Saint Louis University The Graduate School

Dissertation Project

Student’s Name:

Yoon Kyung Kim

Major Field: Historical Theology Degree Sought: Ph.D.

Student’s Advisor/Mentor: Kenneth B. Steinhauser

I. Title

Augustine’s Progress in Interpreting Genesis 1-3From De Genesi contra Manichaeos To De Genesi ad litteram

2

II. Problem

A. Introduction

Augustine had a special interest in the subject of creation. He wrote five commentaries on

the opening chapters (1-3) of Genesis over a period of three decades. At first, in 388/389, after

his returning to Africa and before his ordination to the priesthood, he composed De Genesi

contra Manichaeos, in which he interpreted the creation stories mainly in spiritual and

allegorical sense against the Manichees’ ultra literal interpretation. Secondly, between 393-395,

he tried to offer a literal interpretation of Genensis 1-3 in De Genesi ad litteram liber unus

imperfectus. But, he gave up this literal interpretation “under the weight of so heavy a load”

before he finished one book.1 Thirdly, he presented a figurative interpretation in the last three

Books (XI-XIII) of Confessiones (397-401). Fourthly, between 401-416, he wrote De Genesi ad

litteram, in which he interpreted the creation stories, “not according to the allegorical

significance, but according to historical events proper.”2 Finally, he turned again to the opening

chapters of Genesis in Book XI of De civitate Dei written around 416/7.3

It is not hard to find out how rich these commentaries are in various doctrines such as

theology, anthropology, cosmology and history. Also, these commentaries are important sources

for the study of Augustine’s hermeneutic and exegesis, not only because each commentary has

its own exegetical features, but also, more importantly, because these commentaries show how

significantly Augustine progressed in his exegetical theory and practice.

1 Augustine, Retractationes I.18, Translation from Mary Inez Bogan in The Fathers of the Church

(hereafter, FC) 60.2 Augustine, Retractationes II.50. FC 60, 168-9.3 For the origins and dates of the commentaries, see Allan Fitzgerald, ed. Augustine through the Ages: An

encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), Roland J. Teske, “Introduction” in Saint Augustine on Genesis, FC84, and Edmund Hill, “Introduction” in On Genesis, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st

Century (hereafter, WSA) I/13.

3

This dissertation examines Augustine’s progress in interpreting the opening chapters of

Genesis. More exactly, the dissertation investigates and compares Augustine’s two

commentaries: De Genesi contra Manichaeos, his first scriptural exegesis, and De Genesi ad

litteram, the final and monumental version in his exploration of the opening chapters of Genesis.

The point of this dissertation is to show how his exegesis progressed in these two commentaries

in relation to his understanding of literal and figurative interpretation and his concept of history

and scripture.

B. Augustine’s own View of his Progress

At the end of the prologue in Retractationes Augustine writes,

Let those, therefore, who are going to read this book not imitate me when I err, but ratherwhen I progress toward the better. For, perhaps, one who reads my works in the order inwhich they were written will find out how I progressed while writing.4

As Augustine himself proclaims, he progressed and developed from his earlier works to his later

works in various ways and levels. His exegetical theory and practice are not an exception.

Roland Teske emphasizes the importance of the earlier commentaries, De Genesi contra

Manichaeos and De Genesis ad litteram liber unus, as an indicator of Augustine’s progress.5 In

fact, after re-examining it for revision, Augustine decided to keep De Genesis ad litteram liber

unus as evidence of his first attempts to explain and search into the divine Scriptures.6

Augustine’s own testimony of his progress in interpreting the opening chapters of

Genesis is found in De Genesi ad litteram. He writes,

Now at that time it had not yet dawned on me how everything in them could be taken inits proper literal sense; it seemed to me rather that this was scarcely possible, if at all, andanyhow extremely difficult. So in order not to be held back, I explained with what brevity

4 Augustine, Retractationes, Prologue, 3.5 Teske, “Introduction,” 37-8.6 Augustine, Retractationes, I.18.

4

and clarity I could muster what those things, for which I was not able to find a suitableliteral meaning, stood for in a figurative sense. Bearing in mind, however, what I reallywanted but could not manage, that everything should first of all be understood in itsproper, not its figurative sense, . . .7

After recalling what he wrote at the beginning of the second book of De Genesi contra

Manichaeos, he continues,

Now, however, it has pleased the Lord that after taking a more thorough and consideredlook at these matters, I should reckon (and not, I think, idly) that I am able to demonstratehow all these things were written straightforwardly in the proper, not the allegoricalmode.8

Interpreting the account of Paradise in De Genesi ad litteram, Augustine apologizes and

evaluates his former exegesis in De Genesi contra Manichaeos. Here, Augustine admits that he

could not offer a literal interpretation though he wanted to in De Genesi contra Manichaeos. But,

now he thinks that he is equipped with the ability to interpret the text in a proper and literal

sense. He himself views the ability to interpret the creation stories literally as progress.

It is clear that Augustine shows a certain progress in his exegeses of Genesis 1-3. Then

what is this progress like? The progress is not simply from the allegorical interpretation in De

Genesi contra Manichaeos to the literal and proper interpretation in De Genesi ad litteram. This

progress cannot be simply explained or classified, since it is closely related with his other

concepts of literal/figurative interpretation, history, and scripture, which are also changed or

developed during the period of his writing career.

7 Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, VIII.2.5. Translation from Edmund Hill in WSA.8 Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, VIII.2.5

5

C. Augustine’s Understanding of Literal/Figurative Interpretation

Augustine’s use of the key terms for hermeneutic and exegesis such as “ad litteram,”

“historia,” “similitudo,” “allegoria,” and “figura” is erratic and inconsistent, which causes some

difficulty in studying his exegesis.9 Augustine does not offer a consistent definition of literal and

figurative interpretation. Also his view on distinction and relationship between literal and

figurative interpretation changes from his earlier to later commentaries.

In De Genesi contra Manichaeos, Augustine does not give a clear explanation of what he

does mean by literal interpretation. He seems to have a very strict definition of literal

interpretation.10 He considers literal interpretation as “tak[ing] everything that is said here

absolutely literally.”11 His understanding of figurative interpretation is quite comprehensive. At

first, he seems to regard figurative interpretation as almost synonymous with spiritual

interpretation.12 To interpret the image of God as referring to the internal man where reason and

intelligence are found is a spiritual or figurative interpretation, since “in the Catholic school of

doctrine the faithful who have a spiritual understanding do not believe that God is circumscribed

in a bodily shape.”13 That is, figurative interpretation includes dealing with spiritual or

incorporeal things beyond what the letter sounds like. Figurative interpretation also means to

interpret a text as prefiguring something to come. For example, to interpret the seven days of

creation as prefiguring the seven ages of human history is a figurative interpretation.14 Augustine

writes,

If, however, no other way is available of reaching an understanding of what is writtenthat is religious and worthy of God, except by supposing that it has all been set before us

9 For Augustine’s usage of these terms, see Robert W. Bernard, “In figura: Terminology Pertaining to

Figurative Exegesis in the Works of Augustine of Hippo,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, 1985.10 See Teske, “Introduction,” 17.11 Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos, II.2.3.12 For example, De Genesi Contra Manichaeos, I.17.28; I.19.30.13 Augustine, De Genesi Contra Manichaeos, I.17.28.14 Augustine, De Genesi Contra Manichaeos, I.23.35-I.24.42.

6

in a figurative sense and in riddles, we have the authority of the apostles for doing this,seeing that they solved so many riddles in the books of the Old Testament in thismanner.15

Here Augustine suggests applying figurative interpretation for those passages which cannot be

interpreted literally in accordance with the rule of faith.16 After suggesting this criterion for

figurative interpretation, he interprets the greenery of the field and the fodder in Gen. 2:5 as the

invisible creature like the soul, and the spring coming up from the earth in Gen. 2:6 as the flood

of truth drenching the soul before sin.17

In De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus, Augustine writes,

So about these words, In the beginning God made heaven and earth, one may inquirewhether they are only to taken in an historical sense, or whether they also have somefigurative meaning, and how they agree with the gospel, and what the cause is of thisbook’s beginning in this way. As regards the historical sense, we ask what in thebeginning means; that is, whether it is in the beginning of time, or in the beginning, in thevery Wisdom of God, because the Son of God actually called himself the beginning. . .18

At first, this passage shows a change in the relationship between literal and figurative

interpretation. The question is whether a text can be interpreted only in a literal sense or in both a

literal and figurative sense, rather than whether a text should be interpreted in a literal or

figurative sense. It is also clear that Augustine’s notion of literal (or historical) sense is different

from that in De Genesi contra Manichaeos, that is, a superficial and verbal understanding of the

letter. The meaning of literal interpretation is so broadened that it includes “the metaphysical

content of what the Bible is saying.”19 In this work, interpreting the image of God, Augustine

simply writes, “we are quite right, therefore, to take the words, let us make man to our image and

15 Augustine, De Genesi Contra Manichaeos, II.2.3.16 For Augustine’s criteria for figurative interpretation in De Genesi contra Manichaeos and De doctria

Christiana, see Roland Teske, “Criteria for Figurative Interpretation in St. Augustine,” in De doctrina christiana: AClassic of Western Culture, ed. Duane Arnold and Pamela Bright (Notre Dame and London: University of NotreDame Press, 1995), 109-122

17 Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos, II.3.4-6.7.18 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus, 3.6.19 Hill, “Introduction,” 109.

7

likeness, that is, as referring to the mind.”20 He regards this interpretation as literal, not as

spiritual or figurative as in De Genesi contra Manichaeos.

In De Genesi ad litteram, Augustine presents a different view on literal and figurative

interpretation. He writes,

So if we take it like this, the making of evening would seem to signify the sin of rationalcreatures, while the making of morning would mean their restoration.But this is an interpretation on the lines of prophetic allegory, which is not what we haveundertaken in this work. We undertook, you see, to talk here about the scripturesaccording to their proper meaning of what actually happened, not according to theirriddling, enigmatic reference to future events.21

Here the distinction between literal and figurative interpretation is clearly expressed in terms of

history and prophecy. According to Augustine, Genesis is a historical book like 1 and 2 Kings.22

Thus to interpret the opening chapters of Genesis in a literal sense is to take the text as history,

that is, what actually happened. Stressing the historicity of the account of paradise, he continues,

So then they should pay very close attention to where this assumption of theirs is leadingthem, and try hard with us to take all these primordial events of the narrative as actuallyhaving happened in the way described. Is there anyone, after all, who would not supportthem as they turned their minds next to working out what lessons these things have for usin their figurative meaning, whether about spiritual natures and experiences or even aboutevents to come in the future?23

In this passage, Augustine contends that the literal meaning should be sought first and then the

figurative meaning may be drawn. In a similar way, he writes, “What first has to be

demonstrated about all the things that are written here is that they actually happened and were

actually done, and only after that, if need be, should any lessons be drawn about their further

20 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus, 16.60.21 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, I.17.33-34.22 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, VIII.1.2.23 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, VIII.1.4.

8

significance.”24 What he emphasizes is the order of interpretation, that is, literal interpretation

first and then figurative interpretation. In these passages, Augustine means by figurative

meanings lessons about spiritual nature or events to come in future.

However, Augustine’s literal interpretation in De Genesi ad litteram is not limited in

understanding of literal interpretation in terms of history.25 Interpreting the phrase “who founded

the earth on water” of Psalm 136:6 in relation with Gen. 1:6-8, Augustine writes,

One acceptable way of taking that verse of the psalm is to treat it as said figuratively; sosince by the names of “heaven” and “earth” it is often the spiritual and the fleshly-mindedmembers of the Church respectively that are signified, . . . Or else, if someone obligesyou to take the verse literally, it can be applied not unreasonably to the height of theearth, whether on continents or islands, which soar up above the waters, or to the roofs ofthose cavers which overhang the waters with rock-like solidity. Accordingly, nobodymay understand the literal sense of the words, “who founded the earth on the water” insuch a way as to conclude that the weight of the waters was placed under the weight ofthe earth to support it as if that were natural order of things.26

In this passage, Augustine gives both figurative and literal interpretation of the verse. But the

order of interpretation is opposite. He gives figurative interpretation first, partly because Psalm is

not a historical record. He consults with common sense or reason for its literal meaning. In

another place, he regards literal interpretation as something “obvious to anyone of sense.”27

The passages quoted here are just a few examples to show how comprehensive

Augustine’s notion of literal and figurative interpretation. Though it is not easy to generalize the

change in Augustine’s notion of literal and figurative interpretation, it is certain that there is a

change or progress in his understanding. And a research for this change or progress may offer a

clue to understand Augustine’s progress in interpreting the opening chapters of Genesis.

24 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, IV.10.20.25 For the meaning of literal interpretation in De Genesi ad litteram, see Kathryn Greene-McCreight, Ad

litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the “Plain Sense” of Genesis 1-3 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999),32-48.

26 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, II.1.4.27 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, II.9.22.

9

D. Augustine’s Notion of History in relation with Exegesis

As seen above, Augustine explains literal interpretation in terms of history in De Genesis

ad litteram. However, De Genesi ad litteram is not the first work that Augustine relates history

with his exegetical method. In fact, as early as De Genesi contra Manichaeos Augustine

distinguishes history from prophecy, though ambiguous. He writes, “So then, this whole text

must first be discussed in terms of history, and then in terms of prophecy.”28 However, he does

not discuss the text in terms of history in this commentary. After stating his plan to interpret

figuratively the text whenever he cannot interpret literally in accordance with the rule of faith, he

adds, “let us in fact unravel all these figurative statements in accordance with Catholic faith,

whether they are statements of history or of prophecy.”29 At this point, for Augustine, not only

prophecy but also history can be figurative statements. In this commentary Augustine gives an

ambiguous definition of history as deeds and events which are being related.

In a similar way, in De utilitate credendi, which was written in 391/392, Augustine

writes,

The whole Old Testament Scripture, to those who diligently desire to know it, is handeddown with a four-fold sense—historical, aetiological, analogical, allegorical. . . InScripture, according to the historical sense, we are told what has been written or done.Sometimes the historical fact is simply that such and such a thing was written.30

In this passage, Augustine explains historical facts in relation with the historical sense as one of

the four senses of Scripture. His explanation of the historical sense or fact is still ambiguous.

History includes what has been written as well as what has been done. That is, historicity does

not matter in defining history.

28 Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos, II.2.3.29 Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos, II.2.3.30 Augustine, De utilitate credendi, III.5, Translation from John J. S. Burleigh, Augustine: Earlier Writings,

The Library of Christian Classics (Hereafter LCC).

10

In De Genesi ad litteram, Augustine presents a different notion of history from his earlier

ambiguous ones. He defines history as “the account of events that actually happened.”31 What

Augustine stresses again and again throughout this commentary is the historicity of the Genesis

story.32 He distinguishes what is written from what is actually done, that is, a parable from a

historical record, both of which belonged to history in the earlier works. He writes,

He [Christ] himself is the sheep which is sacrificed at the Passover; and yet thatrepresented him not just by the telling, but also by actually happening. It is not, after all,the case that sheep was not a sheep; clearly it was a sheep, and it was killed and eaten;and yet by that very fact something else was also being signified. It was not like thatfatted calf, which was killed to make a feast on the younger son’s return; here the wholestory is figurative, not a story of things actually done with a figurative significance.33

Augustine’s notion of history is closely related with his exegetical method, especially

with literal interpretation. In Book II of De Genesi contra Manichaeos, Augustine, contrary to

his original plan, skips discussing the Paradise story as history. He might interpret this story only

figuratively because he could not interpret the story literally, which is, in fact, what he admits in

De Genesi ad litteram and Retractationes. In addition, his ambiguous notion of history allows

him to deal with the text only figuratively since history includes even what was just written as if

it were done.34 At this point, Augustine’s notion of history does not necessarily require literal

interpretation.

However, in De Genesi ad litteram, Augustine classifies Genesis as a historical book

which tells of things that actually happened. And this new notion of history does require literal

interpretation first before dealing with figurative meaning. Augustine’s change in the notion of

31 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, VIII.1.2.32 Susan E. Schreiner, “Eve, the Mother of History: Reaching for the Reality of History in Augustine’s

Later Exegesis of Genesis,” in Genesis 1-3 in the History of Exegesis (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1988),137.

33 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, VIII.4.8.34 Teske, “Introduction,” 27.

11

history can offer a solution to understand some aspects of his progress in interpreting the creation

stories, since his notion of history is interwoven with his literal interpretation.

E. Augustine’s View of Scripture

Right after his ordination to the priesthood in 391, Augustine makes a formal request for

time to study the Scriptures in his letter to Valerius, the Bishop of Milan. He writes,

If He did this, not as a punishment, but out of mercy—which I earnestly hope, now Iknow my weakness—then I ought to study all His remedies in the Scriptures, and bypraying and reading, so to act that strength sufficient for such perilous duties may begranted to my soul. I did not do this before, because I did not have time, but, as soon as Iwas ordained, I planned to use all my leisure time in studying the Sacred Scriptures, and Itried to arrange to have leisure for this duty.35

In this letter, Augustine confesses that he had no time to study the Scriptures before his

ordination, and that now after ordination he feels the necessity to study the Scriptures. However,

it does not mean that Augustine was not familiar with the Scriptures at that time. Even before his

returning to Africa, Augustine learned how to read the Scriptures, how to interpret the Old

Testament spiritually and in relation with the New. Thus it is not surprising that he composed De

Genesi contra Manichaeos shortly after his settling in Africa.36

What Augustine wanted to gain might be a deeper and comprehensive understanding of

the Scriptures.37 As a result of his intensive study of the Scriptures during the period of his

priesthood (391-396), Augustine wrote massive works on the biblical texts: commentaries on

Psalms, Genesis, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Pauline Epistles. Also his study of the

35 Augustine, Epistulae XXI. Translation from Wilfrid Parsons, FC 12.36 For Augustine’s earlier knowledge of the Bible, see Anne-Marie La Bonnardière, “Augustine’s Biblical

Initiation,” in Augustine and the Bible, ed. and tr. Pamela Bright (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1999), 5-25.

37 For Augustine’s view of the Scriptures, see A.D.R. Polmann, The Word of God According to St.Augustine, tr. A.J. Pomerans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1961) and J.J. Loewen, “The Use of Scripture inAugustine’s Theology,” Scottish Journal of Theology 34 (1981): 201-224.

12

Scriptures during this period might help him to develop his exegetical method. Thus, a study of

development in Augustine’s notion and knowledge of the Scripture can offer a clue to understand

his progress in interpreting the opening chapters of Genesis.

A way to see his development in understanding of the Scriptures is to compare his inter-

textual interpretations in De Genesi contra Manichaeos and De Genesi ad litteram.38 Comparing

with the former, generally speaking, in the latter Augustine shows the mature ability to

harmonize the creation stories with other canonical texts of both the Old and New Testament and

to interpret ambiguous passages in light of other clearer passages.

One of the distinctive and prominent features in the later commentaries on Genesis 1-3 is

his stress on the truthfulness of the Scriptures. In fact, the truthfulness of all the Scriptures is a

recurring theme throughout his writing career. In De Genesi contra Manichaeos, Augustine

shows that, against Manichees’ false criticism of the Scriptures, the seeming problems in the

creation stories are actually problems of faulty interpretation, that is, Manichees’ ultra literal

interpretation. At the beginning of this commentary, he writes,

There is no part of scripture, I mean to say, which it is not the easiest thing in the world tofind fault with, to the dismay of those who do not understand it. But that is precisely whydivine providence permits so many heretics to come along with various errors; it’s so thatwhen they taunt us and shower us with questions we do not know the answers to, we mayat least in this way be shaken out of our mental sloth and start longing to becomeacquainted with the divine scriptures. . . If they are people of sound faith, they do notgive in to the heretics, but earnestly start inquiring what answer they can make to them.God, of course, does not abandon them; and so when they ask they receive, and whenthey seek they find, and when they knock the door is opened to them.39

In this commentary, Augustine tries to show how the texts with which Manichees find fault can

be interpreted as teaching the truth spiritually and figuratively.

38 This dissertation defines inter-textual interpretation as interpreting one biblical verse with the help of

other verses.39 Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos, I.1.2.

13

In De Genesi ad litteram, Augustine’s notion of the truthfulness of the Scriptures is

expressed in a different way. In this commentary, Augustine interprets every word and every

phrase as meaningful and significant. In several places, he seeks meticulously for the meaning of

a slight difference in the order of words, a repetition, or an omission. It is partly due to his

understanding of the Scripture.40 Augustine believes that the Scriptures contain no superfluous or

extraneous details. Every word in the Scriptures should be interpreted as an inspired word with

its meaning. This notion of the Scriptures combined together with his concept of history leads

him to interpret the creation stories in a historical-literal sense in De Genesi ad litteram.

F. Conclusion

As seen above, it is certain that Augustine makes a significant progress in his

interpretations of the opening chapters of Genesis. This progress, however, defies a simple

generalization like one from allegorical to literal interpretation, since his progress is closely

related with other parameters. The other parameters include his notion of key terminologies for

exegesis, history, and the Scriptures, which are also changed or progressed during the period of

his composing these commentaries. This dissertation aims to show how Augustine’s exegesis

of Genesis 1-3 progressed from De Genesi contra Manichaeos to De Genesi ad litteram in

relation to his understanding and usage of key exegetical terms like “ad litteram” and

“figura,” and his notion of history and the Scriptures. In doing so, this dissertation suggests

that changes in Augustine’s notion of history and historicity of Scriptures led the change in

his exegesis of the creation stories. Augustine’s new understanding of history as a record of

40 Also according to Marrou, it is partly due to his education in rhetoric, which taught him to study a text

word by word rather than sentence by sentence. See Henri-Irénée Marrou, Saint Augustin et la fin de la cultureantique (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1938), 480.

14

things that actually happened helped him to make progress in interpreting Genesis 1-3

more literally as the beginning of human history.

III. Bibliography

Primary Sources(Latin Texts)

Augustine. De Genesi contra Manicheos. Ed. D. Weber. Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorumlatinorum 91. Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1998.

_______. De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus. Ed. Joseph Zycha. Corpusscriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum 28.1. Vienna: Hoelder-pichler-Tempsky, 1894.

_______. De Genesi ad litteram. Ed. Joseph Zycha. Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorumlatinorum 28.1. Vienna: Hoelder-pichler-Tempsky Vienna, 1894.

_______. De Trinitate. Ed. W.J. Mountain. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 50 and 50A.Turnholti, Belgium: Brepols, 1968.

_______. De vera religione. Ed. K.D. Daur. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 32. Turnholti,Belgium: Brepols, 1962.

_______. De utilitate credendi. Ed. J. Zycha. Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorumlatinorum 25.1. Vienna: Hoelder-pichler-Tempsky, 1891.

_______. Epistulae. Ed. A. Goldbacher. Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum 34, 44,57, and 58. Vienna: Hoelder-pichler-Tempsky, 1898-1961.

_______. De doctrina Christiana. Ed. W. M. Green. Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorumlatinorum 80. Vienna: Hoelder-pichler-Tempsky, 1963.

_______. Confessiones. In Augustine: Confessions, ed. J.J. O’Connell, 3 Vols. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1992.

_______. De civitate Dei. Ed. B. Dombart and A. Kalb. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 47and 48. Turnholti, Belgium: Brepols, 1955.

_______. In Joannis evangelium tractatus. Ed. D.R. Willems. Corpus Christianorum, SeriesLatina 36. Turnholti, Belgium: Brepols, 1954.

_______. Enarrationes in Psalmos. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 38-40. Turnholti,Belgium: Brepols, 1956.

15

_______. Retractationes. Ed. P. Knoll. Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum 36.Vienna: Hoelder-pichler-Tempsky, 1902.

_______. Sermones. Ed. Jacques Migne. Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina 38 and 39.Paris: Garnier Frères.

(Translations)

_______. Saint Augustine on Genesis: Two Books on Genesis Against the Manichees and On theLiteral Interpretation of Genesis, an Unfinished Book. Tr. Roland J. Teske. The Fathersof the Church 84. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1991.

_______. The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Tr. John H. Taylor. Ancient Christian Writers 41 and42. New York: Newman Press, 1982.

_______. La genèse au sens littéral en douze livre. Tr. P. Agaësse and A. Solignac. Bibliothèqueaugustinienne 48 and 49. Paris: Declée de Brouwer, 1972.

_______. On Genesis: On Genesis: A Refutation of the Manichees, Unfinished LiteralCommentary on Genesis, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Tr. Edmund Hill. The worksof Saint Augustine I.13. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2002.

_______. The Trinity. Tr. Edmund Hill. The Works of Saint Augustine I.5. Brooklyn, NY: NewCity Press, 1991.

_______. Augustine: Earlier Writings. Tr. John H. S. Burleigh. Library of Christian Classics 6.Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953.

_______. Letters. Tr. W. Parsons. The Fathers of the Church 12, 18, 20, 30, and 32. New York:Fathers of the Church, 1951-1956.

_______. Teaching Christianity. Tr. Edmund Hill. The Works of Saint Augustine I.11. HydePark, NY: New City Press, 1996.

_______. The City of God. Tr. Demetrius Zema and Gerald Walsh. The Fathers of the Church 8,14, and 24. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962.

_______. Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tr. J.W. Reffig. The Fathers of the Church 78, 79, 88,90, and 92. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1988-1995.

_______. The Retractations. Tr. M. I. Bogan. The Fathers of the Church 60. Washington, D.C.:The Catholic University of America Press, 1968.

_______. Sermons. Tr. Edmund Hill. The Works of Saint Augustine III.1-11. Hyde Park, NY:New City Press, 1990-.

16

_______. The Expositions on the Psalms. Tr. Maria Boulding. The Works of Saint AugustineIII.15-18. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2000-.

Ambrose. Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel. Tr. John J. Savage. The Fathers of theChurch 42. New York: Fathers of the Church, 1961.

Chrysostom, John. Homilies on Genesis. Tr. Robert C. Hill. The Fathers of the Church 74, 82,87. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986-1992.

Origen. On First Principles: Being Koetschau’s Text of the De principiis. Tr. G.W. Butterworth.New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

Philo. On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses. Tr. David T. Runia. Leiden andBoston: Brill, 2000.

Plotinus. The Enneads. Trans. Stephen Mackenna. London: Faber & Faber, 1962.

Tyconuis. Liber Regularum. Trans. W.S. Babcock in Tyconious: The Book Rules. Texts andTranslations, Vol. 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

Secondary Sources

Agterberg, M. “S. Augustin exégète de l’Ecclesia Virgo.” Augustiniana 8 (1958): 237-66.

Alfaric, P. L’évolution intellectuelle de saint Augustin, 1: Du Manichéisme au Néoplatonisme.Paris: Nourry, 1918.

Alfeche, M. “Groaning Creation in the Theology of Augustine.” Augustiniana 34 (1984): 5-52.

Alici, L. “Sign and Language.” In Teaching Christianity, trans. and ed. E. Hill. The Works ofSaint Augustine I.11. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1996, 28-53.

Altaner, Berthold. “Augustinus und Origenes.” Historisches Jahrbuch 70 (1951): 15-41.

Ando, C. “Augustine on Language.” Revue des Études Augustinienne 40 (1994): 45-78.

Atchambault, P. “The Ages of Man and the Ages of the World.” Revue des étudesaugustiniennes 12 (1996): 193-228.

Armstrong, Arthur H. “St. Augustine and Christian Platonism.” In Augustine: A Collection ofCritical Essays, ed. R. A. Markus. New York: Anchor Books, 1972, 3-37.

Ayer, C. “Allegoria.” Augustiniana 1 (1986): 233-239.

Babcock, William S. “Caritas and Significance in De doctrina christiana 1-3.” In De doctrina

17

Christiana: A Classic of Western Culture, ed. Duane Arnold and Palema Bright. NotreDame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995, 145-163.

Bate, H. N. “Some Technical Terms of Greek Exegesis.” The Journal of Theological Studies 24(1923): 59-66.

Beatrice, P. “Quosdam Platonicorum Libros: The Platonic Readings of Augustine in Milan.”Vigiliae Christianae 43 (1989): 248-281.

Benin, Stephen D. “Sacrifice as Education in Augustine and Chrysostom.” Church History 52(Mar, 1983): 7-20.

Bernard, Robert W. “In figura: Terminology Pertaining to Figurative Exegesis in the Works ofAugustine of Hippo.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, 1985.

________. “The Rhetoric of God in the Figurative Exegesis of Augustine.” Mark S. Burrows andPaul Rorem, Ed. Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor ofKarlfried Froehlich on his Sixtieth Birthday. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991, 88-99.

Bernardin, Joseph B. “Saint Augustine as Pastor.” In A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine,ed. Roy Battenhouse. New York: Oxford University Press, 1955, 57-89.

Bittner, Rudiger. “Augustine's philosophy of history.” In Augustinian Tradition. Berkeley:University of California Pr, 1999, 345-360.

Black, C. Clifton. “Serving the Food of Full-Grown Adults: Augustine's Interpretation ofScripture and the Nurture of Christians.” Interpretation 52. 4 (Oct, 1998): 341-353.

Bonner, Gerald. St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies. London: The SCM press, 1963.

________. “Augustine as Biblical Scholar.” In The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol I. Fromthe Beginning to Jerome, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. Cambridge: UniversityPress, 1970.

________. “Christ, God and Man in the Thought of Saint Augustine.” Angelicum 61 (1984):268-294.

Børresen, Kari Elisabeth. Subordination and Equivalence: The Nature and Role of Woman inAugustine and Thomas Aquinas, tr. Charles Talbot. Washington D.C.: University Press ofAmerica, 1981.

Bourke, Vernon J. Wisdom from St. Augustine. Houston: Center for Thomistic Studies, 1984.

_______. Augustine’s Quest of Wisdom: Life and Philosophy of the Bishop of Hippo.Milwaukee: the Bruce Pub., 1945.

18

Boyer, Charles. “La théorie augustinienne des raisons séminales.” In Essais sur la doctrine desaint Augustin. Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne et ses fils, 1932, 97-137.

Bradley, Stephen A. “Augustine on science and the Bible.” Ph.D. Dissertation, SouthwesternBaptist Theological Seminary, 2002.

Brady, J. The Function of the Seminal Reasons in St. Augustine’s Theory of Reality. Ph.D.Dissertation, Saint Louis University, 1949.

Bright, Pamela. “Biblical Ambiguity in African Exegesis.” In De doctrina Christiana: A Classicof Western Culture, ed. Duane Arnold and Pamela Bright. Notre Dame and London:University of Notre Dame Press, 1995, 25-32.

________. “ ‘Prepondering Influence of Augustine’: A Study of the Epitomes of the Book ofRules of the Donatists Tyconius.” In Augustine and the Bible, ed and tr. Pamela Bright.Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999, 109-128.

________. “Conversing with God and others: Scripture in a community of discourse(Confessions books X-XIII).” In Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church. EvertonPark, Queensland, Australia: Australian Catholic Univ, 1998, 327-338.

Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,1967.

________. The World of Late Antiquity. London: Thames and Hudson, 1971.

Buford, Thomas Oliver. “The Idea of Creation in Plato, Augustine, and Emil Brunner.” Ph.D.Dissertation, Boston University, 1963.

Burke, Kenneth. The Rhetoric of Religion: Studies in Logology. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1970.

Burns, J. Patout. “St Augustine: the Original Condition of Humanity.” In StudiaPatristica 22. Louvain: Peeters, 1989, 219-222.

________. “Ambrose Preaching to Augustine: The Shaping of Faith.” In CollectaneaAugustiniana: Augustine ‘Second Founder of the Faith,’ ed. Joseph Schnaubelt andFrederick Van Fleteren. New York: Peter Lang, 1990, 373-386.

________. “Delighting the Spirit: Augustine’s Practice of Figurative Interpretation.” In Dedoctrina Christiana: A Classic of Western Culture, ed. Duane Arnold and Pamela Bright.Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995, 182-194.

________. “Creation and Fall according to Ambrose of Milan.” In Augustine: Biblical Exegete,ed. Frederick Van Fleteren and Joseph Schnaubelt. New York: Peter Lang, 2001, 71-98.

19

Cameron, Michael. “The Christological Substructure of Augustine’s Figurative Exegesis.” InAugustine and the Bible, ed and tr. Pamela Bright. Notre Dame: University of NotreDame Press, 1999, 74-103.

Carriker, Anne P. “Augustine's frankness in his dispute with Jerome over the interpretation ofGalatians 2:11-14.” In Nova doctrina vetusque. New York: Peter Lang, 1999, 121-138.

Cerbelaud, Dominique. Creation et trinite: les enjeux théologiques de l'interprétation "trinitaire"de Gn.1:1-2 des origines à saint Augustin : thése pour le Doctorat d'Etat en ThéologieCatholique. Strasbourg: Universite de Strasbourg, 1987.

Chadwick, Henry. Augustine. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

________. “Christian Platonism in Origen and Augustine.” In Heresy and Orthodoxy in theEarly Church. Aldershot: Variorum XII, 1991.

Chidester, David S. “The Symbolism of Learning in St Augustine.” Harvard TheologicalReview 76 (Jan, 1983): 73-90.

Christian, William A. “Augustine on the Creation of the World.” Harvard Theological Review46 (1953): 1-26.

Cizewski, Wanda. “The Meaning and Purpose of Animals According to Augustine’s GenesisCommentaries.” In Collectanea Augustiniana: Augustine Presbyter Factus Sum, ed.Joseph Lienhard, Earl Muller and Roland Teske. New York: Peter Lang, 1993, 363-373.

Clark, Elizabeth A. “Heresy, Asceticism, Adam, and Eve: Interpretations of Genesis 1-3 in theLater Latin Fathers.” In Genesis 1-3 in the History of Exegesis. Lewiston, NY: EdwinMellen Pr, 1988, 99-133.

Clark, Gillian. “Adam's Engendering: Augustine on Gender and Creation.” In Gender andChristian Religion. Woodbridge, Eng: Boydell Pr, 1998, 13-22.

Cole-Turner, Ronald S. “Anti-heretical Issues in the Dabate over Galatians 2: 11-14 in theLetters of St. Augustine to Jerome.” Augustinian Studies 11 (1980): 155-166.

Cooper, J. C. “Why did Augustine Write Book XI-XIII of the Confessions?” Augustinian Studies2 (1971): 37-46.

Crouse, Robert D. “Semina rationaum: St. Augustine and Boethius.” Dionysius 4 (1980): 75-86.

________. “Primordiales causae in Eriugena's interpretation of Genesis: sources andsignificance.” In Iohannes Scottus Eriugena: the Bible and hermeneutics, ed. Gerd vanRiel, Carlos Steel and James McEvoy. Leuven: Leuven Univ Pr, 1996, 209-220.

Cushman, Robert Earl. Faith Seeking Understanding: Essays Theological and Critical. Durham,

20

NC: Duke University Press, 1981.

Daniélou, Jean. Les divers sens de l’Ecriture dans la tradition chrétienne primitive. Bruges andParis: Desclée Brouwer, 1948.

_______. From Shadows to Reality : Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers, tr. WulstonHibbard. London: Burns and Oates, 1960.

Decret, F. Aspects du Manichéisme dans l’Afrique romaine. Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1970.

De Lubac, Henry. Exégèse médiévale. Les quatre sens de l’Ecriture. Paris: Aubier, 1959.

_______. Histoire et Esprit. L’intelligence de l’Ecriture d’après Origène. Paris: Aubier, 1950.De Margerie, Bertrand. An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, V 3: St Augustine.Petersham, Mass: St. Bede's Pub, 1993.

Dockery, David S. “An Examination of Hermeneutical Development in Early Christian Thoughtand Its Contemporary Significance.” Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas atArlington, 1988.

D’Ouforio, G. “The concordia of Augustine and Dionysius : Toward a Hermeneutic of theDisagreement of Patristic Sources in John the Scot Periphyseon.” In Eriugena: East andWest. Eds. Bernard McGinn and Willemien Offen. Notre Dame: University of NotreDame Press, 1994, 115-140.

Doyle, G.W. “Augustine’s Sermonic Method.” Westminster Theological Journal 39 (1977): 213-238.

_______. “St. Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of John Compared with the RhetoricalTheory of De doctrina Christiana.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill, 1975.

Dobner, H.R. “Studying Augustine: An Overview of Recent Research.” In Augustine and HisCritics: Essays in Honor of Gerald Bonner, ed. R. Dodaro and G. Lawless. London:Routledge, 2000, 18-34.

_______. “Grammatical Exegesis and Christology in St. Augustine.” In Studia Patristica 18Louvain: Peeters, 1990, 49-63.

Drucker, Jason Palmisano. “Semiotics, Scriptural Hermeneutics and Rhetoric in the Works of St.Augustine.” Ph.D. Dissertation, DePaul University, 1998.

Duclow, Donald F. “Denial of promise of the tree of life: Eriugena, Augustine and Genesis3:22b.” In Iohannes Scottus Eriugena: the Bible and hermeneutics, ed. Gerd van Riel,Carlos Steel and James McEvoy. Leuven: Leuven Univ Pr, 1996, 221-238.

21

Du Roy, Olivier. L’intelligence de la foi en la Trinité selon saint Augustin: Genèse de sathéologie trinitaire jusqu’en 391. Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1966.

Dyson, R. W. “St Augustine's Remarks on Time.” Downside Review 100 (July, 1982): 221-230.

Eden, K. “The Rhetorical Tradition and Augustine’s Hermeneutics in De doctrina Christiana.”Rhetorica 8/1 (1990): 45-63.

Evans, G. R. “Augustine on Exegesis against the Heretics.” In Augustine: Biblical Exegete, ed.Frederick Van Fleteren and Joseph Schnaubelt. New York: Peter Lang, 2001, 145-156.

________. “Absurditas in Augustine’s Scriptural Commentary.” Downside Review 99 (1981) :109-118.

Ferrari, Leo C. “The Tree in the Works of St. Augustine.” Augustiniana 38 (1988): 37-53.

________. “From Pagan Literature to the Pages of the Holy Scriptures: Augustine’s Confessionsas Exemplary Propadeutic.” In Kerygma and Logos, ed. A. M. Ritter. Göttingen:Vandenhoek und Reprecht, 1979.

Finaert, Joseph. L’Évolution Littéraire de St. Augustin. Paris: Société d’édition “Les Belleslettres, 1939.

Finan, Thomas. “Modes of Vision in St Augustine: De Genesi ad litteram XII.” In Relationshipbetween Neoplatonism and Christianity. Dublin: Four Courts Pr, 1992, 141-154.

Finan, Thomas and Vincent Twomey. Scriptural Interpretation in the Fathers: Letter and Spirit.Portland, OR: Four Courts Press, 1995.

Fitzgerald, Allan D. et al. ed. Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids, MI:W.B. Eerdmans, 1999.

Fortin, E. L. “Augustine and the Hermeneutics of Love: Some PreliminaryConsiderations.” InAugustine Today, ed. R. J. Neuhaus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993, 35-59.

________. “Augustine and the Problem of Christian Rhetoric.” Augustinian Studies 5 (1974): 85-100.

Fredriksen, Paula. “Augustine and Israel: Interpretatio ad litteram, Jews, and Judaism inAugustine's Theology of History.” In Studia Patristica 38. Leuven: Peeters, 2001, 119-135.

_______. “Secundum carnem: History and Israel in the Theology of St Augustine.” In Limits ofAncient Christianity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Pr, 1999, 26-41.

_______. “Augustine on History, the Church, and the Flesh.” In Saint Augustine the Bishop.

22

New York: Garland, 1994, 109-123.

Freeman, Curtis W. “Figure and History: A Cintemporary Reassessment of Augustine’sHermeneutic.” In Collectanea Augustiniana: Augustine Presbyter Factus Sum, Ed.Joseph Lienhard, Earl Muller and Roland Teske. New York: Peter Lang, 1993, 319-329.

Gilson, Etienne. The Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine, tr. L. E. M. Lynch. London:Victor Gollancz, 1961.

Gorman, Michael M. "The unknown Augustine: a Study of the Literal Interpretation of Genesis(De Genesi ad litteram)" Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto, 1975, (c)1974.

________. “The Text of Saint Augustine’s De Genesi ad Litteram liber imperfectus.” RecherchesAugustiniennes 20 (1985) : 65-86.

________. “Eugippus and the Origins of the Tradition of St. Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram.”Revue Bénédictine 93 (1983): 7-30.

Gousmett, Chris. “Creation Order and Miracle according to Augustine.” Evangelical Quarterly60 (July, 1988): 217-240.

Grabowski, Stanislaus J. “Apiritus Dei in Gen. 1: 2 according to St. Augustine.” CatholicBiblical Quarterly. 10.1 (Jan, 1948): 13-28.

Grant, Robert M. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible. New York: MacMillan,1963.

Greene-McCreight, Kathryn. Ad litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the "PlainSense" of Genesis 1-3. New York: Peter Lang, 1999.

Hamilton, G. J. “Augustine’s Methods of Biblical Interpretation.” In Grace, Politics, and Desire:Essays on Augustine, ed. H. Meynell, Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1990, 87-100.

Hamman, A. G. “Saint Augustin, la Bible et la théologie spitituelle.” Augustiniana 41 (1990):773-782.

Hammond-Bammel, Caroline P. “Pauline exegesis, Manichaeism and philosophy in the earlyAugustine.” In Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Leiden: E. J.Brill, 1993, 1-25.

Hansen, Gary N. “John Calvin and the Non-Literal Interpretation of Scripture.” Ph.D.Dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1998.

Harber, Jean. “Medieval creation commentary as literary interpretation: St. Augustine's De

23

Genesi ad Litteram and at-Tabari's Tafsir of Sura 2:29-38.” Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1979.

Heidl, Gyorgy. “Did the young Augustine Read Origen's Homily on Paradise.” OrigenianaSeptima. Louvain: Peeters, 1999, 597-604.

Helm, Paul. “Eternal Creation: the Doctrine of the Two Standpoints.” In Doctrine of Creation :Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy, ed.Colin Gunton. Edinburgh: T. and T.Clark, 1997, 29-46.

Hendricks, E. “Platonisches und biblisches Denken bei Augustinus.” In Augustinus Magister.Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1955.

Henry, Paul. The Path to Transcendence: From Philosophy to Mysticism in St. Augustine.Introduction and Translation by Francis F. Burch. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1981.

Hill, Edmund. “St. Augustine as a Preacher.” Blackfriars 35 (1954): 463-471

Jackson, D. W. “Semantics and Hermeneutics in Saint Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana.”Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1967.

________. “The Theory of Signs in De Doctrina Christiana.” In Augustine : A Collection ofCritical Essays, ed. R. A. Markus. Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1972, 92-137.

Kannengiesser, Charles, Pamela Bright and Wilhelm H. Wuellner. A Conflict of ChristianHermeneutics in Roman Africa: Tyconius and Augustine. Berkeley, CA: Center forHermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1989.

________. “Local Setting and Motivation of De doctrina Christiana.” In CollectaneaAugustiniana: Augustine Presbyter Factus Sum, Ed. Joseph Lienhard, Earl Muller andRoland Teske. New York: Peter Lang, 1993, 331-339.

Keith, Graham. “Can Anything Good Come out of Allegory? The Cases of Origen andAugustine.” Evangelical Quarterly 70 (Jan, 1998): 23-49.

Kelly, Joseph F. “The devil in Augustine's Genesis Commentaries.” In Studia Patristica 33, 119-124. Louvain: Peeters, 1997.

Kennedy, Robert G. “Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Sacred Scripture.” Ph.D.Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1985.

Kevane, E. “Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana in world-historical Perspective.” Augustiniana41 (1990): 1011-31.

Knuuttila, Simo. “Time and Creation in Augustine.” In The Cambridge Companion to Augustine,

24

ed. Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001, 103-115.

Kraemer, Richard W. “ ‘Sing us a Palinode’: The Controversy Between Augustine and Jeromeover the Meaning of Galatians 2:11-14.” In And Every Tongue Confess. Dearborn, MI:Nagel Festschrift Committee, 1990, 38-60.

Kugler, Robert. “Tyconius’ Mystic Rules and the Rules of Augustine.” In Augustine and theBible, ed and tr. Pamela Bright. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999, 129-148.

La Bonnardière, Anne-Marie. Biblia Augustiniana. Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1960.

________. Ed. Saint Augustin et la Bible. Paris: Editiones Beauchesne, 1986.

________. “Augustine’s Biblical Initiation.” In Augustine and the Bible, ed and tr. PamelaBright. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999, 5-25.

________. “The Canon of Sacred Scrioture.” In Augustine and the Bible, ed and tr. PamelaBright. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999, 26-41.

________. “The Bible and Polemics.” In Augustine and the Bible, ed and tr. Pamela Bright.Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999, 183-207.

Lavallee, Louis. “Augustine on the Creation Days.” Journal of the Evangelical TheologicalSociety 32 (Dec, 1989): 457-464.

Lienhard, Joseph T. “Reading the Bible and Learning to Read: The Influence of Education on St.Augustine’s Exegesis.” Augustinian Studies 27/1 (1996): 7-25.

Loewen, H. J. “The Use of Scripture in Augustine’s Theology.” Scottish Journal of Theology 34(1981): 201-224.

Maher, John Patrick. Saint Augustine's Defense of the Hexaemeron against the Manicheans.Saint Meinrad, IN: Abbey press, 1946.

Markus, R. A. Sign and Meaning: World and Text in Ancient Christianity. Liverpool: LiverpoolUniversity Press, 1996.

________. Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1970.

________. “St. Augustine on Signs.” Phronesis 2 (1957): 60-83.

________. Augustine: A Collection of Critical Essays. New York: Anchor Books, 1972.

25

________. “Imago and Similitudo in Augustine.” Revue des Études Augustinienne 10 (1964) :128-143.

Marrou, Henri-Irénée. Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1938.

________. St. Augustine and His Influence Through the Ages. Tr. Patrick Hepburne-Scott. NewYork: Harper Torchbooks, 1957.

Martin, Thomas F. “Vox Pauli: Augustine and the Claims to Speak for Paul, An Exploration ofRhetoric at the Service of Exegesis.” Jounal of Early Christian Studies 8.2 (2000): 237-272.

________. “Modus inveniendi Paulum : Augustine, Hermeneutics, and his Reading of Romans.”In Society of Biblical Literature 1999 Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Society of BiblicalLiterature, 1999.

Matthews, Alfred W. The Development of St. Augustine from Meoplatonism to Christianity, 386-391. Washington : University Press of America, 1980.

Mayer, Cornelius P. “Prinzipien der Hermeneutik Augustins und darsaus sich ergebendeProbleme.” Forum Katholische theologie 1 (1985): 197-211.

Mazzeo, J. A. “St. Augustine’s Rhetoric of Silence (de typologia et allegoresi).” Journal ofHistory of Ideas 23 : 175-196. ?

McCool, Gerald A. “Ambrosian Origin of St. Augustine’s Theology of the Image of God inMan.” Theological Studies 20 (1959): 62-81.

McGowan, R. J. “Augustine’s Spiritual Quality: the Allegory of Man and Woman with Regardto Imago Dei.” Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes 33 (1987): 255-264.

McIntosh, John Strayer. A Study of Augustine's Versions of Genesis. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1912.

McKeough, Michael J. “The Meaning of the Rationes Seminales in St. Augustine.” Ph.D.Dissertation, Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., 1926.

Mcleese, Constance E. “Augustine on Adam’s Rib and Eve’s Sin: An Evaluation of TheologicalSexism in Augustine’s Exegesis of Gen. 2: 15-25 and Gen. 3.” Ph.D. Dissertation,Universite de Montreal, 1998.

McWilliam, J. ed. Augustine, from Rhetor to Theologian. Waterloo: W. Laurier UniversityPress, 1992.

Mendelson, Michael. “Res obscurissima: the Origin of the Soul in Augustine's De Genesi adLitteram. ” Ph.D Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 1990.

26

_________. “ ‘The Busness of Those Absent’: The Origin of Soul in Augustine’s De Genesi adlitteram 10.6-26.” Augustinian Studies 29 (1998): 25-81.

Milburn, R. L. P. Early Christian Interpretations of History. The Bampton Lectures for 1952.London: A. and C. Black, 1954.

Miyatani, Y. “Spiritus und Littera bei Augustin. Eine historisch-hermeneutische Untersuchungzu 2 Kor 3:6b.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Heidelberg, 1972.

Morrison, Karl Frederick. I am You: the Hermeneutics of Empathy in Western Literature,Theology, and Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.

Navrozidou, Anna. “The Gendering of the Human Being in Origen’s Homilies in Genesis.” InOrigeniana Septima. Louvain: Peeters, 1999, 25-31.

Nettles, Thomas J. “Inerrancy in History: Something Old, Something New.” In Authority andInterpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987, 127-154.

Norris, John. “Augustine and Sign in Tractatus in Ionnis Euangelium.” In Augustine: BiblicalExegete, ed. Frederick Van Fleteren and Joseph Schnaubelt. New York: Peter Lang,2001, 215-232.

O’Connell, Robert J. St. Augustine’s Early Theory of Man, A.D. 386-391. Cambridge, MA:Harvard-Belknap, 1968.

________. St. Augustine’s Platonism. Villanova: Villanova University Press, 1984.

________. “Augustine’s Rejection of the Fall of the Soul.” Augustinian Studies 4 (1973): 1-32.

________. St. Augustine’s Confessions: The Odyssey of Soul. Cambridge, MA: Harvard-Belknap, 1969.

________. The Origin of the Soul in St. Augustine's Later Works. New York: FordhamUniversity Press, 1987.

________. “Augustine’s Exegetical Use of Ecclesiasticus 10: 9-14.” In Augustine: BiblicalExegete, ed. Frederick Van Fleteren and Joseph Schnaubelt. New York: Peter Lang,2001, 233-252.

O’Daly, Gerard J. P. Platonism Pagan and Christian: Studies in Plotinus and Augustine.Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2001.

________. Augustine’s Philosophy of Mind. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress, 1987.

________. “Did St. Augustine ever Believe in the Soul’s Pre-existence?” Augustinian Studies 5(1974): 227-235.

27

________. “Augustine on the Measurement of Time: Some Comparisons with Aristotelian andStoic Texts.” In Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought, eds. H. J. Blumenthal and R.A. Markus. London: Variorum Press, 1981, 171-179.

O’Meara, John J. The Young Augustine: The Growth of St. Augustine’s Mind up to hisConversion. New York and London: Longmans-Green, 1954.

________. The Creation of Man in St. Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram. Villanova, PA:Augustinian Institute, Villanova University, 1980.

________. Understanding Augustine. Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 1997.O’Toole, Christopher J. “The Philosophy of Creation in the Writings of St. Augustine.” Ph.D.

Dissertation, Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., 1944.

Pagels, Elaine H. “The politics of Paradise: Augustine's Exegesis of Genesis 1-3 versus that ofJohn Chrysostom.” Harvard Theological Review 78. 1-2 (Jan-Apr, 1985): 67-99.

________. Adam and Eve and the Serpent in Genesis 1-3. Claremont, CA: Institute for Antiquityand Christianity, 1988.

Patte, Daniel and Eugene TeSelle, ed. Engaging Augustine on Romans:Self, Context, and Theology in Interpretation. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International,2002.

Pelikan, Jeroslav. “Canonica regula: The Trinitarian Hermeneutics of Augustine.” InCollectanea Augustiniana: Augustine ‘Second Founder of the Faith,’ ed. JosephSchnaubelt and Frederick Van Fleteren. New York: Peter Lang, 1990, 329-344.

Pelland, Gilles. Cing études d’Augustin sur le début de la Genèse. Paris and Tournai: Desclée.Montreal: Bellarmin, 1972.

Pendergast, John S. “St. Augustine and the Rhetoric of Obscurity.” Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Missouri – Columbia, 1994.

Pépin, J. “Saint Augustin et la fonction protreptique de l’allégorie.” Recherches Augustiniennes 1(1958): 243-286.

________. “Une curiose déclaration idéaliste de ‘De Genesi ad litteram’ (XII, 10, 21) de saintAugustin, et ses origines plotiniennes (‘Ennéade’ 5, 3, 1-9 et 5, 5, 1-2).” Revue d’histoireet de philosophie religieuses 34 (1954): 373-400.

________. “Le maniement des prépositions dans la théorie Augustinienne de la création.” Revuedes Etudes Augustiniennes 35 (1989): 251-274.

Peters, E. “What was God doing before He created the Heavens and the Earth?” Augustiniana 34

28

(1984): 53-74.

________. “Aenigma Salomonis: Manichaean anti-Genesis Polemic and the Vitium curiositatisin Confessions III.6.” Augustiniana 36 (1986): 48-64.

Pike, N. God and Timelessness. London: Routledge, 1970.

Polman, A. D. R. The Word of God According to St. Augustine. London: Hodder and Stoughton,1962.

Portalié, Eugène. A Guide to the Thought of Saint Augustine, tr. Ralph Bastian. Chicago: H.Regnery Co., 1960.

Press, G.A. “The Content and Argument of Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana.” Augustiniana31 (1981): 165-181.

_______. “The Subject and Structure of Augustine’s De doctrina christiana.” AugustinianStudies 11 (1980): 99-124.

Preus, James S. From Shadow to Promise; Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to theyoung Luther. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1969.

Quasten, Johannes. Patrologia. 3 Vols. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1960.

Quinn, John M. A Companion to the Confessions of St. Augustine. New York: Peter Lang, 2002.

Rondet, H. “Thèmes biblique : Exégèse augustinienne (résumé +discussion).” In AugustinusMagister. Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1955.

Rosenberg, Stanley. “Christianizing the Cosmos: Intellectual and Popular Cosmology in SaintAugustine.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1998.

Ross, D. C. “Time, the Heaven of Heavens, and Memory in Augustine’s Confessions.”Augustinian Studies 22 (1991): 191-205.

Sampson, T. J. W. “The Scriptures in St. Augustine’s Confessions.” Ph.D. Dissertation,Strasbourg, 1970.

Scanlon, Michael J. “Augustine and Theology as Rhetoric.” Augustinian Studies 25 (1994): 37-50.

Schimpf, David M. “Bible, Christ, and Human Beings: The Theological Unity of St. Augustine’sConfessions.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Marquette University, 1994.

Schmidt, Daryl. “The biblical Hermeneutics on Peacemaking in the Bishop’s Pastoral.” BiblicalTheology Bulletin 16. 2 (April, 1986): 47-55.

29

Schreiner, Susan E. “Eve, the Mother of History: Reaching for the Reality of History inAugustine's Later Exegesis of Genesis.” In Genesis 1-3 in the history of exegesis.Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Pr, 1988, 135-186.

Schultz, S. J. “Augustine and the Old Testament Canon.” Evangelical Quarterly 28 (1956): 93-100.

Shanzer, D. “Latent Narrative Patterns, Allegorical Choices, and Literary Unity in Augustine’sConfessions.” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992) : 40-56.

Sieben, H.-J. “Die res der Bibel: Eine Analyse von Augustinus, De doctr. christ. I-III.” Revuedes Etudes Augustiniennes 21 (1975): 72-90.

Simon, Derek. “Ad Regnum Caritatis: The Finality of Biblical Interpretation in Augustine andRicoeur.” Augustinian Studies 30 (1999): 105-127.

Solignac, A. “Exégèse et métaphysique. Genèse I. 1-3 chez saintAugustin.” In In principio.Interprétations des premiers versets de la Genèse, ed. C. Mayer. Paris: Centre d’Etudesdes religions du livre, 1973, 153-171.

Somers, H. “Imago de Dieu: Les Sources de l’exégése augustinienne.” Revue des EtudesAugustiniennes 7 (1961): 105-125.

Sorabji, R. Time, Creation, and the Continuum: Theories in Antiquity and the Early MiddleAges. London: Duckworth, 1983.

Staritz, Katharina. Augustins Schöpfungsglaube dargestellt nach seinen Genesisauslegungen.Breslau: Wilh. Gottl. Korn, 1931.

Starnes, Colin. “Augustinian Biblical Exegesis and the Origin of Modern Science.” InCollectanea Augustiniana: Augustine ‘Second Founder of the Faith,’ ed. JosephSchnaubelt and FrederickVan Fleteren. New York: Peter Lang, 1990, 345-355.

Steinhauser, Kenneth B. “Creation in the image of God according to Augustine's Confessions.”Patristic and Byzantine Review 7. 2-3 (1988): 199-204.

_______. “Recapitulatio in Tyconius and Augustine.” Augustinian Studies 15 (1984): 1-5.

Stengers, J. “Saint Augustin et l’inerrance biblique.” In Mémorial J. Préaux, Christianismed’hier et d’aujoud’hui. Bruxelles : Univ. Libre, 1979, 27-39.

Stock, B. Augustine the Reader: Meditation, Self-Knowledge, and the Ethics of Interpretation.Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 1996.

Strauss, Gerhard. Schriftgebrauch, Schriftauslegung und Schriftbeweis bei Augustin. Tübingen:

30

J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1959.

Stump, Eleonore. “Revelation and Biblical Exegesis: Augustine, Aquinas, and Swinburne.” InReason and the Christian Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Pr, 1994, 161-197.

Tanner, R. G. “The Use of the Old Testament in St. Augustine’s De civitate dei.” In The Bibleand European Literature: History and Hermeneutics, ed. E. Osborn et al. Melbourne:Academia Press, 1987.

Taylor, J. H. “A Note on Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram 1,20,40.” In Texte und Textkritik.Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1987, 563-566.

_______. “The Meaning of Spiritus in St. Augustine’s De Genesi, XII.” Modern Schoolman 26(1949): 211-218

_______. “The Text of Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram.” Speculum 25 (1950) : 87-93.

TeSelle, Eugene, “Serpent, Eve, and Adam: Augustine and the Exegetical Tradition.” InCollectanea Augustiniana: Augustine Presbyter Factus Sum, Ed. Joseph Lienhard, EarlMuller and Roland Teske. New York: Peter Lang, 1993, 342-361.

_______. Augustine the Theologian. London: Burns & Oates, 1970.

_______. “Nature and Grace in Augustine’s Expositions of Gen. 1: 1-5.” RecherchesAugustiniennes 5 (1968): 95-137.

Teske, Roland. “The Aim of Augustine’s Proof that God truly is.” International PhilosophicalQuarterly 26 (1986): 253-268.

________. “Origen and St Augustine's First Commentary on Genesis.” In Origeniana Quinta.Leuven: Univ Pr, 1992, 179-185.

________. “St. Augustine’s View of the Original Human Condition in De Genesi contraManichaeos.” Augustinian Studies 22 (1991): 141-156.

________. “A Decisive Admonition for St. Augustine?” Augustinian Studies 19 (1988): 85-92.

________. “The Image and Likeness of God in St. Augustine’s De Genesi ad Litteram liberimperfectus.” Augustinianum 30 (1990): 441-451.

________. “The Motive of Creation according to St. Augustine.” The Modern Schoolman 65(1988): 245-253.

________. “ ‘Vocans Temporales, Faciens Aeternos’: St. Augustine on Liberation from Time.”Tranditio 41 (1985): 36-58.

31

________. “Homo spiritualis in St Augustine's De Genesi contra Manichaeos.” In Studiapatristica 22. Louvain: Peeters, 1989, 351-355.

________. “Criteria for Figurative Interpretation in St. Augustine.” In De doctrina Christiana: AClassic of Western Culture, ed. Duane Arnold and Palema Bright. Notre Dame andLondon: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995, 109-122.

________. “Spirituals and Spiritual Interpretation in Augustine.” Augustinian Studies 15 (1984):65-81.

________. “Augustine’s Theory of Soul.” In The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, ed.Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,2001, 116-123.

________. “The World Soul and Time in St. Augustine.” Augustinian Studies 14 (1983): 75-92.

________. Paradoxes of Time in St. Augustine. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press,1996.

________. “Augustine, the Manichees and the Bible.” In Augustine and the Bible, ed and tr.Pamela Bright. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999, 208-221.

Toom, Tarmo. Thought Clothed with Sound :Augustine's Christological Hermeneutics in Dedoctrina Christiana. New York: Peter Lang, 2002.

Torchia, N. Joseph. Creatio ex nihilo and the Theology of St. Augustine:the anti-ManichaeanPolemic and Beyond. New York: Peter Lang, 1999.

Tracy, David. “Charity, Obscurity, Clarity: Augustine’s Search for Rhetoric and Hermeneutics.”In Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in Our Time: A Reader, ed. W. Jost and M. J. Hyde. NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1997, 254-274.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. St. Augustine as an Interpreter of Holy Scripture. London: John W.Parker, 1851.

Troup, Calvin L. Temporality, Eternity, and Wisdom: the Rhetoric of Augustine's Confessions.Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999.

Van der Meer, F. Augustine the Bishop: The Life and Work of a Father of the Church, tr. BrianBattershaw and G.R. Lamb. London and New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961.

Van Fleteren, Frederick. “Toward an Understanding of Augustine’s Hermeneutic.” AugustinianStudies 29/2 (1998): 118-130.

________. “Augustine’s Principles of Biblical Exegesis, De doctrina Christiana Aside:Miscellaneous Observations.” Augustinian Studies 27/2 (1996): 109-130.

32

________. “Principles of Augustine’s Hermeneutic: An Overview.” In Augustine: BiblicalExegete, ed. Frederick Van Fleteren and Joseph Schnaubelt. New York: Peter Lang,2001, 1-32.

________. “Per Speculum et in Aenigmate : The Use of 1 Corinthians 13:12 In the Writings ofAugustine.” Augustinian Studies 23 (1992): 69-102.

Vannier, Marie Anne. “L'interpretation augustinienne de la creation et l'emanatisme manicheen.”In Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West, eds. Johannes van Oort, OttoWermelinger and Gregor Wurst. Leiden; Boston; Koln: Brill, 2001, 287-297.

_______. “Le rôle de l’hexaéméron dans l’interpretation augustinienne de la création.” StudiaPatristica 22. Louvain: Peeters, 1989, 372-381.

_______. “Aspects de l’idée de création chez S. Augustin.” Recherches de science religieuse 65(1991): 213-225.

_______. “Creatio,” “Conversio,” “Formatio” chez S. Augustin. Paradosis Vol. 31. Fribourg:Éditions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 1991.

Vessey, Mark, Karla Pollmann and Allan Fitzgerald, eds. History, Apocalypse, and the SecularImagination: New Essays on Augustine's City of God. Bowling Green, OH: PhilosophyDocumentation Center, Bowling Green State University, 1999.

Walvoord, John F. Inspiration and Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957.

Weber, Dorothea. “Augustinus, De Genesi contra Manichaeos: zu Augustins Darstellung undWiderlegung der manichaischen Kritik am biblischen Schopfungsbericht.” In Augustineand Manichaeism in the Latin West, ed. Johannes van Oort, Otto Wermelinger andGregor Wurst. Leiden; Boston; Koln: Brill, 2001, 298-306.

Wermelinger, O. “Le canon des Latins au temps de Jerôme et d’Augustin.” In Le canon del’Ancien Testament: sa formation et son histoire, ed. J. D. Kaestli. Geneva: Labor etFides, 1984.

Werther, David. “Augustine and Absolute Creation.” Sophia 28 (April, 1989): 41-52.

White, C. The Correspondence (194-419) Between Jerome and Augustine of Hippo. Lewiston :Edwin Mellen Press, 1990.

Wiles, James W. A Scripture Index to the Works of St. Augustine in English Translation.Lanham: University Press of America, 1995.

Williams, Jeremy P.-H. “The Church’s Text: The Development of a Church-CenteredHermeneutic in the West, 393-695.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1999.

33

Williams, Thomas. “Biblical Interpretation.” In The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, ed.Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,2001, 59-70.

Wohlmuth, J. “Theophanietexte in der exegese des Augustinus. Ein systematisch orientiertesGespräch zwischen Augustinus und der Phänomenologie.” In Stimuli, Fs. E. Dassmann,ed. G. Schöllgen and Cl. Scholten. Münster: Aschedorffsche V., 1996.

Wolfskeel, Cornelia W. “Some Remarks with Regard to Augustine’s Conception of Man as theImage of God.” Vigiliae Christianae 30 (1976): 63-71.

Wood, Arthur Skevington. The Principles of Biblical Interpretation as Enunciated by Irenaeus,Origen, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1967.

Wright, David F. “Augustine: His Exegesis and Hermeneutics.” In Hebrew Bible/OldTestament : The History of its Interpretation, Vol 1 : From the Beginning to the MiddleAges, ed. Magne Saebo. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996, 701-730.

Young, A. M. “Some Aspects of St. Augustine’s Literary Aesthetics, Studied chiefly in Dedoctrina christiana.” Harvard Theological Review 62 (1969): 289-299.

Young, F. “The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis.” In The Making ofOrthodoxy: Essays in honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. Rowan Williams. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Zarb, S. M. “St. Augustine, the Biblical Scholar.” Scientia 21: 129-144.

IV. Review of Related Literature

A. Introductory Works

Augustine’s hermeneutic and exegesis has drawn attention from many scholars. A great

amount of the secondary literature on Augustine’s biblical interpretation focuses upon general

principles and theories found in De doctrina Christiana like his theory of sign and figurative

interpretation, the rule of faith and love, and his theory of frui and uti. It is true that De doctrina

Christiana is Augustine’s prominent work on hermeneutic and exegesis. But, this work is not the

only place where Augustine’s exegesis is to be explored. Frederick van Fleteren rightly indicates

that Augustine’s axioms of biblical interpretation are scattered throughout his work. Also Van

34

Fleteren warns, “Without study of Augustine’s hermeneutic and exegetical practice, De doctrina

Christiana alone could be misleading.”41 Compared with writings on De doctrina Christians,

there are not many works on Augustine’s exegetical practice seen in his commentaries and

sermons. Works on his Genesis commentaries are not an exception. In fact, there is no work

comparing Augustine’s commentaries on the opening chapters of Genesis in terms of progress.

Introductory notes in English translations of his Genesis commentaries are good sources

to begin the research for Augustine’s exegesis on the creation stories.42 Roland Teske is the first

English translator of Augustine’s earlier Genesis commentaries: De Genesi contra Manichaeos

and De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus. He provides a helpful introduction to Augustine’s earlier

commentaries.43 In his introduction to the translations, he deals with the audiences, context, and

exegetical methods of the two commentaries. His analysis of the contents and structure of the

two commentaries is also very helpful. The most valuable contribution of this introduction is

Teske’s argument for the significance of the two works. Indicating that fact that these two

commentaries have been quite neglected, he lists “two reasons that account for an interest in

these early works of Augustine.”44 One reason has to do with the present biblical studies which is

opened toward the exegesis of early church Fathers. The other has to do with the state of

Augustinian studies which has shown the change in Augustine’s thought on significant

philosophical and theological matters. The latter reason provides a starting point of this

dissertation. Teske summarizes the significance of the two works as follows,

41 Frederick van Fleteren, “Principles of Augustine’s Hermeneutic: An Overview,” in Augustine: Biblical

Scholar, ed. Frederick van Fleteren and Joseph Schnaubelt (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 2.42 One of the best works which need to be mentioned here at first is the introductory notes of P. Agaësse

and A. Solignac, in La genèse au sens littéral en douze livre. Bibliothèque augustinienne 48 and 49 (Paris: Declée deBrouwer, 1972). Most of works on Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis heavily rely on and quote this writing. Thesetwo volumes are still on the way. Probably these volumes will be very useful for this dissertation.

43 Roland J. Teske, “Introduction,” 3-43.44 Ibid., 37.

35

Regardless of the solution one might entertain, these two expositions of Genesis revealthe brilliance of Augustine in dealing with one of the crucial texts of Scripture for ourunderstanding of God and man and the abiding value of his approach to the word of God,and at the same time show us the progress he made in his thought.45

Teske does not articulate what progress Augustine made in interpreting the opening chapters of

Genesis. But he rightly indicates that Augustine’s understanding of some key terms such as

literal interpretation may have changed from his earliest to his later writings.46

Edmund Hill is another translator of Augustine’s Genesis commentaries: De Genesi

contra Manichaeos, De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus, and De Genesi ad litteram. In his

recently published translations, he also presents valuable introductions and notes on the

background of the three commentaries. Like Teske, Hill mentions the importance of Augustine’s

earlier works as an indicator of his progress. He writes,

Anyone wishing to study the development of Augustine’s theology, cosmology, andconception of history will find in this work many anticipations of his later views. At thesame time, the beginning stage represented by On Genesis: A Refutation of theManichees makes it possible to measure the progress which Augustine made over theyears in his exegetical method, theological terminology, and thinking about God, theworld, and humanity.47

Though both Teske and Hill present their valuable observations on Augustine’s Genesis

commentaries, one may not expect to find a comprehensive discussion of Augustine’s exegetical

methods in these introductions. Thus the contribution of Teske and Hill to this dissertation is

found in their presentations of general background of the commentaries and more importantly in

their suggestions for further research on Augustine’s exegeses of the creation stories in terms of

progress.

45 Ibid., 39.46 Ibid., 17.47 Edmund Hill, “Introduction,” 35.

36

B. Works on Augustine’s Exegesis of Genesis 1-3

Though not many, there are still some insightful works dealing with Augustine’s exegesis

of Genesis 1-3. One of the most contributive works for this dissertation is Robert Bernard’s

dissertation. In his dissertation, “In Figura: Terminology Pertaining to Figurative Exegesis in the

Works of Augustine of Hippo,” Bernard analyzes the use of figura in Augustine’s figurative

exegesis of the Scriptures.48 Most relevant to this dissertation is chapter III. In this chapter, after

comparing Augustine’s use of the terms for figurative interpretation in De Genesi contra

Manichaeos and De Genesi ad litteram, he contends that Augustine replaces allegoria with

figura as a central term in non-literal exegesis in his later commentary. According to Bernard,

Augustine composed De Genesi ad litteram as a corrective to the earlier and less successful

attempts, particularly De Genesi contra Manichaeos, especially in the area of defense of the

literal text of Genesis against the Meanichees.

Though there are some aspects on which I cannot agree, Bernard’s dissertation presents a

plausible argumentation on the relationship between Augustine’s literal interpretation and

concept of history. Bernard claims, “To take Genesis 2-3 figuratively is to take Adam

figuratively as well. To do that is to bring confusion into the historicity of the narrative.”49

Another work dealing with the relationship between literal interpretation and concept of

history is Susan Schreiner’s essay, “Eve, the Mother of History: Reaching for the Reality of

History in Augustine’s Later Exegesis of Genesis.” In this essay, Schreiner tries to show that

Augustine’s central concern in De Genesi ad litteram is to defend exegetically the opening

chapters of Genesis as the beginning of God’s providential historical plan. She contends that

Augustine’s concern with the reality of history lies at the heart of De Genesi ad litteram,

48 Robert W. Bernard, “In Figura: Terminology Pertaining to Figurative Exegesis in the Works of

Augustine of Hippo” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, 1984).49 Ibid., 131.

37

explains its exegetical method, ties its diverse subjects together, and determines his interpretation

of Adam and Eve.50 By presenting the reality of history as a central theme, she offers a way of

reading De Genesi ad litteram. Her contribution to this dissertation is also found in her view on

the causal reasons. Schreiner interprets Augustine’s doctrine of the causal reasons in terms of his

exegesis. According to her, the causal reasons mediate exegetically between the two creation

stories.

Kathryn Greene-McCreight examines and compares the literal interpretation of Genesis

1-3 of Augustine, Calvin, and Barth, in her book Ad letteram.51 In the second chapter, she deals

with Augustine’s understanding of the literal sense of the Scriptures in De Genesi ad litteram.

Though her discussion is not profound, she presents her careful observation on Augustine’s

literal interpretation of the creation stories. Especially, her observation on the function of the

rules of faith and charity is helpful to understand Augustine’s hermeneutical principles in De

doctrina Christiana in his actual exegetical setting.

In her essay, “Heresy, Asceticism, Adam, and Eve: Interpretations of Genesis 1-3 in the

Later Latin Fathers,” Elizabeth Clark examines the interpretations of Genesis 1-3 of Ambrose,

Jerome, and Augustine in relation with Jovinian’s attack against their asceticism.52 Questioning

the opinion that the Pelagian controversy was the decisive factor prompting Augustine to

develop a more fleshly reading of Adam and Eve, she contends that Augustine developed an

earthier and more literal reading of 1-3 in De Genesi ad litteram in refuting Jovinian’s accusation

that Catholic asceticism was Manichean. Though her contention is profound and plausible,

without mentioning Augustine’s earlier plan or wish for the literal interpretation, she seems to

50 Schreiner, “Eve, the Mother of History,” 136.51 Kathryn Greene-McCreight, Ad litteram: How Augustine, calvin, and Barth Read the “Plain Sense” of

Genesis 1-3 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999).52 Elizabeth A. Clark, “Heresy, Asceticism, Adam, and Eve: Interpretations of Genesis 1-3 in the Later

Latin Fathers,” in Genesis 1-3 in the History of Exegesis (Lewiston, NT: Edwin Mellen Pr., 1988), 99-133.

38

emphasize too much only on the outer factors of Augustine’s change in his exegesis Gen. 1:28.

However, it is certain that she places Augustine’s literal exegesis of the creation stories in its

historical and ecclesial setting.

Roland Teske has written not only his translations but also several articles and essays on

Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis.53 Here, two essays among them will be mentioned. First, in his

essay, “Spirituals and spiritual interpretation in Augustine,” Teske claims that by the spirituals

Augustine meant “those who can conceive of a spiritual substance” and by a spiritual

understanding of the Scriptures, an understanding of incorporeal and spiritual reality in the

Scriptures.54 Furthermore he suggests that, for Augustine, the spirituals were men such as

Ambrose, Simplicianus, Theodorus and Victorinus who exemplified the man of good intellect

and the spiritual man and whose way of thinking God has been reformed by Neoplatonism. In his

follow-up essay, “Homo spiritualis in St. Augustine’s De Genesi contra Manichaeos,” Teske

examines the identity of the spirituals in comparison with the animal or carnal men seen in De

Genesi contra Manichaeos. He presents some more evidences to support his hypothesis about

what Augustine meant when he spoke of the spirituals in the Church and the spiritual

interpretation of the Scriptures. Teske’s discussion of the spirituals and spiritual interpretation

helps to understand Augustine’s figurative or spiritual interpretation in De Genesi contra

Manichaeos.

53 See Roland Teske, “Origen and St Augustine's First Commentary on Genesis,” in Origeniana Quinta(Leuven: Univ Pr, 1992), 179-185; “St. Augustine’s View of the Original Human Condition in De Genesi contraManichaeos,” Augustinian Studies 22 (1991): 141-156 ; “The Image and Likeness of God in St. Augustine’s DeGenesi ad Litteram liber imperfectus,” Augustinianum 30 (1990): 441-451; “The Motive of Creation according to St.Augustine,” The Modern Schoolman 65(1988): 245-253; “Homo spiritualis in St Augustine's De Genesi contraManichaeos,” in Studia patristica 22 (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 351-355; “Spirituals and Spiritual Interpretation inAugustine,” Augustinian Studies 15 (1984): 65-81; “Augustine’s Theory of Soul,” in The Cambridge Companion toAugustine, ed. Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2001), 116-123;“The World Soul and Time in St. Augustine,” Augustinian Studies 14 (1983): 75-92; “Augustine, the Manichees andthe Bible,” in Augustine and the Bible, ed and tr. Pamela Bright (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1999), 208-221.

54 Teske, “Spirituals and Spiritual Interpretation in Augustine,” 75.

39

Another essay of Teske to be mentioned is “Criteria for Figurative Interpretation in St.

Augustine.” In this essay, Teske examines Augustine’s criteria for figurative interpretation seen

in De Genesi contra Manichaeos and De doctrina Christiana. Augustine’s criterion looks

different in these two works. In De Genesi contra Manichaeos, the professed grounds for

resorting to figurative interpretation lie in his inability to interpret the text literally in accordance

with the rule of faith. But, in De doctrina Christiana, Augustine teaches that any passage of the

Scriptures that do not refer to either a matter of faith or of morals is to be interpreted figuratively.

Teske explains the seemingly different two criteria as a single criterion with two functions or

emphasis for different audiences.

Also, there is some secondary literature which, though not dealing with Augustine’s

Genesis commentaries, serves as backgrounds for the study of Augustine’s exegesis of the

creation stories. At first, Bertrand de Margerie’s work should be mentioned. In his book, An

Introduction to the History of Exegesis III. Saint Augustine, de Margerie explores Augustine’s

scriptural interpretation focusing on the commandment of dual charity as the key to exegesis, on

a plurality of literal senses of the Scriptures, and on the origin of Augustine’s pneumatology.55

This book, especially chapter II, is informative for this dissertation. In chapter II, de Margerie

tries to answer to the question “Does Augustine’s Moses stand for multiplicity in unity?” His

argumentation for “unipluralism” of the literal meaning provides a good background to

understand Augustine’s literal interpretation of the creation stories.

In his book, The Word of God According to St. Augustine, Polmann examines

Augustine’s view of the Word of God with a Calvinist viewpoint.56 In his first chapter, he

55 Bertrand de Margerie, An Introduction to the History of Exegesis III. Augustine, tr. Pierre de

Fontnouvelle (Petersham: Saint Bede’s Publications, 1991).56 A.D.R. Polmann, The Word of God According to St, Augustine, tr. A.J. Pomerans (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1961).

40

indicates the two stages in Augustine’s view of the Word of God, though which cannot be

sharply divided. In the earlier, Augustine, under the influence of Neoplatonism, saw Christ

mainly as the eternal Word and regards the Scriptures as a starting point. But in the later stage,

he stresses the role of Christ as the Saviour and the Scriptures as a sure guide and s strong

support. Though not without problem, Polmann’s explanation offers an angle to look at the

difference between Augustine’s earlier and later commentaries.

The essays on Augustine’s hermeneutics and exegesis found in the book Augustine and

the Bible contribute to this dissertation by providing good insights for a study of Augusitne’s

exegesis.57 This book consists of four parts: Augustine’s biblical initiation, his encounter with

the hermeneutics of his native province, that is, Tyconius, his exegesis and polemics against

heretics, and his ministry of the Word. Though each essay is not mentioned here, the essays in

this book are proved to be helpful in various ways to this dissertation.

C. Works on Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation

Studies of Augustine’s doctrine of creation broaden understanding of his exegesis of the

opening chapters of Genesis. There are some good works on his doctrine of creation to be

mentioned in this review. The first one is Marie-Anne Vannier’s book, ‘Creatio,’ ‘Conversio,’

‘Formatio’ chez S. Augustin.58 In this book, Vannier explores Augustine’s doctrine of creation in

relation with his view on conversion and formation. For Augustine, creation is inseparable from

the process of freely willed conversion toward the Creator and progressive formation to Him.

Vannier examines the factors for Augustine’s reflections on creation, conversion, and formation:

his own experience, reflections on the Scriptures, anti-Manichean polemic, Neoplatonism, and

57 Pamela Bright, tr. and ed. Augustine and the Bible (Notre dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999).58 Marie-Anne Vannier, ‘Creatio,’ ‘Conversio,’ ‘Formatio’ chez S. Augustin (Fribourg: Éditions

Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 1997).

41

other fathers including Origen and Basil. Her discussion is mainly from Augustine’s five

commentaries on the opening chapters of Genesis, which is her contribution to this dissertation.

Her discussion and demonstration is helpful to understand Augustine’s commentaries in a

doctrinal context, which is finally closely related with his exegesis.

William Christian, in his article “Augustine on the Creation of the World,” examines

Augustine’s doctrine of creation in relation with his view of revelation and Neoplatonism.59

Dealing with four themes—“in the beginning,” “heaven and earth,” “out of nothing,” and “And

behold, it was very good”—Christian demonstrates that the new truth Augustine found in the

Scriptures was that God is the Creator of all things in heave and earth. This new truth both

fulfilled the promise of Neoplatonism and superceded it. According to Christian, unresolved

tensions, unsolved problems, and constant confession of mystery found in Augustine’s dealing

with the subject of creation are due to his thought that the creation of the world amounts a

searching and persistent exploration. Augustine, contends Christian, kept exploring the subject of

creation as a philosopher as well as a Christian.

John O’Meara, in his book, The Creation of Man in St. Augustine’s De Genesi ad

litteram, examines Augustine’s thought on creation of man in the three chapters: Augustine’s

interpretation of Genesis on creation, the creation of man and woman, and man and woman in

Paradise.60 In the first chapter, O’Meara deals with Augustine’s literal interpretation and his

attitude and use of science in this later commentary. In the second, he tries to show that

Augustine took an enlightened, favorable, and sympathetic view of woman, who was created in

the image of God in the first aspect of creation and produced by God’s creative causality. In the

59 William A. Christian, “Augustine on the Creation of the World,” Harvard theological Review 76 (1953):

1-26.60 John J. O’Meara, The Creation of Man in St. Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram (Villanova, PA:

Augustinian Institute, Villanova University, 1980)

42

third chapter, by examining the life of Adam and Eve in their earthly Paradise, O’Meara

demonstrates Augustine’s respect for reality, including the reality of human beings’ nature.

Finally, Robert O’Connell’s works should be mentioned here. O’Connell provides a good

insight for the study of Augustine’s genesis commentaries in his two books, by showing the

influence of Neoplatonism, especially of Plotinus, on Augustine’s thought on man and his soul.

In the book, St. Augustine’s Early Theory of Man, A.D. 386-391, drawing the parallels between

the Enneads and Augusitne’s earlier works, O’Connell demonstrates the influence of Plotinus’

Enneads on Augustine’s earlier works including De Genesi contra Manichaeos. 61 According to

O’Connell, the Enneads not only brought together earlier philosophical and religious influences

on Augustine, they also continued to nourish and predominantly form his subsequent intellectual

development. In the book, The Origin of the Soul in St. Augustine’s Later Works, he keeps his

exploration of Augustine’s anthropology focusing on his later works.62 Most relevant to this

dissertation is the chapter on “The soul in the De Genesi ad litteram,” in which he examines and

analyzes Augustine’s thought on the soul. His books are helpful not only in that these provide an

insightful observation and interpretation on Augustine’s doctrine of man, but also in that these

show the development in Augustine’s thought.

D. Conclusion

All of the works mentioned above are helpful to this dissertation in various ways. But

there are some works to help to elucidate the thesis of this dissertation. At first, though they do

not articulate or explore what the progress is like, Roland Teske and Edmund Hill indicates

61 Robert J. O’Connell, St. Augustine’s Early Theory of Man, A.D. 386-391 (Cambridge: Harvard-Belknap,

1968).62 Robert J. O’Connell, The Origin of the Soul in St. Augustine’s Later Works (New York: Fordham

university Press, 1987).

43

Augustine’s progress in his exegesis of the creation stories, which forms the beginning point of

this dissertation. The works on Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis 1-3 such as Susan Schreiner and

Elizabeth Clark help to examine each exegesis especially De Genesi ad litteram. However, there

is no comparative work on Augustine’s exegeses of Genesis 1-3. Comparing De Genesi contra

Manichaeos and De Genesi ad litteram, this dissertation focuses on Augustine’s progress in his

exegesis of the creation stories. The secondary literature on Augustine’s exegesis helps to look at

each tree rather than the wood.

Some scholars like Bernard and Schreiner indicates the relationship between Augustine’s

concept of history and his exegesis. Bernard briefly mentions the relationship dealing with the

terms, allegoria and figura. He relates the term figura with history. Since his dissertation is to

show the place and meaning of the term figura in Augustine’s figurative exegesis, however, his

observation of the relationship, though it seems to be right, is not fully developed. In her essay,

“Eve, the mother of history,” Schreiner analyzes the role of Augustine’s notion of history in De

Genesi ad litteram. Her analysis is helpful to understand the relationship between the notion of

history and exegesis seen in De Genesi ad litteram. However, her discussion does not include

Augustine’s former exegeses of Genesis 1-3. Though not comprehensive, these works helps this

dissertation to explore how Augustine’s notion of history developed and how his changed notion

of history influenced his exegesis.

V. The Procedure

This dissertation will be a historical and theological analysis of Augustine’s exegeses of

Genesis 1-3. Main focus will be on Augustine’s two commentaries on Genesis: De Genesi contra

Manichaeos and De Genesi ad litteram. Though the central discussion will be regarding these

44

two commentaries, the dissertation will employ other commentaries on Genesis, that is, De

Genesi ad litteram imperfectus, Confessiones XI-XIII, and De civitate Dei XI, whenever these

commentaries provides stepping stones to understand his progress seen in the main two

commentaries. Other works of Augustine including pastoral, dogmatic, apologetic, and

exegetical writings will be used only when they offer the historical and theological context

necessary to understand the two main commentaries.

This dissertation considers historical as well as theological aspects for understanding

Augustine’s progress in exegetical theory and practice. There is an interval of thirteen to twenty

six years between the two Genesis commentaries. It is an important part of this dissertation to

investigate what happened to Augustine during this interval, since his progress in exegesis is

intermingled with his other changing views.

Regarding the primary source, this dissertation will refer to available English translations.

There are two English translations for both De Genesi contra Manichaeos and De Genesi ad

litteram. Reference will be also made to the Latin critical editions. The both commentaries are in

Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorm. This dissertation will investigate and consult

mainly the primary source.

Also this dissertation will engage in dialogue with modern scholarship on Augustinian

studies. This dissertation will not hesitate to employ some insightful secondary literature to

support and crystallize the major points of the study. Arguing for the thesis, if necessary, this

dissertation will offer critical evaluation of modern scholarship.

45

VI. The Probable Contents

I. IntroductionA. Principles of Augustine’s HermeneuticB. Augustine’s Repeated Efforts to Interpret Gen 1-3C. The Scope of the Study

II. Literal and Figurative InterpretationA. Literal and Figurative Interpretation in De doctrina ChristianiaB. Progress in Augustine’s Understanding of Literal InterpretationC. Relationship between Literal and Figurative Interpretation

III. History and Literal InterpretationA. Augustine’s View of HistoryB. Augustine’s View of Historicity of Genesis 1-3C. Relationship between History and Literal Interpretation

IV. Inter-textual InterpretationA. Augustine’s View of the ScripturesB. Augustine’s Use of the ScripturesC. Progress in Augustine’s Intertextual Interpretation

V. Augustine’s Interpretation of the Two Creation Stories in De Genesi ad LitteramA. The Simultaneous Creation in Gen. 1: 1 – 2: 4aB. The Temporal Development in Gen. 2: 4b – 3: 24C. Causal Reasons and Literal Interpretation

VI. Conclusion

Chapter I as the introduction, first of all, examines Augustine’s hermeneutics expressed

in De doctrina Christiana where he presents his hermeneutical principles and exegetical

methods. This section will present the background against which Augustine’s exegetical practice

is investigated. Then this chapter deals with Augustine’s repeated efforts in interpreting the

opening chapters of Genesis. This section will provide a brief introduction to each commentary.

Chapter II deals with Augustine’s understanding of literal and figurative interpretation.

At first, this chapter will show Augustine’s different notions of literal interpretation seen in the

two Genesis commentaries. Then his different notions will be explained in terms of progress.

46

Finally, this chapter explores Augustine’s thought on relationship between literal and figurative

Interpretation. It will be shown how his thought on this relationship changed according to the

progress in his notion of literal interpretation.

Chapter III studies Augustine’s concept of history and its relation with literal

interpretation. At first, this chapter will show the development in Augustine’s concept of history.

Then it will explore the influence of his developed concept of history on his view of the creation

stories and furthermore on his exegetical practice of the opening chapters of Genesis.

Chapter IV analyzes Augustine’s inter-textual interpretation in the Genesis

commentaries. After reviewing his notion of the Scriptures, this chapter will compare

Augustine’s inter-textual interpretation in De Genesi contra Manichaeos and De Genesi ad

litteram. In doing so, it will show the progress in Augustine’s inter-textual interpretation.

Chapter V, as a sort of excursus, examines Augustine’s interpretation of the two creation

stories (Gen. 1:1-2:4a and Gen. 2:4b-3:24) in De Genesi ad litteram. This chapter will place

Augustine’s theory of causal reasons against the background of his mature exegetical stage. In

doing so, it will try to explain why Augustine employed the theory of causal reason in this

commentary and how this theory of causal reasons is related with his mature literal interpretation

of the creation stories.

Chapter VI is the conclusion of this dissertation. This chapter will summarize and

integrate the argumentations of the previous chapters. In doing so, it will restate the relationship

between Augustine’s notion of history and historicity of scriptures and his exegesis of the

creation stories. And it will show Augustine’s progress in his exegesis of Genesis 1-3 in an

integrative way.