St. Augustine and the Reciprocity Between Truth and Love
According to Augustine, Truth and Love have a reciprocal relationship, and the absence of one indicates an absence of the other. For example, if one does not approach the Scriptures with love, then one should not expect to obtain Truth. When we encounter differing interpretations of the same passage, the principle of charity must be our guide. As Augustine explains,
Unless we believe that Moses meant whatever he did mean in his books with an eye to those twin commandments of love, we should make the Lord out to be a liar, by attributing to our fellow-servant a purpose which is at odds with the Lord’s teaching. Since, then, so rich a variety of highly plausible interpretations can be drawn from those words, consider how foolish it is to rashly assert that Moses intended one particular meaning rather than any of the others. If we engage in hurtful strife as we attempt to expound his words, we offend against the very love for the sake of which he said all those things (Confessions 12.25.35, Boulding trans.).
In his work, On Christian Teaching, Augustine states that all valid meanings of Scripture must promote love of God and love of others. Thus, the Scriptural exegete is not simply one who pursues truth, but one who pursues love-God is after all both Truth and Love. Continuing his discussion in the Confessions of multiple meanings in Scripture, Augustine says the following: “I would hope to have written in such a way that if anyone else had in the light of truth seen some other valid meanings, that too should not be excluded, but present itself as a possible way of understanding in what I had said” (Confessions, 12.26.36). In this amazing statement, Augustine aligns himself with many contemporary hermeneutical voices (e.g., Gadamer), particularly, the idea that meanings are not to be confined solely to the intention of the author. Commenting on this passage, Thomas F. Martin writes,
Augustine’s truth resides in the truth of the other interpreters, and vice versa. Thus the seeming diversity and disparity of many truths can and must be held together and harmonized on a deeper level by the law of love. [...] Diversity and concord-they are not at odds, but are framed by the very law of love. Augustine makes clear that this ‘law’ must be used rightfully. It does not tolerate falsehood. It is not an escape from the demands of truth. It does, however, preclude contentiousness (12.18.27). And it generates a multiplicity of meanings. It is this very love that puts Augustine in communion with Moses: there is a community of interpretations that extends from Moses to Augustine, bound together by the law of love (Martin, “Exegesis and Confessio,” in Paffenroth and Kennedy (eds.), A Reader’s Companion to Augustine’s Confessions, p. 204).
2 Responses so far
7:00 am
In the quoted passage, Augustine does say that authorial intent determines meaning:
“Unless we believe that Moses meant whatever he did mean in his books with an eye to those twin commandments of love, we should make the Lord out to be a liar, by attributing to our fellow-servant a purpose which is at odds with the Lord’s teaching.”
Augustine’s point is that if Moses intends all to mean love, then he intends many things.
So too, he says that he intends his words to have many interpretations.
But this is very different from saying that he rejects authorial intent. The cited text will not bear it. It is, in A’s words, because of what Moses meant that there are many valid interpretations, not in spite of what he meant or despite the absence of importance of his intent or despite the absence of true intent.
The point here (familiar to anyone who studies commercial contracts or public treaties) is to recognize that we often intend many meanings with one set of words. We intend people to interpret our words in many ways according to some general purpose.
7:58 am
Thanks for your comment. I am not claiming that Augustine rejects authorial intent, rather, that he allows for, has no problem with, and even promotes meanings going beyond the intent of the (human) author.
For example, Augustine writes, “[p]rovided, therefore, that each person tries to ascertain in the holy scriptures the meaning the author intended, what harm is there if a reader holds an opinion which you, the light of all truthful minds, show to be true, even though it is not what was intended by the author, who himself meant something true, but not exactly that? (Confessions XII.18.27, pp. 327-328, Boulding trans., italics added). Although Augustine also seems to entertain the belief that Moses had in his mind all of the true interpretations that Augustine has discussed in book XII, he then adds that even if Moses had only one true meaning in mind, surely the Holy Spirit is not ignorant of all the possible true and intended meanings of this verse. “Finally, Lord, what if human vision is incomplete? Does that mean that anything you intended to reveal by these words to later generations of readers—you who are God, not flesh and blood—was hidden from your good Spirit […] Is this not the case even if the man through whom you spoke to us had perhaps only one of the true meanings in mind?” (Confessions XII.32.43, p. 341). Cf. Augustine’s discussion of this topic in On Christian Teaching, III.84-85, trans. R.P.H. Green, pp. 86-87.
Best,
Cynthia