7/27/2019 Kamimura.2010 Sp49

1/6

1 See Marie-Anne Vannier, Creatio, Conversio, Formatio chez s. Augustin (Fribourg,1991), 83-94; Gilles Pelland, Augustin rencontre le livre de la Gense, in: De Genesi contra mani-chaeos De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus liber imperfectus di Agostino dIppona

(Palermo, 1992), 15-53; Yoon Kyung Kim,Augustines Changing Interpretations of Genesis 1-3(Lewiston, 2006), 4-7.2 See Roland J. Teske, The Image and Likeness of God in St. Augustines De Genesi ad lit-

teram liber imperfectus: Aug (1990) 441-51; Bronwen Neil, Exploring the Limits of LiteralExegesis: Augustines Reading of Gen 1:26: Pacifica 19 (2006) 144-55, 148 n. 21.

3 For the incompleteness ofGn. litt. inp., see Roland J. Teske, Saint Augustine on Genesis,FC 84 (1991), 36-9; Marcello Marin, Il De genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber, in: De Genesicontra manichaeos De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus liber imperfectus (1992), 118f.;Edmund Hill, On Genesis, in: John E. Rotelle et al. (eds.), The Works of Saint Augustine I/13(New York, 2002), 110f.; Pierre Monat et al. (eds.), Sur le Gense contre les manichens; Sur laGense au sens littral livre inachev, BA 50 (Paris, 2004), 387-92.

4 retr. 1.18, FC 60 (1968), transl. Mary Inez Bogan, 77.5 retr. 1.18, FC 60, 77.

Augustines Scriptural Exegesis inDe Genesi ad

litteram liber unus inperfectus

Naoki Kamimura, Tokyo

Introduction

During about forty years of his writing career Augustine endeavoured to write

commentaries on Genesis at least five times.1 He started writing the second ofthese,De Genesi ad litteram liber unus inperfectus (= Gn. litt. inp.), around 393,after his ordination to the priesthood. InRetractationes (= retr.), 1.18, Augustinedescribes at length the origin and end of his first literal exegesis of the six daysof Creation. When he undertook a literal reading in Gn. litt. inp., he foundhimself still inexperienced. It is at the very point that he was working his wayup to Gen. 1:26 that he gave up his plan.2

Little attention has been focused on this work. It has been eclipsed by hiscomprehensive commentary,De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (= Gn. litt.)(401-15).3 For Augustine advised his readers to read the twelve books that I

composed much later4

in order to judge what he found himself dissatisfied within the unfinished commentary. When he was revising his minor works in retr.,he found it among them and hesitated over whether to destroy it. Why can weread the commentary? Of course, it is because he did not abandon it. In 427 hefinally complemented and published it: I decided to keep it so that it mightserve as evidence, useful in my opinion, of my first attempts to explain andsearch into the divine Scriptures.5 Although for Augustines early views on

7/27/2019 Kamimura.2010 Sp49

2/6

230 N. Kamimura

6 retr. 1.18, FC 60, 76.7 See John J. OMeara, The Creation of Man in St. Augustines De Genesi ad Litteram (Vil-

lanova, 1980), 14.8 retr. 1.18, FC 60, 76.9 See retr. 1.18.

Genesis we must take to his first literal exegesis, is there any other significantfeature of the unfinished commentary? Does it only fall short of his considered

views in the later commentary?In this paper I first examine Augustines bilateral commitment to the expla-

nation of a literal exegesis in his works. Next I explore Augustines way of expo-sition in Gn. litt. inp. Finally I shall argue the significance of his first literalinterpretation.

1. Augustines commitment to a literal interpretation

As he relates in retr. 1.18, when Augustine began writing Gn. litt. inp., he

seemed to appreciate the importance of the difference between the exegeticalmethod of his present commentary and that of his former one, De Genesiaduersus Manicheos (= Gn. adu. Man.), which was written about four or fiveyears before at the monastic community in Thagaste. In Gn. adu. Man. Augustineintends to explain the words of Scripture according to their allegorical mean-ing, not presuming to explain such great mysteries of natural things literally.6Although at that time a literal interpretation could not avoid the serious dangerwith which the Manichaeans condemn the ordinary believers of the Catholicfaith to accept what they consider blasphemy,7 he would rather have recourseto an allegorical way of reading. He would not admit that Gn. adu. Man. ends

in failure.With regard to Gn. litt. inp., Augustine considers it as a challenging pro-gramme for his ability: In what sense the statements there made can beinterpreted according to their historical signification I wanted to test mycapabilities in this truly most taxing and difficult work.8 At the point wherehe exerts himself to comment on Gen. 1:26, he would not resort to an alle-gorical way of reading. Instead the commentary remains incomplete. It can thusbe seen how in Gn. litt. inp. the literal interpretation comes to be more highlydemanded and more closely linked to his understanding of Genesis story ratherthan being in conflict with it. Augustine firmly adheres to its exegetical methodin Gn. litt. inp.

The title words of the commentary, ad litteramalso reveal a higher con-sciousness of his method-centred approach. At the time of publishing it, Augus-tine determined its title should beDe Genesi ad litteram inperfectus.9 However,nowhere in the commentary does Augustine mention the words ad litteram.

7/27/2019 Kamimura.2010 Sp49

3/6

Augustines Scriptural Exegesis inDe Genesi ad litteram liber unus inperfectus 231

10 Gn. adu. Man. 2.2.3, FC 84, 95.11De utilitate credendi 3.9,Library of Christian Classics 6 (London, 1953), 298. As to another

examples of Augustines critical assessment, see also De moribus ecclesiae catholicae 1.10.17;Confessiones 5.14.24; 6.4.6;De sermone domini in monte 1.10.26;Enarrationes in Psalmos 33.1.7;33.2.14.

12 See Gn. litt. 2.9.22; 8.1.2; 8.1.4; 8.2.5; 8.4.8; 11.1.2; 11.2.4.13 Gn. litt. inp. 2.5, FC 84, 147. As to the possible sources of this quadripartite method, see

Angelo Penna, SantAgostino, La Genesi I, NBA 9/1 (Rome, 1988), LXI-LXV; R. J. Teske, FC 84,

And he never makes clear what he defines by such a phrase. Why did he choosethe heading?

Apart from such lexical deficiency, what evidence is there for his view of theliteral interpretation around 393? It must be understood that his evaluation ofa literal reading has been consistently negative. Reading texts ad litteram isdefined as to understand it exactly as the letter sounds.10 And if anyone wantsto take what is said, there is nothing more pernicious than to take whateveris there literally (ad litteram).11 Augustine explicitly states his objection to theexposition.

Other crucial texts are found in Gn. litt. Augustine repeatedly stresses theneed for discovering the literal meaning of texts.12 Although he does not denythat the meaning intended by the author has an allegorical as well as a literal

sense, he is primarily concerned with the literal interpretation. Augustinescreative devotion to a literal reading moves away from his early view. It wouldcorrespond to what his small commentary is finally entitled, De Genesi adlitteram inperfectus. Hence, I suggest even tentatively that the literal expositionin Gn. litt. inp. would comprise another aspect of signification which differsfrom that of his other early works. For in the small commentary Augustineundoubtedly offers a literal reading for twenty five verses, and he would call itthe ad litteram exegesis later in retr. Before promoting the importance of aliteral reading, Augustine seems to have appreciated it. If already in Gn. litt.inp. he regards it as necessary and useful, what does he consider to be its char-acteristics and how does he refer to it?

2. Exegetical method inDe Genesi ad litteram liber unus inperfectus

In Gn. litt. inp. Augustine never mentions the words ad litteram. On the otherhand, he offers us four manners of expounding the Scriptures.

Four ways of expounding the Law are handed down by certain men who treat theScriptures in accord with history, allegory, analogy, and etiology. It is a matter ofhistory when deeds done whether by men or by God are reported. It is a matter ofallegory when things spoken in figures are understood. It is a matter of analogy, when

the conformity of the Old and New Testament is shown. It is a matter of etiology whenthe causes of what is said or done are reported.13

7/27/2019 Kamimura.2010 Sp49

4/6

232 N. Kamimura

32 n. 60; M. Marin, I l De genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber (1992), 123-7; Martine Dulaey,Lapprentissage de lexgse biblique par Augustin (3): Annes 393-394: REAug 51 (2005)22-6.

14 See also Gn. litt. 1.1.1; 1.17.34; 6.21.32; 8.1.2; 8.1.4; 8.4.8; 8.5.9; 8.7.13; 9.12.20; 9.12.22;9.14.24; 9.16.30; 11.31.41; 11.34.45; 11.39.52; 11.41.57.

We find here the idea that, despite its uniqueness in his corpus except in Deutilitate credendi 3.5, the way of reading in accord with history (secundum

historiam) attempts to make sense of what is done (res gesta) and narrated:Augustine has been mostly applying the secundum historiam to the texts ofGenesis. It is noteworthy that this exposition interprets the sentence whichprovides a narrative account, not a single word which consists of articulatedand letter sounds. Whether the word is linked to a particular thing and/or to atransferred sign, its meaning would be conferred by a word-giver, except formishearing, misunderstanding, and the like. However, none of the words canexpress ones thought as a mental activity. A diverse combination would ratherserve as a starting point for ones thought. This exposition thus should not beconfused with the ad litteram method which intends to understand it exactly

as the letter sounds.It is not only in Gn. litt. inp. that the phrase res gesta occurs. It is an expres-sion which is often mentioned in Gn. litt., applied to the account of events andhistorical facts.14

In all the sacred books, we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the factsthat are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels thatare given. In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether every-thing must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must beexpounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened (res gesta).15

This view of the literal interpretation corresponds to the exposition in Gn. litt.

inp. referred to above. The idea that the literal interpretation should be designedfor the sentence which reports the narrative of events and deeds done wouldhelp to pave our way towards the identification of the exposition with the literalexegesis in Gn. litt. At this point I suggest that Augustines literal reading inGn. litt. inp. is a pioneering effort which cannot be paralleled by the ad litte-ram exegesis in his other early works.

In his list of four ways of exposition stated above, Augustine first speaks ofthe method according to history (secundum historiam) and then, in turn, givesan explanation of history (historia). After offering us the historical interpreta-tion, he does not go on to explain the mode of exposition from the viewpointof its meaning. Augustine changes the direction of his description: he would

rather make his way towards a definition of history. He makes an easy transi-tion from one idea to the next: the one is to clarify that the Scriptures includedifferent kinds of things, and the other is that there are different modes ofexposition. What effect does this easy move have?

7/27/2019 Kamimura.2010 Sp49

5/6

Augustines Scriptural Exegesis inDe Genesi ad litteram liber unus inperfectus 233

15 Gn. litt. 1.1.1, ACW 41 (1982), transl. John Taylor, 19. See also Gn. litt. 8.1.4.16 See Robert A. Markus, Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St Augustine

(Cambridge, 1970), 187-96.17 Gn. litt. 8.1.2, ACW 42, 33.18 SeeDe ciuitate dei 15.8.1; 16.2.3; 18.40.

The transition seems to raise an interesting question. Its move clearly revealsthe connection between the content of the Scriptures and their expositions and

that within the Scriptures there are different kinds of texts.16 Along with pro-viding the connection, some of the Scriptures treated as history are explainedfrom the viewpoint of its historical exposition. Although in his commentary onGen. 1:1 Augustine would equally refer to different modes of interpretation,then he turns to treat the following passages only in terms of its historicalexegesis. Such an effort enables us to assume that Augustine defines Genesisas history. The conception of history thus serves as the ground on which theexposition in Gn. litt. inp. has rested.

However, despite his notion of history, Augustine does not think it neces-sary for scriptural exposition to fix the bond between the texts and their expo-

sition later in Gn. litt.The narrative in these books [Genesis] is not written in a literary style proper to alle-gory, as in the Canticle of Canticles, but from beginning to end in a style proper tohistory, as in the Books of Kings and the other works of that type. But since thosehistorical books contain matters familiar to us from common human experience, theyare easily and readily taken in a literal sense at the first reading, so that the meaningof the historical events in relation to the future may also be subsequently drawn fromthem. But in Genesis, since there are matters beyond the ken of readers who focus theirgaze on the familiar course of nature, they are unwilling to have these matters takenin the literal sense but prefer to understand them in a figurative sense.17

Augustine is still saying that there are different types of texts in the Scriptures.And he clearly admits that the Genesis story is written in a style proper tohistory. Notwithstanding the difficulty of finding a literal sense, he stressesthe necessity of finding both the literal and figurative sense in Genesis. Thus,his emphasis on the modes of exposition would allow him to loosen the con-nection between them: these books could be simultaneously explained in termsof both past-oriented and future-oriented exegesis. This means Augustinecomes close to saying that this division of texts would not function as the basisfor exegesis. More interested in the possibility of reading the Scriptures eitherfrom the viewpoint of their historical or figurative sense, he will be less inter-ested in distinguishing the different kinds of texts.18 Augustine is feeling his

way towards another conception of texts: if scriptural texts could be less rigidlyconfined to past and future events, they would come to be mutually mergedand be almost synonymous.

7/27/2019 Kamimura.2010 Sp49

6/6

234 N. Kamimura

19 See R.J. Teske, The Image and Likeness of God (1990), 447-9.

3. Conclusion

Augustines first literal reading ofGenesis was not completed. It seems reason-able to suppose that he faced some difficulties in providing a literal reading.19At the same time, I indicate another reason: it exists within his view of theaspect of scriptural texts. Although he has already started attempting a literalreading which would anticipate the historical mode of exposition developedlater in Gn. litt., Augustine has not yet worked out the idea of the double aspectof the Scriptures. At the time when he started attempting his first literal read-ing, Augustine could not open himself to the possibility of expounding theScriptures as both according to history and according to allegory. However, hisliteral exposition has already realised its essential characteristics in Gn. litt. inp.

It is the significance and impact of the small commentary.