustine is not the first to draw together hermeneutics and anthropology. . he makes no attempt to elaborate a hermeneutical discussion of the “senses” of scripture in an anthropological frame. III. for so we name the obvious sense. Albert Verwilghen. In the fourth book of the Peri Archon. –.’ (Conf. ‘For with your is the fountain of life. so in the same way does scripture which has been arranged to be given by God for the salvation of men (IV ). And so my soul is ‘like waterless land before you’ (Ps :). in order that the simple man may be edified by the “flesh” as it were of the scripture. whose presence haunts every stage of the narrative of the Confessions.” Augustine and the Bible (ed.h-Century Latin Christian Literature which receives light. ). For just as man consists of body and soul and spirit. but in the Confessions Augustine’s focus is . just as it has no power to illuminate itself. “Jesus Christ: Source of Christian Humility. though Augustine also links anthropology and hermeneutics in the last books of the Confessions. These technical questions had received masterly attention in the second and third books of De doctrina christiana. The perfect man. The Bible Through the Ages. Ind. again . . Just as the Word in scripture is adapted to the human condition.) The self that is not self-sufficient is the self that is oriented in a turning. .’ and so also it is ‘in your light’ that ‘we shall see light. Origen of Alexandria links the threefold anthrology of body. Bright. (may receive edification) from the spiritual law. . P. However. the partial knowing. ‘It does not yet appear what we shall be’ ( John :). SELF.). This reflection on the partialness of our knowing is in the context of the establishment of the firmament on the second day of creation. James J. Robert Detweiler. we shall be like him as he is’ ( John :). the “notyetness” of the full understanding of scripture that captures his attention.” is an analogy for the “firmness” of the authority of scripture. XIII . Augustine’s Confessions I. Typically. The new horizons of hermeneutics of our times have focused attention on the self and selfdisclosure in language and in community. It is the fragility. ‘As he is’ Lord will be ours to see. (Conf. “Hölderlin and the Essence of Poetry. AND THE SCRIPTURES Just as a new awareness of self in modern thought has given rise to a new hermeneutical awareness. but on the ambiguity of the human condition itself. and in full recognition that the scriptures themselves share the mutability of the human condition. ). . . The words of scripture are adjusted to the human condition in the same way that the Eternal Word “looked out through the lattice” of the flesh: For although we are beloved by your Son. Sign and Self (Philadelphia: Fortress. :. nor is it some secret knowledge to be wrested from a hiding place. Augustine’s genius left its imprint both on the understanding of the self and on that Selfto-self disclosure that is Word of God in human words. See the discussion on “being” and “discourse. so too at the end of the fourth century. Conf. It is neither an objective knowledge to be wielded as a weapon. The firmament. Story. Robert Detweiler refers to an essay written by Martin Heidegger in .) IV.Augustine of Hippo  not on textual ambiguity as an exegetical question. this “firm” overarching structure marking the limits between the “waters above” and the “waters below. but it is not yet given to us. stretched over our lives. ‘But when he appears. It has to be approached humbly. O’Donnell. Yet the “firmness” of this authority does not imply something material to be grasped or possessed. “Now your word appears to us in the ‘enigmatic obscurity’ of clouds and through the ‘mirror’ of heaven” ( Cor :. ‘He looked through the lattice’ of our flesh and caressed us and set us on fire.” Heidegger quotes from an unfinished poem of Hölderlin: . ). and we run after his perfume (Cant :. . Augustine proposes a paradox. COMMUNITY. XXX .” xvii. ). . as I allow.” Community demands communication. sed laudatores libri Geneseos. Rather it is an affirmation of the limiting conditions that call us to acknowledge that the human condition is. fount of truth—if truth is what we are thirsting after and not vanity. Many of the heavenly ones has he named. what I say. why not believe that Moses discerned all these things? For through him the one God has tempered the sacred books to the interpretatoins of the many. Certainly. perceive and affirm that these texts contain various truths. which in turn requires the constant exercise of interpretation.” is a beautiful echo of Augustine’s own understanding of the insufficiency of the self.). Since we have been a conversation And have been able to hear from one another. and finally to recognize their common ministry as laudatores. . XII . “since we have been a conversation. societal—“since we have been a conversation. Ecce autem alii non reprehensores. particularly but not exclusively in the last books of the Confessions of a multiplicity of true interpretations. The poet’s affirmation of the self in community. rather than give a quite explicit statement of a single true view of this question in such a way as to exclude . giving praise together (even through differing interpretations) in the community of the church: May all of us who. XII . to make a bold declaration from my heart. call for a dialogic mode of hermeneutics so that contradictores (Conf. if I myself were to be writing something at this supreme level of authority I would choose to write so that my words would sound out with whatever diverse truth in these matters each reader was able to grasp. those who are in conversation with each other. . show love to one another. if both are true?’ And if anyone sees a third or fourth and a further truth in these words. This affirmation of the insufficiency of the self is far from just another grim tally sheet of what is miserable about the human condition. and equally may we love you our God. So when one person has said ‘Moses thought what I say’ and another ‘No. as base. The hermeneutical principles developed by Augustine. can become con-loquitors.’ I think it more religious in spirit to say ‘Why not rather say both. those who disagree. who could come to see a diversity of truths. “this diversity of true views” (Conf.h-Century Latin Christian Literature Much has man learnt. . measured in the syllables of time. to enter into the inner recesses of self. it is the nature of interpretation. but in calling the interpreter of scripture to a conversion in the very exercise of hermeneutics.). the scriptures call for a community of interpreters. and to welcome diversity of opinion as a richness. known. The ministry of the Word. * * * . or better. this dialogic mode would subject the interpretive process to an austere critical reflection. The self is not self-sufficient. “Deep” still “calls to deep” (Ps :. It is a very special call to humility in a deep awareness of the frailty and limitations. the truth of scriptures is not to be apprehended in a single. and the scriptures. both assuming and transforming the human condition. At the same time. What Augustine says of the power of memory—the inmost recesses of self—in Book X can be transposed to describe the scriptures: “an awe-inspiring mystery. XII .). XII . immutable moment of understanding. To stand in the presence of oneself.). Both the self. X . is to approach mystery.–. (Conf. is a double-edged sword (Ps :. a power of profound and infinite multiplicity. From such a perspective. as self-in-time.Augustine of Hippo  other views—provided there was no false doctrine to offend me. the “not-yetness” of human knowledge and understanding. Conf. beyond full knowledge. Conf. It is a balanced process acknowledging a diversity of gifts and encouraging a generous responsiveness to the demands of ministry of the Word and at the same time exercising an uncompromising passion for the truth of scripture. It is characterized by diversity. the abyss of scriptures is a constant image in the Confessions. like scripture itself. utterly immeasurable” (Conf. “diverse” and yet “true” that establishes the proper mode of exegetical discourse as ecclesial and dialogic.) in not only calling the community to conversion. partly known. my God. hermeneutics in the ecclesial community is to be governed by the scope of scripturewhich is to build up the community in love (not to divide by hubris). However. The interpretation of scripture is inextricably linked with the human condition. The self is mutable. by life of many forms. XIII . stand at the brink of mystery which can be accessed only in the company of the lowly Word-made-flesh. The properly partial and refracted mode of knowing in our human condition is what draws us together and therefore establishes our need for each other in both church and human society.