Wikipedia de Doctrina Christiana

8/3/2019 Wikipedia de Doctrina Christiana

1/6

De doctrina christiana 1

De doctrina christiana

De doctrina christiana (English: On Christian Doctrine or On Christian Teaching) is a theological text written by

St. Augustine of Hippo. It consists of four books that describe how to interpret and teach the Scriptures. The first

three of these books were published in 397 and the fourth added in 426. By writing this text, St. Augustine set three

tasks on Christian teachers and preachers: to discover the truth in the contents of the Scriptures, to teach the truth

from the Scriptures, and to defend scriptural truth when it was attacked.

Historical Context

Starting in 389 A.D., the powerful application of faith to politics led Emperor Theodosius to issue a series of edicts

against paganism that concluded in 391 with a law making pagan worship illegal. During the Golden Age of Athens,

politics and manmade laws guided human conduct, and the city state was viewed as a manifestation of the highest

human values, giving rise to political philosophy. Christianity effected a change in the course of Western society,

requiring a new cultural identity and a new educational curriculum. With this aim in mind, Emperor Justinian

(483565 A.D.) cut off all state funding to chairs of rhetoric, essentially bringing the explicitly pagan classicaltradition to a close. The pagan classical heritage would from this time onward be viewed through the lens of

Christianity, increasing the need for an approach to the teaching of scripture that matched the sophistication of the

classical inheritance.De doctrina christiana would provide the medieval world with that tool.[1]

Summary

Prologue

The Prologue consists of a response to who would resist Augustines project of providing rules for interpretation of

the Scriptures. Augustine outlines three possible objections, including those who do not understand his precepts,

those who fail to make effective use of his teachings, and those who believe they are already prepared to interpret the

Scriptures. To the first two types of critics, Augustine states that he cannot be held responsible for their inability to

understand.

He then addresses the third type of critic, those who believe they are already able to interpret the Scriptures. If their

claims are true, he acknowledges that they have received a great blessing. However, they must admit that language

itself was learned from a human being, not directly from God. Therefore, God has created human beings to learn

from one another, and we ought to learn with humility. All good teaching from human beings derives ultimately

from God. The ability to understand obscurity is therefore both the gift of God and reinforced by human teaching.

Book OneBook One discusses enjoyment, use, interpretation, and the relation of various Christian doctrines to these concepts.

Augustine begins with a discussion of the steps in the interpretive process: discovery of what is to be understood,

and a way of teaching what has been discovered.

He then expands upon the Platonic notion that there are things and signs. Signs are used to symbolize things, but are

considered things themselves because they too represent meaning. They are given meaning through their repetition

and propagation throughout society.

Some things are to be enjoyed (in Latin, frui), and others are to be used (uti). Things we enjoy are those we find

good in themselves, and things we use are those that are good for the sake of something else. The only thing that is to

be enjoyed is God. All other things, including other human beings, are to be used in relation to the proper end of

enjoyment. To use something which is to be enjoyed or vice versa is to fail to love properly. [2] The discussion of

enjoyment and use leads to an extended reflection on motivation, word as flesh, and humanity as image of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Platonismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scriptureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scriptureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augustine_of_Hippohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_language


2/6


Book One concludes with a discussion of love: how humans ought to love God, how Gods love is expressed in his

use of humanity, and how people may appreciate Gods love through the Scriptures, faith, and charity. Augustine

also claims that those who think they understand the Scriptures, but do not interpret them to reflect charity and love,

do not really understand them.[3]

Book TwoBook Two discusses the types of unknown signs present in the world and defines each and presents methods for

understanding the Scriptures. Obscure signs include unknown literal signs and unknown figurative signs. Unknown

signs are those that have meanings that are unknown. Augustine says that a feature of the Scriptures is obscurity and

that obscurity is the result of sin: that is, God made the Scriptures obscure in order to motivate and challenge our

fallen minds.

Augustine claims there are seven steps to wisdom in interpretation of the Scriptures: fear of God, loyal obedience (or

faith), scientia (or knowledge), strength, good counsel, purity of heart, and then wisdom. He also distinguishes

"truth" from "logic", and argues that logic can lead to falsehood. He declares that it is better to have truth than logic.

Augustine argues that committing the Scriptures to memory is critical to understanding. Once the reader is "familiar

with the language of Scripture," it is possible for him to try to untangle sections that are obscure. He also emphasizes

studying the Scriptures in their original languages to avoid the problems of imperfect and divergent translations.

Throughout Book Two, Augustine stresses the importance of method as well as virtue for attaining wisdom through

the Scriptures. He analyzes sources of knowledge, reason, and eloquence as well as charity and humility.

Book Three

Book Three discusses how to interpret ambiguous literal and ambiguous figurative signs. Ambiguous signs are those

whose meaning is unclear or confused. He suggests first determining things from signs. Then, once the distinction is

made, understand the literal meaning of the text (things as things, nothing more). Determining if there is a deeper

meaning in the text can be done by recognizing a different, more figurative, mode of writing. This may show that thethings are also signs of something else. For example, an aged tree could be a literal tree or it could be a symbol of

long life (as a sign or allegory).

Augustine emphasizes right motives when interpreting scripture, and claims that it is more important to build up love

than to arrive at a historically or literally accurate interpretation. He also stresses that contemporary readers must be

careful to understand that some actions (i.e., having multiple wives) which were acceptable among the ancients are

no longer acceptable, and must therefore be interpreted figuratively. Understanding tropes such as irony and

antiphrasis will also be beneficial for interpretation.

The final section of Book Three is one of Augustines late additions to the work (with Book Four), consisting of

Tyconiuss seven rules for interpreting scripture: The Lord and His Body, The Twofold Division of the Body of the

Lord, The Promises and the Law (or The Spirit and the Letter), Species and Genus, Times, Recapitulation, and The

Devil and His Body.[4]

Book Four

Book Four discusses the relationship between Christian truth and rhetoric, the importance of eloquence, and the role

of the preacher. This book was appended to the work a number of years after its original composition, along with the

end of Book Three.[5]

Augustine again stresses the importance of both discovery and teaching for the interpretation

of Scripture. He cautions the reader that he will not discuss the rules of rhetoric here; for though they are acceptable

and useful for the Christian speaker, they can easily be learned elsewhere. Though eloquence is a skill which can be

used for good or evil, it should be used in service to wisdom. It is not necessary, then, for the preacher to be

eloquent, but only wise. Nonetheless, eloquence can enhance ones ability to teach wisdom. The proper goal of

rhetoric should thus be to teach wisdom by the use of eloquence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyconiushttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegory


3/6


Augustine then analyzes the relationship between eloquence and teaching, including various stylistic points, a

discussion of inspiration, and the claim that eloquence and teaching are both to be valued. Drawing on Cicero,[6]

Augustine outlines three types of stylesubdued style, moderate style, and grand styleand discusses the proper

context for each. The use of these styles must be determined by subject matter as well as the audience.

Finally, Augustine concludes by considering the importance of the preachers life, which is more important than

eloquence for persuading the audience. In this regard, things (the preachers actions) are more important than signs(the preachers words). Prayer is essential in order to receive from God the wisdom which will be passed on to the

audience. The text concludes with an injunction to humility and thanks to God that Augustine has been able to

discuss these topics.[7]

Connections between Augustine, Cicero, and Classical Rhetoric in Book Four

Book Four of De Doctrina Christiana has often sparked a great deal of debate among scholars with regards to the

extent to which Saint Augustines work has been influenced by the rules and traditions of classical rhetoric, and more

specifically by the writings of Cicero. In the final chapter of On Christian Doctrine, Augustine uses much of Ciceros

rhetorical theory as he lies down the foundation for the proper use of rhetoric by Christian teachers. For example,

Augustine quotes Cicero (Orat. 21. 69.) when he writes, a certain eloquent man said, and said truly, that he who is

eloquent should speak in such a way that he teaches, delights, and moves. Some scholars claim that Book Four of

this text has been greatly influenced by both Ciceronian and classical rhetoric. In his introduction to one edition of

On Christian Doctrine, D.W. Robertson Jr. states, the allegorical interpretation of literature itself was a classical

practice. At the same time, others have argued that St. Augustine is instead, writing against the tradition of classical

rhetoric. One academic, Stanley Fish, has even gone so far as to claim that Augustine effectively declares the

speaker irrelevant as well when he tells would-be preachers to pray for God to put good speeches in their mouths

(38).

However, within the past few decades, a number of scholars have made a concerted effort to achieve some degree of

compromise or middle ground within this heated debate. One example is an article written by CelicaMilovanovic-Barham, in which Barham acknowledges both sides of the discussion and includes examples which

illustrates places in the text where Augustine agrees with Ciceros rhetorical theories and where he disagrees. The

article analyzes Augustines use of ciceronian rhetoric through his discussion of Cicero s three levels of style: plain,

middle, and grand. Although Augustine begins Book Four by asserting that wisdom and clarity are far more

important in the rhetoric of a Christian teacher, the saint also acknowledges the power of style and eloquence in

connecting with an audience and in persuading the people to act according to Christian law and teachings. According

to Barham, this is where Augustine quotes Ciceros very words: he, then, shall be eloquent, who can say little things

in a subdued style, moderate things in a temperate style, and great things in a majestic style. However, Barham is

also quick to note that, Augustine, after all, does not completely agree with his famous predecessor, in that, he

believes that for Christian teachers, nothing they preach would be considered a little thing. As a result, Barhamargues that Augustine is advocating for alternating and blending the various styles of rhetoric all within a single

speech. She explains that by combining these three different styles, Augustine believes the speaker is able to produce

a more powerful speech by delivering the necessary information in a clear and accurate way, while he is also able to

connect with the audiences emotions through the more grand and passionate style.

Another article written by John D. Schaeffer presents a very different perspective. Schaeffer essentially claims that

Augustines writings should not be analyzed at all from the same perspective as the classical rhetoricians, because his

works were produced in an entirely different era and for an entirely different group of people than those of the great

classical rhetoricians. The issue for Schaeffer lies in the fact that Augustine was trying to bring together the elements

of orality and the Christian religion, which was founded primarily upon the written scriptures and called for private

introspection and prayer. Schaeffer says, book 4 attempts to resolve a central paradox of early Christianity by

synthesizing the oral world of public performance with a religion grounded in writing and addressed to the inner


4/6


personDe doctrina presents Augustines attempt to bring classical rhetoric to bear on Christian preaching.

Therefore, he argues that Augustine was not simply writing against the traditions of classical rhetoric and that

scholars should consider Augustines work within its own context.

AllegoricalandLiteral Reading of Scripture

Augustine's early study of the Bible had been unsatisfactory, but when he moved to Milan he encountered Ambrose,

who used allegoresis, the use of allegory as an interpretive tool, to comprehend the Bible, particularly those Old

Testament passages that, if read in a purely literal way, seemed nonsensical.[8]

Allegoresis first emerged in Greece as

a way of defending poetry and myth against the new proto-scientific thinking that tended to dismiss both as

nonsensical (and often immoral) stories (see B. Clarke, 1996). Something was lost, it was thought, when texts

describing Zeus hurling his thunderbolts came to be understood as an allegorical representation of a natural

phenomenon, not as the god's anger. Ambrose argued that the difficulties or seeming impossibilities in the Scriptures

must be understood as allegories requiring interpretation to make them comprehensible, which assuaged Augustine's

discomfort regarding what he saw as the Bible's stylistic irregularities, logical flaws, and frequent lapses in morals.

His rhetorical training had schooled him well in hermeneutics, so interpretation was not new to him. But Ambrose's

approach relied on sheer imagination, freeing interpretation from the text.

As a student of rhetoric, Augustine no doubt had learned that allegory was related to structure, a figure of speech like

metaphor and synecdoche. Donatus, writing in the fourth century, included allegory as a trope in his widely

influential Ars Grammatica (Kennedy, 1980), classifying it as an element of style. Ambrose's use of allegory,

however, whether he was aware of it or not, went beyond allegoresis; it drew on an older approachhyponoia, the

ability to find deeper levels of meaning hidden below the surface meaning.

We find a cursory treatment of allegoresis in Confessions VII.18, where Augustine wrote:

"Provided, therefore, that each of us tries as best he can to understand in the Holy Scriptures what the writer

meant by them, what harm is there if a reader believes what you, the Light of all truthful minds, show him to

be the true meaning? It may not even be the meaning which the writer had in mind, and yet he too saw in thema true meaning, different though it may have been from this."

His formal treatment, however, appears in On Christian Doctrine, where Augustine noted that words are "signs," of

which there are two classes, "natural" and "conventional." Signs can be approached on two levels, "what they are in

themselves" and "what they signify" (II.1). Words are conventional signs, and the words of the Scriptures are

obscure because they were "divinely arranged for the purpose of subduing pride by toil" (II.6). Augustine wrote that

fear of God, piety, and knowledge of the Holy canon are key factors in biblical interpretation, but the central guiding

principle is that interpretation must be congruent with "the judgment of the greater number of Catholic Churches"

(II.8)that is, all interpretation is free as long as it supports Church doctrine.

De doctrina christiana expressed Augustine's view that the process of free interpretation was a discovery procedure

that led to truth, however multifaceted it might be. With respect to Scriptures, two governing factors made this view

conceivable: (1) the conviction that the Scriptures were absolutely true, thus making it impossible for a person of

faith and goodwill to produce falsehood in any interpretation, and (2) the proposition that interpretations should be

shared only with Christians, who were predisposed to receive the truth. On this basis, Patton (1977) and Troup

(1999) argued that Augustine viewed interpretation as rhetorical invention that aimed to provide an adaptation of the

biblical text to match the beliefs of the audience while simultaneously making the obscure language of the Bible

comprehensible. But the depth of Augustine's religious convictions enabled him to transcend conventional notions of

allegoresis and thereby see the act of interpretation as a discovery procedure unbound by the dimensions of text.

Thus, we find that in Confessions he extended the application of free interpretation beyond Scripture to his life, and

in City of Godhe extended it further to the totality of human history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Synecdochehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metaphor


5/6


References

[1] As noted by John C. Cavadini, in his article "St. Augustine of Hippo" in The Encyclopedia of Catholicism, p. 128.

[2] Baer, Helmut David. "The Fruit of Charity: Using the Neighbor inDe Doctrina Christiana."Journal of Religious Ethics 24.1: 47-64.

[3] On love and interpretation inDe Doctrina Christiana, see Williams, Rowan. "Language, Reality and Desire in Augustine'sDe Doctrina."

Journal of Literature and Theology 3.2 (1989): 138-50.

[4] Green, R.P.H. Introduction toDe Doctrina Christiana, Oxford University Press, 1995, xviii.

[5] Green 1995, xii-xiv.[6] Baldwin, Charles Sears. "St, Augustine on Preaching (De Doctrina Christiana, IV)." The Rhetoric of St. Augustine of Hippo: De Doctrina

Christiana and the Search for a Distinctly Christian Rhetoric. Ed. Richard Leo Enos and Roger Thompson, et al. Baylor University Press,

2008, 187-203.

[7] This summary is based upon the most recent English translation: Augustine.De Doctrina Christiana. Trans. R.P.H. Green. Oxford University

Press, 1995.

[8] Augustine, The Confessions V,14,24.


6/6

Article Sources and Contributors 6

Article Sources and ContributorsDe doctrina christiana Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=445681066 Contributors: Bobak, Carlaude, CaveatLector, Choster, Dapeterson, Davodd, Ettrig, Good Olfactory,

History2007, Historyisreal, Ivancurtisivancurtis, Jasperdoomen, JodiN, Kdurkin311, Leonardo Alves, Leszek Jaczuk, LightSpectra, Mandolinface, Moretz, Neelix, Neocampbellite, NovakFreek,

Pegship, Pollinosisss, Reach Out to the Truth, T-rex, Uzahnd, Woohookitty, 19 anonymous edits

LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Wikipedia de Doctrina Christiana

Documents

Transcript of Wikipedia de Doctrina Christiana