1

See Marie-Anne Vannier, Creatio, Conversio, Formatio chez s. Augustin (Fribourg,

1991), 83-94; Gilles Pelland, Augustin rencontre le livre de la Gense, in: De Genesi contra mani-
chaeos De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus liber imperfectus di Agostino dIppona
(Palermo, 1992), 15-53; Yoon Kyung Kim, Augustines Changing Interpretations of Genesis 1-3
(Lewiston, 2006), 4-7.
2
See Roland J. Teske, The Image and Likeness of God in St. Augustines De Genesi ad lit-
teram liber imperfectus: Aug (1990) 441-51; Bronwen Neil, Exploring the Limits of Literal
Exegesis: Augustines Reading of Gen 1:26: Pacifica 19 (2006) 144-55, 148 n. 21.
3
For the incompleteness of Gn. litt. inp., see Roland J. Teske, Saint Augustine on Genesis,
FC 84 (1991), 36-9; Marcello Marin, Il De genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber, in: De Genesi
contra manichaeos De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus liber imperfectus (1992), 118f.;
Edmund Hill, On Genesis, in: John E. Rotelle et al. (eds.), The Works of Saint Augustine I/13
(New York, 2002), 110f.; Pierre Monat et al. (eds.), Sur le Gense contre les manichens; Sur la
Gense au sens littral livre inachev, BA 50 (Paris, 2004), 387-92.
4
retr. 1.18, FC 60 (1968), transl. Mary Inez Bogan, 77.
5
retr. 1.18, FC 60, 77.
Augustines Scriptural Exegesis in De Genesi ad
litteram liber unus inperfectus
Naoki KAMIMURA, Tokyo
Introduction
During about forty years of his writing career Augustine endeavoured to write
commentaries on Genesis at least five times.
1
He started writing the second of
these, De Genesi ad litteram liber unus inperfectus (= Gn. litt. inp.), around 393,
after his ordination to the priesthood. In Retractationes (= retr.), 1.18, Augustine
describes at length the origin and end of his first literal exegesis of the six days
of Creation. When he undertook a literal reading in Gn. litt. inp., he found
himself still inexperienced. It is at the very point that he was working his way
up to Gen. 1:26 that he gave up his plan.
2
Little attention has been focused on this work. It has been eclipsed by his
comprehensive commentary, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (= Gn. litt.)
(401-15).
3
For Augustine advised his readers to read the twelve books that I
composed much later
4
in order to judge what he found himself dissatisfied with
in the unfinished commentary. When he was revising his minor works in retr.,
he found it among them and hesitated over whether to destroy it. Why can we
read the commentary? Of course, it is because he did not abandon it. In 427 he
finally complemented and published it: I decided to keep it so that it might
serve as evidence, useful in my opinion, of my first attempts to explain and
search into the divine Scriptures.
5
Although for Augustines early views on
230 N. KAMIMURA
6
retr. 1.18, FC 60, 76.
7
See John J. OMeara, The Creation of Man in St. Augustines De Genesi ad Litteram (Vil-
lanova, 1980), 14.
8
retr. 1.18, FC 60, 76.
9
See retr. 1.18.
Genesis we must take to his first literal exegesis, is there any other significant
feature of the unfinished commentary? Does it only fall short of his considered
views in the later commentary?
In this paper I first examine Augustines bilateral commitment to the expla-
nation of a literal exegesis in his works. Next I explore Augustines way of expo-
sition in Gn. litt. inp. Finally I shall argue the significance of his first literal
interpretation.
1. Augustines commitment to a literal interpretation
As he relates in retr. 1.18, when Augustine began writing Gn. litt. inp., he
seemed to appreciate the importance of the difference between the exegetical
method of his present commentary and that of his former one, De Genesi
aduersus Manicheos (= Gn. adu. Man.), which was written about four or five
years before at the monastic community in Thagaste. In Gn. adu. Man. Augustine
intends to explain the words of Scripture according to their allegorical mean-
ing, not presuming to explain such great mysteries of natural things literally.
6

Although at that time a literal interpretation could not avoid the serious danger
with which the Manichaeans condemn the ordinary believers of the Catholic
faith to accept what they consider blasphemy,
7
he would rather have recourse
to an allegorical way of reading. He would not admit that Gn. adu. Man. ends
in failure.
With regard to Gn. litt. inp., Augustine considers it as a challenging pro-
gramme for his ability: In what sense the statements there made can be
interpreted according to their historical signification I wanted to test my
capabilities in this truly most taxing and difficult work.
8
At the point where
he exerts himself to comment on Gen. 1:26, he would not resort to an alle-
gorical way of reading. Instead the commentary remains incomplete. It can thus
be seen how in Gn. litt. inp. the literal interpretation comes to be more highly
demanded and more closely linked to his understanding of Genesis story rather
than being in conflict with it. Augustine firmly adheres to its exegetical method
in Gn. litt. inp.
The title words of the commentary, ad litteram also reveal a higher con-
sciousness of his method-centred approach. At the time of publishing it, Augus-
tine determined its title should be De Genesi ad litteram inperfectus.
9
However,
nowhere in the commentary does Augustine mention the words ad litteram.
Augustines Scriptural Exegesis in De Genesi ad litteram liber unus inperfectus 231
10
Gn. adu. Man. 2.2.3, FC 84, 95.
11
De utilitate credendi 3.9, Library of Christian Classics 6 (London, 1953), 298. As to another
examples of Augustines critical assessment, see also De moribus ecclesiae catholicae 1.10.17;
Confessiones 5.14.24; 6.4.6; De sermone domini in monte 1.10.26; Enarrationes in Psalmos 33.1.7;
33.2.14.
12
See Gn. litt. 2.9.22; 8.1.2; 8.1.4; 8.2.5; 8.4.8; 11.1.2; 11.2.4.
13
Gn. litt. inp. 2.5, FC 84, 147. As to the possible sources of this quadripartite method, see
Angelo Penna, SantAgostino, La Genesi I, NBA 9/1 (Rome, 1988), LXI-LXV; R. J. Teske, FC 84,
And he never makes clear what he defines by such a phrase. Why did he choose
the heading?
Apart from such lexical deficiency, what evidence is there for his view of the
literal interpretation around 393? It must be understood that his evaluation of
a literal reading has been consistently negative. Reading texts ad litteram is
defined as to understand it exactly as the letter sounds.
10
And if anyone wants
to take what is said, there is nothing more pernicious than to take whatever
is there literally (ad litteram).
11
Augustine explicitly states his objection to the
exposition.
Other crucial texts are found in Gn. litt. Augustine repeatedly stresses the
need for discovering the literal meaning of texts.
12
Although he does not deny
that the meaning intended by the author has an allegorical as well as a literal
sense, he is primarily concerned with the literal interpretation. Augustines
creative devotion to a literal reading moves away from his early view. It would
correspond to what his small commentary is finally entitled, De Genesi ad
litteram inperfectus. Hence, I suggest even tentatively that the literal exposition
in Gn. litt. inp. would comprise another aspect of signification which differs
from that of his other early works. For in the small commentary Augustine
undoubtedly offers a literal reading for twenty five verses, and he would call it
the ad litteram exegesis later in retr. Before promoting the importance of a
literal reading, Augustine seems to have appreciated it. If already in Gn. litt.
inp. he regards it as necessary and useful, what does he consider to be its char-
acteristics and how does he refer to it?
2. Exegetical method in De Genesi ad litteram liber unus inperfectus
In Gn. litt. inp. Augustine never mentions the words ad litteram. On the other
hand, he offers us four manners of expounding the Scriptures.
Four ways of expounding the Law are handed down by certain men who treat the
Scriptures in accord with history, allegory, analogy, and etiology. It is a matter of
history when deeds done whether by men or by God are reported. It is a matter of
allegory when things spoken in figures are understood. It is a matter of analogy, when
the conformity of the Old and New Testament is shown. It is a matter of etiology when
the causes of what is said or done are reported.
13
232 N. KAMIMURA
32 n. 60; M. Marin, Il De genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber (1992), 123-7; Martine Dulaey,
Lapprentissage de lexgse biblique par Augustin (3): Annes 393-394: REAug 51 (2005)
22-6.
14
See also Gn. litt. 1.1.1; 1.17.34; 6.21.32; 8.1.2; 8.1.4; 8.4.8; 8.5.9; 8.7.13; 9.12.20; 9.12.22;
9.14.24; 9.16.30; 11.31.41; 11.34.45; 11.39.52; 11.41.57.
We find here the idea that, despite its uniqueness in his corpus except in De
utilitate credendi 3.5, the way of reading in accord with history (secundum
historiam) attempts to make sense of what is done (res gesta) and narrated:
Augustine has been mostly applying the secundum historiam to the texts of
Genesis. It is noteworthy that this exposition interprets the sentence which
provides a narrative account, not a single word which consists of articulated
and letter sounds. Whether the word is linked to a particular thing and/or to a
transferred sign, its meaning would be conferred by a word-giver, except for
mishearing, misunderstanding, and the like. However, none of the words can
express ones thought as a mental activity. A diverse combination would rather
serve as a starting point for ones thought. This exposition thus should not be
confused with the ad litteram method which intends to understand it exactly
as the letter sounds.
It is not only in Gn. litt. inp. that the phrase res gesta occurs. It is an expres-
sion which is often mentioned in Gn. litt., applied to the account of events and
historical facts.
14
In all the sacred books, we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts
that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that
are given. In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether every-
thing must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be
expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened (res gesta).
15
This view of the literal interpretation corresponds to the exposition in Gn. litt.
inp. referred to above. The idea that the literal interpretation should be designed
for the sentence which reports the narrative of events and deeds done would
help to pave our way towards the identification of the exposition with the literal
exegesis in Gn. litt. At this point I suggest that Augustines literal reading in
Gn. litt. inp. is a pioneering effort which cannot be paralleled by the ad litte-
ram exegesis in his other early works.
In his list of four ways of exposition stated above, Augustine first speaks of
the method according to history (secundum historiam) and then, in turn, gives
an explanation of history (historia). After offering us the historical interpreta-
tion, he does not go on to explain the mode of exposition from the viewpoint
of its meaning. Augustine changes the direction of his description: he would
rather make his way towards a definition of history. He makes an easy transi-
tion from one idea to the next: the one is to clarify that the Scriptures include
different kinds of things, and the other is that there are different modes of
exposition. What effect does this easy move have?
Augustines Scriptural Exegesis in De Genesi ad litteram liber unus inperfectus 233
15
Gn. litt. 1.1.1, ACW 41 (1982), transl. John Taylor, 19. See also Gn. litt. 8.1.4.
16
See Robert A. Markus, Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St Augustine
(Cambridge, 1970), 187-96.
17
Gn. litt. 8.1.2, ACW 42, 33.
18
See De ciuitate dei 15.8.1; 16.2.3; 18.40.
The transition seems to raise an interesting question. Its move clearly reveals
the connection between the content of the Scriptures and their expositions and
that within the Scriptures there are different kinds of texts.
16
Along with pro-
viding the connection, some of the Scriptures treated as history are explained
from the viewpoint of its historical exposition. Although in his commentary on
Gen. 1:1 Augustine would equally refer to different modes of interpretation,
then he turns to treat the following passages only in terms of its historical
exegesis. Such an effort enables us to assume that Augustine defines Genesis
as history. The conception of history thus serves as the ground on which the
exposition in Gn. litt. inp. has rested.
However, despite his notion of history, Augustine does not think it neces-
sary for scriptural exposition to fix the bond between the texts and their expo-
sition later in Gn. litt.
The narrative in these books [Genesis] is not written in a literary style proper to alle-
gory, as in the Canticle of Canticles, but from beginning to end in a style proper to
history, as in the Books of Kings and the other works of that type. But since those
historical books contain matters familiar to us from common human experience, they
are easily and readily taken in a literal sense at the first reading, so that the meaning
of the historical events in relation to the future may also be subsequently drawn from
them. But in Genesis, since there are matters beyond the ken of readers who focus their
gaze on the familiar course of nature, they are unwilling to have these matters taken
in the literal sense but prefer to understand them in a figurative sense.
17
Augustine is still saying that there are different types of texts in the Scriptures.
And he clearly admits that the Genesis story is written in a style proper to
history. Notwithstanding the difficulty of finding a literal sense, he stresses
the necessity of finding both the literal and figurative sense in Genesis. Thus,
his emphasis on the modes of exposition would allow him to loosen the con-
nection between them: these books could be simultaneously explained in terms
of both past-oriented and future-oriented exegesis. This means Augustine
comes close to saying that this division of texts would not function as the basis
for exegesis. More interested in the possibility of reading the Scriptures either
from the viewpoint of their historical or figurative sense, he will be less inter-
ested in distinguishing the different kinds of texts.
18
Augustine is feeling his
way towards another conception of texts: if scriptural texts could be less rigidly
confined to past and future events, they would come to be mutually merged
and be almost synonymous.
234 N. KAMIMURA
19
See R.J. Teske, The Image and Likeness of God (1990), 447-9.
3. Conclusion
Augustines first literal reading of Genesis was not completed. It seems reason-
able to suppose that he faced some difficulties in providing a literal reading.
19

At the same time, I indicate another reason: it exists within his view of the
aspect of scriptural texts. Although he has already started attempting a literal
reading which would anticipate the historical mode of exposition developed
later in Gn. litt., Augustine has not yet worked out the idea of the double aspect
of the Scriptures. At the time when he started attempting his first literal read-
ing, Augustine could not open himself to the possibility of expounding the
Scriptures as both according to history and according to allegory. However, his
literal exposition has already realised its essential characteristics in Gn. litt. inp.
It is the significance and impact of the small commentary.