Reading the Bible Wisely

ST AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO

Eucharisma 2, (Winter 2024), 4-11.

This is an excerpt from the text of the second book of St. Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana (On Christian Doctrine), lightly modernised by T. M. Suffield from the original translation by James Shaw,  from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. (Ed. Philip Schaff.), 1887. I have included very brief summaries of the sections that have been cut, these are in italics.

---

In the second book of On Christian Doctrine Augustine has already discussed the nature of different kinds of signs and the way words function as signs.

[6] Hence it happened that even Holy Scripture, which brings a remedy for the terrible diseases of the human will, being at first set forth in one language, by means of which it could at the right season be disseminated through the whole world, was interpreted into various tongues, and spread far and wide, and thus became known to the nations for their salvation. In reading it, men seek nothing more than to find out the thought and will of those by whom it was written, and through these to find out the will of God, in accordance with which they believe these men to have spoken.

[7] But hasty and careless readers are led astray by many and manifold obscurities and ambiguities, substituting one meaning for another. In some places they cannot hit upon even a fair interpretation. Some of the expressions are so obscure as to shroud the meaning in the thickest darkness. I do not doubt that all this was divinely arranged for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and of preventing a feeling of satisfaction in the intellect, which generally holds in low esteem what is discovered without difficulty. 

For why is it, I ask, that if any one says that there are holy and just men whose life and conversation the Church of Christ uses as a means of redeeming those who come to it from all kinds of superstitions, and making them through their imitation of good men members of its own body; men who, as good and true servants of God, have come to the baptismal font laying down the burdens of the world, and who rising thence do, through the implanting of the Holy Spirit, yield the fruit of a two-fold love, a love, that is, of God and their neighbor—how is it, I say, that if a man says this, he does not please his hearer so much as when he draws the same meaning from that passage in the Song of Songs, where it is said of the Church, when it is being praised under the figure of a beautiful woman, “Your teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep that have come up from the washing, each of which bears twins, and none is barren among them?” Does the hearer learn anything more than when he listens to the same thought expressed in the plainest language, without the help of this figure? And yet, I don’t know why, I feel greater pleasure in contemplating holy men, when I view them as the teeth of the Church, tearing men away from their errors, and bringing them into the Church’s body, with all their harshness softened down, just as if they had been torn off and chewed by the teeth. It is with the greatest pleasure, too, that I recognise them under the figure of sheep that have been shorn, laying down the burdens of the world like fleeces, and coming up from the washing, i.e., from baptism, and all bearing twins, i.e., the twin commandments of love, and none among them barren in that holy fruit.

[8] But why I view them with greater delight under that aspect than if no such figure were drawn from the sacred books, though the fact would remain the same and the knowledge the same, is another question, and one very difficult to answer. Nobody, however, has any doubt about the facts, both that it is more pleasant in some cases to have knowledge communicated through figures, and that what is attended with difficulty in the seeking gives greater pleasure in the finding. For those who seek but do not find will suffer from hunger. Those who do not seek at all because they have what they require just beside them often grow languid from satiety. Weakness from either of these causes is to be avoided. 

The Holy Spirit has, with admirable wisdom and care for our welfare, so arranged the Holy Scriptures as by the plainer passages to satisfy our hunger, and by the more obscure to stimulate our appetite. For almost nothing is dug out of those obscure passages which may not be found set forth in the plainest language elsewhere.

[9] First of all, then, it is necessary that we should be led by the fear of God to seek the knowledge of His will, what He commands us to desire and what to avoid. Now this fear will of necessity excite in us the thought of our mortality and of the death that is before us, and crucify all the motions of pride as if our flesh were nailed to the tree. Next it is necessary to have our hearts subdued by piety, and not to run in the face of Holy Scripture, whether when understood it strikes at some of our sins, or, when not understood, we feel as if we could be wiser and give better commands ourselves. We must rather think and believe that whatever is there written, even though it be hidden, is better and truer than anything we could devise by our own wisdom.

[10] After these two steps of fear and piety, we come to the third step, knowledge.. For in this every earnest student of the Holy Scriptures exercises himself, to find nothing else in them but that God is to be loved for His own sake, and our neighbour for God’s sake; and that God is to be loved with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the mind, and one’s neighbour as one’s self. That is, in such a way that all our love for our neighbor, like all our love for ourselves, should have reference to God. 

I touched on these two commandments in the previous book when I was discussing ‘things.’ It is necessary, then, that each man should first of all find in the Scriptures that he, through being entangled in the love of this world—of temporal things—has been drawn far away from such a love for God and such a love for his neighbour as Scripture urges. Then that fear which leads him to think of the judgment of God, and that piety which gives him no option but to believe in and submit to the authority of Scripture, compel him to lament his condition. The knowledge of a good hope makes a man not boastful, but sorrowful. 

In this frame of mind he implores with unceasing prayers the comfort of the Divine help that he may not be overwhelmed in despair, and so he gradually comes to the fourth step—strength and resolution—in which he hungers and thirsts after righteousness. For in this frame of mind he extricates himself from every form of fatal joy in transitory things, and turning away from these, fixes his affections on things eternal, on the unchangeable Trinity in unity.

[11] When, to the extent of his power, he has gazed upon this object shining from afar, and has felt that owing to the weakness of his sight he cannot endure that matchless light, then in the fifth step—in the counsel of compassion—he cleanses his soul, which is violently agitated, and disturbs him with base desires, from the filth it has contracted. 

At this stage he exercises himself diligently in the love of his neighbour. When he has reached the point of loving his enemy, full of hopes and unbroken in strength, he mounts to the sixth step, in which he purifies the eye itself which can see God, so far as God can be seen by those who as far as possible die to this world. Men see Him just so far as they die to this world. So far as they live to this world they see Him not. But yet, although that light may begin to appear clearer, and not only more tolerable, but even more delightful, still it is only through a glass darkly that we are said to see, because we walk by faith, not by sight, while we continue to wander as strangers in this world, even though our conversation be in heaven. At this stage, too, a man so purges the eye of his affections as not to place his neighbour before, or even in comparison with, the truth, and therefore not himself, because not him whom he loves as himself. 

Accordingly, that holy man will be so single and so pure in heart, that he will not step aside from the truth, either for the sake of pleasing men or with a view to avoid any of the annoyances which beset this life. Such a son ascends to wisdom, which is the seventh and last step, and which he enjoys in peace and tranquility. For the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. From that beginning, then, till we reach wisdom itself, our way is by the steps now described.

Augustine discusses the canon of Scripture and lists the books considered canonical. It’s worth noting this is a longer list than most Protestants would accept.

[14] In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. In pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is to know these books, if not yet with understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious his understanding becomes. Among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life, especially hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. 

After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. In this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory is defective, no rules can supply the want.

[15] Now there are two causes which prevent what is written from being understood: its being veiled either under unknown or ambiguous signs. Signs are either proper or figurative.

They are called proper when they are used to point out the objects they were designed to point out, as we say bos when we mean an ox, because all men who with us use the Latin tongue call it by this name. Signs are figurative when the things themselves which we indicate by the proper names are used to signify something else, as we say bos, and understand by that syllable the ox, which is ordinarily called by that name; but then further by that ox understand a preacher of the gospel, as Scripture signifies, according to the apostle’s explanation, when it says: “You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain.”

[16] The great remedy for ignorance of proper signs is knowledge of languages. Men who speak the Latin tongue, of whom are those I have undertaken to instruct, need two other languages for the knowledge of Scripture: Hebrew and Greek. They may then have recourse to the original texts if the endless diversity of the Latin translators throw them into doubt. 

Although, indeed, we often find Hebrew words untranslated in the books, for example, Amen, Hallelujah, Racha, Hosanna, and others of the same kind. Some of these, although they could have been translated, have been preserved in their original form on account of the more sacred authority that attaches to it, as for example, Amen and Hallelujah. Some of them, again, are said to be untranslatable into another tongue, of which the other two I have mentioned are examples. For in some languages there are words that cannot be translated into the idiom of another language. This happens chiefly in the case of interjections, which are words that express rather an emotion of the mind than any part of a thought we have in our mind. The two given above are said to be of this kind, Racha expressing the cry of an angry man, Hosanna that of a joyful man. But the knowledge of these languages is necessary, not for the sake of a few words like these which it is very easy to mark and to ask about, but on account of the diversities among translators. The translations of the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be counted, but the Latin translators are innumerable. In the early days of the faith every man who happened to get his hands upon a Greek manuscript, and who thought he had any knowledge, however small, of the two languages, started upon the work of translation.

[17] This circumstance would assist rather than hinder the understanding of Scripture, if only readers were not careless. The examination of a number of texts has often thrown light upon some of the more obscure passages. For example, in that passage of the prophet Isaiah, one translator reads: “And do not despise the domestics of thy seed;” another reads: “And do not despise thine own flesh.” Each of these in turn confirms the other. For the one is explained by the other; because “flesh” may be taken in its literal sense, so that a man may understand that he is admonished not to despise his own body; and “the domestics of thy seed” may be understood figuratively of Christians, because they are spiritually born of the same seed as ourselves, the Word. When now the meaning of the two translators is compared, a more likely sense of the words suggests itself; the command is not to despise our kinsmen, because when one brings the expression “domestics of thy seed” into relation with “flesh,” kinsmen most naturally occur to one’s mind. Hence, I think, that expression of the apostle, when he says, “If by any means I may provoke to envy those which are my flesh, and might save some of them;” that is, that through envy of those who had believed, some of them might believe too. He calls the Jews his “flesh,” on account of the relationship of blood. Again, that passage from the same prophet Isaiah: “If you will not believe, you shall not understand,” another has translated: “If you will not believe, you shall not abide.” Now which of these is the literal translation cannot be ascertained without reference to the text in the original tongue. Yet to those who read with knowledge, a great truth is to be found in each. For it is difficult for interpreters to differ so widely as not to touch at some point. Accordingly here, as understanding consists in sight, and is abiding, but faith feeds us as babes, upon milk, in the cradles of temporal things (for now we walk by faith, not by sight); as, moreover, unless we walk by faith, we shall not attain to sight, which does not pass away, but abides, our understanding being purified by holding to the truth. For these reasons one says, “If you will not believe, you shall not understand;” but the other, “If you will not believe, you shall not abide.”

[18] Very often a translator, to whom the meaning is not well known, is deceived by an ambiguity in the original language, and puts upon the passage a construction that is wholly alien to the sense of the writer. As for example, some texts read: “Their feet are sharp to shed blood;” for the word ὁζύς among the Greeks means both sharp and swift. He saw the true meaning who translated: “Their feet are swift to shed blood.” The other, taking the wrong sense of an ambiguous word, fell into error. Now translations such as this are not obscure, but false; there is a wide difference between the two things. We must learn not to interpret, but to correct texts of this sort. 

For the same reason, because the Greek word μόσχος means a calf, some have not understood that μοσχεύματα are shoots of trees, and have translated the word “calves.” This error has crept into so many texts, that you can hardly find it written in any other way. Yet the meaning is very clear; it is made evident by the words that follow. For “the plantings of an adulterer will not take deep root,” is a more suitable form of expression than the “calves;” because these walk upon the ground with their feet, and are not fixed in the earth by roots. In this passage, indeed, the rest of the context also justifies this translation.

[19] We do not clearly see what the actual thought is which the many translators

endeavor to express, each according to his own ability and judgment, unless we examine it in the language which they translate. Since the translator, if he be not a very learned man, often departs from the meaning of his author, we must either endeavor to get a knowledge of those languages from which the Scriptures are translated into Latin, or we must get hold of the translations of those who keep rather close to the letter of the original, not because these are sufficient, but because we may use them to correct the freedom or the error of others, who in their translations have chosen to follow the sense quite as much as the words. For not only single words, but often whole phrases are translated, which could not be translated at all into the Latin idiom by any one who wished to hold by the usage of the ancients who spoke Latin. Though these sometimes do not interfere with the understanding of the passage, they are offensive to those who feel greater delight in things when even the signs of those things are kept in their own purity. 

What is called a grammatical error is nothing else than the putting of words together according to a different rule from that which those of our predecessors who spoke with any authority followed. For whether we say inter homines (among men) or inter hominibus, is of no consequence to a man who only wishes to know the facts. In the same way, what is barbarism but the pronunciation of a word in a different way from that in which those who spoke Latin before us pronounced it? For whether the word ignoscere (to pardon) should be pronounced with the third syllable long or short, is not a matter of much concern to the man who is beseeching God, in any way at all that he can get the words out, to pardon his sins. What then is purity of speech, except the preserving of the custom of language established by the authority of former speakers?

[20] Men are easily offended in a matter of this kind, just in proportion as they are weak. They are weak just in proportion as they wish to seem learned, not in the knowledge of things which tend to edification, but in that of signs, by which it is hard not to be puffed up, seeing that the knowledge of things even would often set up our neck, if it were not held down by the yoke of our Master. 

How does it prevent our understanding it to have the following passage thus expressed: “Quæ est terra in quo isti insidunt super eam, si bona est an nequam; et quæ sunt civitates, in quibus ipsi inhabitant in ipsis?” (And what the land is that they dwell in, whether it be good or bad; and what cities they be that they dwell in) And I am more disposed to think that this is simply the idiom of another language than that any deeper meaning is intended. Again, that phrase, which we cannot now take away from the lips of the people who sing it: “Super ipsum autem floriet sanctificatio mea,” (“But upon himself shall my holiness flourish”) surely takes away nothing from the meaning. Yet a more learned man would prefer that this should be corrected, and that we should say, not floriet, but florebit. Nor does anything stand in the way of the correction being made, except the usage of the singers. Mistakes of this kind, then, if a man does not choose to avoid them altogether, it is easy to treat with indifference, as not interfering with a right understanding. 

Take, on the other hand, the saying of the apostle: “Quod stultum est Dei, sapientius est hominibus, et quod infirmum est Dei, fortius est hominibus.” (“Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men”) If any one should retain in this passage the Greek idiom, and say, “Quod stultum est Dei, sapientius est hominum et quod infirmum est Dei fortius est hominum,” (“What is foolish of God is wiser of men, and what is weak of God is stronger of men”) a quick and careful reader would indeed by an effort attain to the true meaning, but still a man of slower intelligence either would not understand it at all, or would put an utterly false construction upon it. Not only is such a form of speech faulty in the Latin tongue, it is ambiguous too, as if the meaning might be, that the folly of men or the weakness of men is wiser or stronger than that of God. Indeed even the expression sapientius est hominibus (stronger than men) is not free from ambiguity, even though it is free from grammatical error. For whether hominibus is put as the plural of the dative or as the plural of the ablative, does not appear, unless by reference to the meaning. It would be better then to say, sapientius est quam homines, and fortius est quam homines.

[21] About ambiguous signs, however, I shall speak afterwards. I am treating at present of unknown signs, of which, as far as the words are concerned, there are two kinds. For either a word or an idiom of which the reader is ignorant brings him to a stop. If these belong to foreign languages, we must either make inquiry about them from men who speak those languages, or if we have leisure we must learn the languages ourselves, or we must consult and compare several translators. 

If, however, there are words or idioms in our own tongue that we are unacquainted with, we gradually come to know them through being accustomed to read or to hear them. There is nothing that it is better to commit to memory than those kinds of words and phrases whose meaning we do not know, so that where we happen to meet either with a more learned man of whom we can inquire, or with a passage that shows, either by the preceding or succeeding context, or by both, the force and significance of the phrase we are ignorant of, we can easily by the help of our memory turn our attention to the matter and learn all about it. So great, however, is the force of custom, even in regard to learning, that those who have been in a sort of way nurtured and brought up on the study of Holy Scripture, are surprised at other forms of speech, and think them less pure Latin than those which they have learnt from Scripture, but which are not to be found in Latin authors. In this matter, too, the great number of the translators proves a very great assistance, if they are examined and discussed with a careful comparison of their texts. Only all positive errors must be removed. Those who are anxious to know the Scriptures ought in the first place to use their skill in the correction of the texts, so that the uncorrected ones should give way to the corrected, at least when they are copies of the same translation.

Augustine discusses the best texts and translations of those available to his original readers.

[23] In the case of figurative signs, again, if ignorance of any of them should chance to bring the reader to a stand-still, their meaning is to be traced partly by the knowledge of languages, partly by the knowledge of things. The pool of Siloam, for example, where the man whose eyes our Lord had anointed with clay made out of spittle was commanded to wash, has a figurative significance, and undoubtedly conveys a secret sense; but yet if the evangelist had not interpreted that name, a meaning so important would lie unnoticed. 

We cannot doubt that, in the same way, many Hebrew names which have not been interpreted by the writers of those books, would, if any one could interpret them, be of great value and service in solving the enigmas of Scripture. A number of men skilled in that language have conferred no small benefit on posterity by explaining all these words without reference to their place in Scripture, and telling us what Adam means, what Eve, what Abraham, what Moses, and also the names of places, what Jerusalem signifies, or Zion, or Sinai, or Lebanon, or Jordan, and whatever other names in that language we are not acquainted with. When these names have been investigated and explained, many figurative expressions in Scripture become clear.

[24] Ignorance of things, too, renders figurative expressions obscure, as when we do not know the nature of the animals, or minerals, or plants, which are frequently referred to in Scripture by way of comparison. The fact so well known about the serpent, for example, that to protect its head it will present its whole body to its assailants, how much light it throws upon the meaning of our Lord’s command, that we should be wise as serpents. That is to say, that for the sake of our head, which is Christ, we should willingly offer our body to the persecutors, lest the Christian faith should, as it were, be destroyed in us, if to save the body we deny our God! 

Or again, the statement that the serpent gets rid of its old skin by squeezing itself through a narrow hole, and thus acquires new strength; how appropriately it fits in with the direction to imitate the wisdom of the serpent, and to put off the old man, as the apostle says, that we may put on the new; and to put it off, too, by coming through a narrow place, according to the saying of our Lord, “Enter in at the narrow gate!” As, then, knowledge of the nature of the serpent throws light upon many metaphors which Scripture is accustomed to draw from that animal, so ignorance of other animals, which are no less frequently mentioned by way of comparison, is a very great drawback to the reader. So in regard to minerals and plants: knowledge of the carbuncle, for instance, which shines in the dark, throws light upon many of the dark places in books too, where it is used metaphorically; ignorance of the beryl or the adamant often shuts the doors of knowledge. The only reason why we find it easy to understand that perpetual peace is indicated by the olive branch which the dove brought with it when it returned to the ark, is that we know both that the smooth touch of olive oil is not easily spoiled by a fluid of another kind, and that the tree itself is an evergreen. Many, again, by reason of their ignorance of hyssop, not knowing the virtue it has in cleansing the lungs, nor the power it is said to have of piercing rocks with its roots, although it is a small and insignificant plant, cannot make out why it is said, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.”

[25] Ignorance of numbers, too, prevents us from understanding things that are set down in Scripture in a figurative and mystical way. A clever mind, if I may so speak, cannot but be anxious, for example, to ascertain what is meant by the fact that Moses and Elijah, and our Lord Himself, all fasted for forty days. Other than by knowledge of and reflection upon the number, the difficulty of explaining the figure involved in this action cannot be got over. The number contains ten four times, indicating the knowledge of all things, and that knowledge interwoven with time. For both the diurnal and the annual revolutions are accomplished in periods numbering four each; the diurnal in the hours of the morning, the noontide, the evening, and the night; the annual in the spring, summer, autumn, and winter months. Now while we live in time, we must abstain and fast from all joy in time, for the sake of that eternity in which we wish to live; although by the passage of time we are taught this very lesson of despising time and seeking eternity. Further, the number ten signifies the knowledge of the Creator and the creature, for there is a trinity in the Creator; and the number seven indicates the creature, because of the life and the body. For life consists of three parts, whence also God is to be loved with the whole heart, the whole soul, and the whole mind; and it is very clear that in the body there are four elements of which it is made up. In this number ten, therefore, when it is placed before us in connection with time, that is, when it is taken four times we are admonished to live unstained by, and not partaking of, any delight in time, that is, to fast for forty days. Of this we are admonished by the law personified in Moses, by prophecy personified in Elijah, and by our Lord Himself, who, as if receiving the witness both of the law and the prophets, appeared on the mount between the other two, while His three disciples looked on in amazement. 

Next, we have to inquire in the same way, how out of the number forty springs the number fifty, which in our religion has no ordinary sacredness attached to it on account of the Pentecost, and how this number taken thrice on account of the three divisions of time, before the law, under the law, and under grace, or perhaps on account of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Trinity itself being added over and above, has reference to the mystery of the most Holy Church, and reaches to the number of the one hundred and fifty-three fishes which were taken after the resurrection of our Lord, when the nets were cast out on the right-hand side of the boat. And in the same way, many other numbers and combinations of numbers are used in the sacred writings, to convey instruction under a figurative guise, and ignorance of numbers often shuts out the reader from this instruction. 

[26] Not a few things, too, are closed against us and obscured by ignorance of music. One man, for example, has not unskillfully explained some metaphors from the difference between the psaltery and the harp. It is a question which it is not out of place for learned men to discuss, whether there is any musical law that compels the psaltery of ten chords to have just so many strings; or whether, if there is no such law, the number itself is not on that very account the more to be considered as of sacred significance, either with reference to the ten commandments of the law (and if again any question is raised about that number, we can only refer it to the Creator and the creature), or with reference to the number ten itself as interpreted above. And the number of years the temple was in building, which is mentioned in the gospel—forty-six—has a certain undefinable musical sound, and when referred to the structure of our Lord’s body, in relation to which the temple was mentioned, compels many heretics to confess that our Lord put on, not a false, but a true and human body. In several places in the Holy Scriptures we find both numbers and music mentioned with honour.

In the remainder of Book 2, Augustine discusses the ways to use pagan sources and history to aid in Biblical interpretation, and the demonic dangers of engaging in their superstition