I'm not much for Augustine's Confessions, which I've started and given up twice over the years for being too grovelling and self-pitying. Augustine is a gifted explicator, however, and his prose is a joy to read; On Christian Doctrine deserves its place at the headwaters of post-antiquity western tradition.

Contrary to my assumptions, this book is neither an introduction to nor a systematic explanation of Christian theology. Rather, it's an original and well-developed guide to reading well. Using what Augustine refers to as the "divine books"* for his examples, Augustine presents the essential principles of literacy - including recognition of metaphors and rhetorical styles, figurative and literal language, interpretive layers, accounting for context, the methods, use, and limits of inferring authorial intent, and even comparing translations to develop a more robust understanding of foreign-language texts. Observations and insights on Christian theology, scripture, and philosophy are liberally sprinkled throughout, naturally, but they're there to illustrate how to read complicated literature. Succinct, brilliant, indispensable. I wish I'd read this in grade school.

*Since the canon of Christian scripture was not yet determined as of his lifetime, I'm not totally sure which books of the present-day New Testaments Augustine had access to or considered "divine." The list could be inferred from included references, and I'm sure this has been done and is available online somewhere. I take it as given that he would have included the Jewish Septuagint.

I'm surprised at myself for liking this as much as I did. I'm not really into that whole "Christian Doctrine" thing, but St. Augustine's approach to the Bible is fascinating: basically, if it doesn't make sense to read something literally, then read it figuratively. He's got a great knack for creating metaphors, and his musings are very relevant to literature and theories of language. In fact, his concept of signs - and particularly words as signs - is pervasive in literary theory.

I had entirely forgotten that I read this book, but Dr. Edwards insisted it was very good, and I agree.

So, before I get into the meat of the book, a note about this translation by Oxford's World Classics. This is a terrible translation. It tries to be dynamic, but ends up being anachronistic and feeling way too informal (for instance, "junk food" ends up in here). I am no pedant (my favorite translation right now is the NIV), but this was a register too low for me, and often made Augustine sound stretched.

Okay, the basic point of this book is that exegeting and teaching the Bible should make us love God and our neighbor. To make this point, Augustine says that we have signs and things, and we should not get bogged down in signs, but rather be poined to things--with the ultimate "thing" being God. This is something so simple and yet easily forgotten, that I want to be a better Christian because of it. This is the point of book 1.

In book 2, Augustine gives a careful understanding of signs and things signified and offers some very wise and timeless truths on how to read carefully. He says that we should let context determine meaning, both in terms of words and passages. He also has recourse to multiple translations and thinks that the Septuagint is the authoritative text (a point I differ with but that's a controversy for another time). He says Christian teachers should have a good generalized knowledge of the world and of the different fields of knowledge (music, math, etc.) and explains how it's helpful in understanding the Scriptures. You might call it the "historical" of the "historical-grammatical."

In book 3, Augustine explains the importance of not confusing the literal with the spiritual, or the literal with the metaphorical. It's interesting because Augustine is quite sensible: he says that we should not make the Scriptures that are ambiguous mean anything that is not thoroughly agreed upon. He also says that we should not be confused by the different morality in the Old Testament, since customs and societies change, though right and wrong do not change. But then it's clear that he finds a bunch of allegorical meanings that are not in the text at all, and so it's clear we're in another planet. One interesting little tidbit is that Augustine says that in the Old Covenant there were a lot of signs, but that in the New Covenant there are only two--the sacraments. In all of this, we are to look past the physical to the spiritual. It shows how fluid these categories were for Augustine.

I differ with his allegorical interpretations, but as someone who spends a lot of time in Biblical Horizons-like readings of Scripture, it made me realize how easy it is for me to become captive to an idea. So maybe there's cause for humility about meanings in texts which are just "obvious." Augustine may have been too ascetic, but we are definitely too luxurious and libertine.

In book 4, Augustine offers a long discussion of fruitful rhetoric in teaching, which it seems clear to me focuses on pastors. He says that rhetoric is not to be despised and points to the rhetoric in the Bible. Like Socrates, he warns against letting rhetoric distract us from the truth. He says that different styles are fitting for different times, and that simple styles are best for teaching about the Trinity. More fancy, or emotional styles, though sometimes suitable, are not to be maintained for very long. Remember, says Augustine, the point is to make people do things, not to make them look at you.

So, all in all, very good. Augustine was a great church father, and I was encouraged to hear him giving advice that I myself have heard in the modern era before. Augustine says not to worry about what you will say before you preach: the Spirit will give you what you need. As someone who worries a lot about what he says, I found this comforting, pastor or no pastor.

I feel presumptuous giving Augustine 3 stars. If you were to compare my intellect with Augustine's, mine would definitely be the one wanting. However, there were some thoughts I found troublesome.

Augustine's book aims to contain a “general view of the subjects treated in the Holy Scripture”. It is secondarily concerned with proper hermeneutics in order to ascertain what those subjects are. Of his secondary aim, there is a lot of sense in what he writes. Is a passage literal? Do not interpret it figuratively. Is it figurative? Do not interpret it literally. And so on. It is the “general view” of the subjects found in scripture that bothered me. Here, I cannot help but think that he breaks with his own advice found in the “Dangers of Mistaken Interpretation” section. Here he says, ”For if he takes up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in with other statements which he cannot harmonize with this meaning, And if he admits that these statements are true and certain then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be the true one: and so it comes to pass, one can hardly tell how, that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more angry with Scripture than he is with himself.” Although Augustine does not become angry, I think he does force some ideas in order to fit them in with his original interpretations.

For example, he expounds the idea that things here are either to be enjoyed, to be used, or are to be both used an enjoyed. He defines enjoyment as something we find satisfaction in for it's own sake and urges us to consider that God is the only true source of enjoyment. Things for use are those things that we employ to obtain what we desire (which is hopefully God). But then he tried to to put humans under the category of “things” and maintained that God only uses us (though of course with a different definition of use, with it being for our own good). This is something I agree with to some extent. What bothered me is that he expressly says that God does not enjoy us. He says, ”If He enjoys us, He must be in need of good from us, and no sane man will say that; for all the good we enjoy is either Himself, or what comes from Himself.”. Does it follow that in order to enjoy us it must be because he needs some good from us? Can we not say that He enjoys us since we do fall under the category of those things which come from Himself?

Another bothersome thing he says is this: And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures even in solitude on the strength of these three graces.” If he had said 'on the strength of Scriptures they had memorized” or something then maybe I could get behind his statement. But to put so much trust in the individual to be able to keep a firm hold on these things without the corrective aid of Scripture, well, it kind of blows my mind. And what Scripture does he base this statement on?

So, I concede that I may be misreading this work, and I also think there are practical things, useful things if you will, to be found here, but until I can reconcile other problems I give it 3 stars.

It's by Augustine, which means you should read it. And by the way, it's pronounced Au-gustine.

A theological text written by St. Augustine of Hippo, it consists of four books published between 397 and 426 AD that explain how to interpret and teach the Scriptures using rules he provides. I only read selections from book four. In this book Augustine focuses on the teaching of scripture, not on interpreting them. He argues that Christian teachers should use the art of rhetoric to teach the meaning of scriptures (since those who teach falsehoods use rhetoric, why shouldn't those who teach the truth do likewise?). The goal of the Christian teacher, he says, should be to teach wisdom (based on scripture) by the use of eloquence, and the teacher's lifestyle should be in harmony with scripture. That said, he admits that wisdom is more important for the Christian teacher to have than eloquence. But if you have both, he says, that's even better. He also exhorts teachers to memorize scripture as it is at the heart of understanding and interpreting scripture. That way, what the teacher says can be proven by the words of scripture.

Just read this again. Very helpful. This book is really for pastors who are trying to understand the Bible, but he has a lot of principles that applicable today, even in a regular school setting. For instance, imagine a school teaching a Bible class and how to understand the Bible, well what is the most important thing to get out of it? Augustine says that rule of interpretation number one is that we should learn to love God and love our neighbor. This seems obvious, but how often is that actually the point of a hermeneutics class? Also, I thought the first 3 books were most helpful. Book 4 goes into detail about presentation style and rhetoric, and perhaps was interesting in that he thought the best way to learn was by seeing and reading examples, and not so much by memorizing and understanding all the works on rhetoric by the ancient Greeks and Romans.

I include this book in a selection of books I call "Conversation with Christ." This is a powerful older book that has influenced Christian thinking for centuries, giving us some of the roots of thoughts practices that are still widely used today. Augustine of Hippo of course is one of the greatest of Church Fathers and should be heard on any topic he chooses to discuss. This book, however is sadly ignored in our homiletics and hermeneutics classes to our own detriment. We are an arrogant, short-sighted people sometimes.

This book has taken me far too long to read. It deserves its place among the classics both because it is great and because it is challenging. It is not about Christian Doctrine in spite of what the title says. It is about the discernment and communication of Christian Doctrine. Augustine, orator that he was, goes about the task teaching how the Bible's truth should be discerned, framed and communicated. In the first three books he talks about discernment and framing. That is, he tells how the Bible should be interpreted and understood. In this way, he is more a technician and craftsman than a theologian. It is important for the presenter of the Gospel to know how to read the Bible for what it says first and also for the harmonics in its meanings. In Augustine's day allegorical interpretations were quite common. He pulls back from that habit and says that ordinary meanings of passages should be pursued first. It is only in the case where ordinary meanings are quite obscure in their theological importance that alegorical meanings should be pursued. More importantly, he highlights how love, faith and the glory of God should guide our thinking as we study and prepare to deliver the word. He says, in the time of our hope, when our love is perfected, Scripture will no longer be necessary.

Augustine's method is one of essential exegesis. It seems odd to say since he himself employed allegory so much, but he strongly encourages a methodology that is not dependent on that device. He encourages language and contextual studies, to the point of determining a critical text. This is no small thing, since he admits here that he did not know Hebrew and in the Confessions that he found Greek burdensome. For Augustine, critical text was as much about comparing versions as exploring the original languages. These tools are more abundant to us in the English speaking world today than ever. Woe to us if we do not use them to good advantage. In the presence of such wealth we should be experiencing an unprecedented renaissance in the understanding of Scripture. I believe it should also bring about a powerful unity in that understanding, bringing us closer to the purity of what was in God's mind when He inspired it.

The last book is a treatise on oratory and the appropriate use of that art for the communication of the Gospel. Augustine was a most accomplished orator and advises two considerations for the training of preachers. One is that if a person has a natural capacity of oration, he need not spend much time in training, however if he does not no amount of training will repair the lack. The second is that a natural aptitude is best trained in listening to skilled orators more than in studying the structure of effecitve oratory. Finally, he goes about explaining three modes of oratory: the subdued (used to inform), the temperate (used to delight), and the majestic (used to persuade). The strict division of these methods should not be observed, because each of them can be used for each of the three purposes when appropriate. Augustine advises a sparing use of the majestic, most forceful, tone since emotionally the audience cannot maintain that pitch for long. Augustine advises that all considerations must combine eloquence and wisdom, with an awareness that the word the preacher speaks is of the utmost importance.

This should be mandatory reading for all Christians. I understand it's usefulness to pastors, but this will aid laymen most to understand their need and their responsibility in expanding their intellectual horizons. However, I appreciate even more the devotional character of this book: if loving God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength - and to love our neighbor as ourself is the sum of all Scripture, then that is how we need to read Scripture. Letting this principle guide the way you read and study the Word will make the "easy" passages hit home harder, and will allow you to decipher the "difficult" passages.

Liber optimus! Augustinus inter signa resque distinguit, lectionem scripturarum docet, atque modus docendi explanat. Ex Cicerone et docere, delectare, et movere veniunt et supra, mediocre, humileque, atque ex Aristotle, λόγος, πάθος, et ήθος.

If all this reading doesn’t cause me to love God and my neighbor more, then it’s a waste of time.

Or as Augustine would say:
“Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought.”

Books I-III: learning how to interpret the Bible; when is it literary and when is it figurative?; "rule of faith"; semiotics

Book IV: rhetoric (presenting what you've learned)

Good thoughts on hermeneutics, semiotics, and plundering the Egyptians. The last ten pages or so are just great.