Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Religious hermeneutics begins before the first Christian documents are written,
and those early Judaist and Graeco-Roman hermeneutics are important to the
development of the earliest Christian hermeneutics (Dockery 15). The earliest non-
the gods, while staying true to their literature and teachings (Lewis 23). Dr. Stephen
Lewis, of the Chafer Theological Seminary, agrees with most critics that the most
and Philo (23). They both believed the Old Testament and wanted to explain it, realizing
that allegory, while too sophisticated for many uneducated readers, was the only way to
do it. The Jews used five categories of hermeneutics to explain scripture: literal,
allegorical, pesher, midrash, and typological (Dockery 27). Jesus himself used
Christology, allegory and typology to explain how the Old Testament scripture looked
ahead to His coming (25). Boston University Professor Paula Fredrikson claims,
“Typology is allegory: It says that Datum A prefigures or finds its meaning in Datum B.
But it is allegory with a difference: it historicizes what is figured” (4). This will be of
greater importance later, when comparing and contrasting the hermeneutics of Tyconius
and Augustine. The early church fathers, from Clement to Barnabas, were Christocentric,
used some allegory, and believed the Old Testament was preparation for Christ (Lewis
25). Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian were concerned with the misinterpretation of
the Bible, and even argued that the Bible might not be able to be understood by those who
did not have the Grace of God (Tilley 27-28). Real work and progress in Christian
hermeneutics was done by the Alexandrian School, led by Clement and Origen, who was
2
a huge influence on the Late Church Fathers. Both were strong allegorists, a style that
led directly into the three great Late Church Fathers, Jerome, Vincent, and Augustine,
who established hermeneutics that would last for more than a thousand years (Lewis 31).
The facts about Augustine’s Church leadership and great intellect are indisputable, but in
leader of hermeneutical thought. This is intolerable, since Tyconius was a huge factor in
Augustine believed in and reacted against, Christian hermeneutics would not have
The Donatist Tyconius wrote the Book of Rules in 380, published in 382, which
is described as the “first handbook of biblical hermeneutics to have been written in the
West” (Bray 91). In Maureen Tilley’s brilliant dissertation titled On the Use of Scripture
in North Africa, she describes Tyconius as having four main influences among the
Donatists and others: First, he codified Donatist use of typology and offered rules for
interpretation of the Bible. Second, he provided the definite role for the Spirit of God and
human reason. Third, he formed a way to use scripture contemporarily, while his
opponents could not use the scripture until the end of the world. Fourth, he interpreted
the Church as the body of the Lord, forcing Donatists to admit the presence of evil within
the Church (225). This was heretical to the Donatists, and instead of agreeing with his
claims, he was excommunicated. If allowed, he would have supported the end of the
Schism and promoted the repair of the Church in North Africa by meeting the Catholics
halfway. Even after his excommunication, he still believed that Donatism was the true
faith (Willis 20). His Book of Rules was important enough that even though Augustine
3
theologians centuries later were indebted to him. Both Bede and the Spaniard Beatus of
Libana claimed to have been greatly influenced by Tyconius’ Rules (Frend 657). Pastor
David Anderson argues that many scholars put too much emphasis on Origen’s influence
on Augustine, “But (Origen’s) influence was nothing new when Augustine became a
Christian. Rather it was the influence of a lay theologian named Tyconius, who first
touched Augustine in the 390’s” (29). He goes on to quote the esteemed scholar of
ancient Christianity, Paula Fredriksen, “…it is Tyconius who stands at the source of a
the source of Augustine’s admiration are two works: the Book of Rules and Commentary
on the Apocalypse. For the purposes of this work, only the Book of Rules needs
examined.
In the Book of Rules, Tyconius developed seven regulae for the understanding of
scripture, giving special attention to the Old Testament. Here is his introduction to the
seven rules:
It is clear from this introduction that every aspect of overall scripture is to be covered by
the following rules. There can be nothing that is not explained, and therefore, all
scripture can be considered the truth. In the modern world of skepticism, that argument
might be hard to comprehend or accept. Even with modern science and mathematics,
4
most rules are meant to be bent, or superseded by another. But in the world of Augustine
and Tyconius, rules could give order, and with such a young Catholic church, and the
schism that caused Donatism, any rules that helped parishioners live by the Word were
welcome. Of the 453 citations in his Rules, Tyconius selected 30 percent from the
The rules are further explained in layman’s terms by Gordon Hamilton, in his essay
Desire. Rule 1: Christ and the Church are one and scripture often refers to both the Body
and the Head. Reason can determine which belongs to which. Rule 2: In the Church,
there are currently both believers and hypocrites, and they coexist in that Church. Rule 3:
God has given everybody faith to allow them to endure their suffering for Christ. Rule 4:
Explains to which group passages of scripture apply. Rule 5: Understanding the part by
the whole, or the whole by the part, or by “legitimate” numbers, which are designed to
refer to certain groups. Rule 6: Recapitulation means that scripture may not follow a
strict chronological order; events may have occurred in different order than described.
Rule 7: The Devil and his Body is parallel to Christ and His Body (Meynell 111).
Tyconius approached hermeneutics by examining only the actual text, rather than
allowing the author of the text to play a role in its meaning. As Karlfried Froehlich
5
described, Tyconius began “with the observation that the wording of biblical passages
often shows rhetorical patterns which point to several subjects governing a single
sentence or to a transition from one subject to another in the same verse” (Dockery 143).
Being able to rely on scriptural text only allows the reader to eliminate worrying about
the author’s bias to the subject. For example, if Paul did not like the Jews, and wanted
them gone, that bias might show through his writings, but might not apply to all
generations or through all times. The importance of that is that the reader does not have
to wonder at what bias the author or biographical information about the author plays in
the deepest meaning of the scripture. So, if the biography of Paul reflected that he had no
conflicts with the role of women in the Church, then it would not matter if one of his
must be noted, however, that because of historical significance in Scripture, the author
does play a role in the exegesis of much of the Scripture. That role should typically be
evaluated in the historical sense, and does not fit into the hermeneutics of other rules.
Many scholars have wondered why Tyconius made his hermeneutics fit into seven
rules, instead of five or eight, or any other number. While it seems an inane question,
Notre Dame professor Charles Kannengiesser thinks it a good one. He claims, “It
belongs to the nature of the mystic rules to be seven” (Wuellner 8). Augustine notes that
there are some numbers “which Divine Scripture commends above others, like seven, ten,
twelve, and others…” (Robertson 112). Outside of perhaps three, twelve, or maybe forty,
there is no more connotative number in Christianity than seven. The way his rules are
applied to the Bible is not external; “they rise organically from the text of scripture itself”
(Tilley 231). Tyconius provides various examples of Scripture from the Bible to illustrate
6
his Rules, so it is problematic for some people who want to take each and every scripture
and apply it unilaterally to just one rule. F.C. Burkitt, in his Preface to The Book of Rules
of Tyconius, says Rules “is the first book in western Christendom which attempts to treat
of the meaning and Inspiration of the Bible as a whole, and which tries to find a method
of interpretation more thorough and scientific than the almost hap-hazard selection of
proof texts” (vii). There are many books that evaluate each separate scripture
hermeneutically, but Tyconius’ Rules does not do that or try to do that. Tyconius takes
the Bible and separates it into three periods of history: Abraham and his seed, a period of
promise; the period of Israel with the Law; and the age of Christ, when the Law ends and
the promise is fulfilled (233). Tilley describes how Tyconius made clear that all Biblical
events of the past were very much connected to current events. Not only that, but he
claimed that many of the past events described in Scripture were addressed to his
contemporaries (234). An example of this is when Tyconius explains the Donatist schism
Lest anyone lead you astray in any way, the schism must come first so that
the man of sin, the son of destruction, may be revealed. He sets himself
up in opposition and is exalted over all who call him God and he is
And you know what holds him back now so that he will be revealed and
the Lord Christ will kill him with the breath of his mouth… His arrival
will be assisted by the work of Satan in all power with false signs and
omens (236).
7
Tyconius uses these verses much for the same reason as the 17th Century American
Puritans did, to scare God’s children into living a pure life and driving the Devil away.
Now, examine the verses from which Tyconius has taken this prophecy, 2 Thessalonians,
2:3-4,6-9:
3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,
4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that
time.
7: For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth
8: And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume
with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his
coming:
9: Even him, whose coming is after the workings of Satan with all power
Tyconius is able to use all seven rules with this reading, and is very effective with his
message to the Donatists. But he leaves out the next verse, which mitigates the warning
of the previous six verses: “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that
perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”
Everybody has the possibly of redemption because of Christ’s sacrifice, so the warning of
8
Tyconius is not quite as dire as intended. However, for modern skeptics, Tyconius’
hermeneutical explanation still applies today, in that the world is divided for all number
Christians, who can apply it to something as current as the Catholic priests in America
who have been dismissed for their sinful conduct. That being literally true, then the end
of the world could be imminent. Does this mean that Tyconius was wrong? Did
Tyconius think the world was going to end in 410 or so? Of course not. All the verses in
the Bible apply to the Lord through space and time. Because, in addition to modernizing
or making contemporary some of the past events, Tyconius also pushes back some of the
eschatological events, making them opaque, with no set date of occurrence (Fitzgerald
855). This is the allegorical nature of scripture, which supersedes even the extreme
typology of the Donatists. Notice also that Tyconius does not describe each word or line
for its exact meaning, or in relation to other words or meanings. He applies all the rules
simultaneously and derives meaning in that way (Tilley 231). Tyconius is not a prophet;
he would never claim to be able to read scripture to make prophecies from it. He merely
examines it, using his rules, so that it can make sense to those who were looking at
“closed doors.” Of course, it is difficult to make all scripture timeless and spatial. It is
still a problem today, as described by E.C. Blackman, in Biblical Interpretation: The Old
Difficulties and the New Opportunity. It is difficult to transpose Christ of A.D. 30 into
the Christ of today, especially if particular passages or chapters, like Mark, Chapter 13,
Tyconius spent much time providing examples to prove not only each rule, but
how the rules worked together as a holistic examination of theme and guidance. When he
9
discusses scriptures in Isaiah that discuss both the prosperity and the obliteration of the
Jews, it can only be looked at as the events that would happen to those Jews on the Earth
who were God’s children, as opposed to those Jews who were the Devil’s children. In
this interpretation, God’s Jews would prosper in Isaiah 43:5-8, and the Devil’s Jews
would fail in Isaiah 63:9-19. The important aspect is that there are both kinds of Jews in
the Church at the same time, and the same holds true in Augustine and Tyconius’ time
with the Donatists and Catholics. Of course they would differ on which are God’s
children, but the fact is, there are God’s children, and there are those who belong to
Satan. This is an example of Tyconius’ second rule, of the Bipartite Church. Just four
years after the publication of Tyconius’ Liber Regularum, Augustine converted to the
Church. One of his biggest tasks was to address the Rules, so he could not only
understand how his enemies the Donatists might understand scripture, but also to give
hermeneutics began in 396, ten years after his conversion, in the same year he became
Bishop of Hippo (Robertson ix). (For the purposes of this essay, all references to De
Doctrina Christiana will mean to the Robertson translation). Augustine did not finish the
book for another 30 years, surely because of other, more pressing matters, including
beating down the Donatists, in addition to the innumerable everyday tasks of being a
Bishop. When writing the first part of the book, Augustine lists three problems that
would result from the publication of De Doctrina Christiana, which he states at the
beginning, in the Prologue, parts 1 and 2: First, there are those who are limited by lack of
intellect, and will never understand Scripture, no matter how many rules are in place to
10
help them. Second, there are those who will accept the rules, but be unable to understand
Scripture even with them. Third, there are arrogant people who have their own
hermeneutics, and “think they [treat the scriptures well],” and will declare his rules
finished writing the work thirty years later, the third concern was of lesser consternation
to him. He had “matured, learning from his pastoral experience” (Wuellner 2). As
Augustine completed Doctrina, his influence in the community and Church was far too
strong (and he was perhaps too arrogant himself) to worry what others thought of his
work. That being the case, still, the influence of Tyconius’ Rules was immense to
Augustine and cannot be overstated. Augustine’s initial worries about the readers of De
Doctrina Christiana were similar to the worries Tyconius listed in Regularum. Tyconius
claimed that scripture could only be interpreted by those who were just, or who had heard
the call to repentance. Those who had sin-hardened hearts would not be able to
understand, because it was the Spirit of God that opened the hearts of people to the
meaning of scripture (Tilley 268). Dockery claims that Augustine’s “hermeneutics was a
commentary on a theme also adopted from Tyconius. The goal of all biblical
interpretation should prioritize the love of God and neighbor (Matt 22:37-39), the
ordering of the Christian life toward its heavenly home” (143). Even though it is not the
only concern in the development of Tyconius’ Rules, or Augustine’s Doctrine, the most
serious impact of both is most likely the “end times” change in interpretation (Explained
using Rule 6). Called eschatology, the premise had been that the Apocalypse would
occur at a set time, and the scripture was very literal in that sense. Rather than using
allegory to explain it away, as the story of the Creation was explained, Augustine follows
11
Tyconius’ lead in stopping that interpretation of it. That is just one example of many on
which Augustine sides with Tyconius. Even though that is the case many times over,
Augustine still uses Tyconius to suit his own purposes, and says some nasty things about
him as well.
mentality” (104). He indicates this when he describes how Tyconius wrote against the
Donatists, but would not abandon them. It is the fact that Tyconius knew better, and
more, than the Donatists, and yet refused to leave them, that makes him inferior in
Augustine’s eyes, and even more infuriating is that Tyconius would not convert to
compliment Tyconius’ explanation of the seven rules, saying, “When these are examined
as he explains them, they are of no little assistance in penetrating what is covert in the
whatever status he had gained as an exegete, with, “However, not all the things which are
so written that they are difficult to understand may be cleared up by means of these rules,
and many other methods must be used which he was so far from including in this series
of seven that he himself explains many obscure places without recourse to them because
they do not apply” (104). He gives an example of scripture Tyconius does not address,
which concerns the seven angels in the Apocalypse of St. John, the very eschatology he is
expected from Augustine. He just could not show too much favor toward a Donatist,
even an excommunicated one. Gerald Bray agrees with this assertion: “Basically (De
simplistic” (92). With that distancing still comes a healthy respect for much of Tyconius’
work. For example, they both agree that the first resurrection of Revelation 20:4-6 is a
spirit resurrection, not a bodily one (Vlach 2). It does makes sense, though, if he was
trying to distance himself from Tyconius, to blast him in the same eschatological area in
which he owed him so much. Some Augustine scholars think Tyconius received fair
treatment from Augustine, in that he followed Tyconius’ work and credited him for that
which he agreed with, while others argue that he intentionally misrepresented Tyconius’
treatment of Tyconius:
against the literalism of the Manichees and against the typology of the
Donatists. In the latter case, it allowed him to justify the Catholic tradition
There is no question where Tilley stands on the matter. Dr. Kannengiesser accuses
Augustine of using Tyconius to further his own agenda (4). Marcia Colish, writing a
“Augustine deliberately used and abused Tyconius’ Book of Rules in the specific kind of
anti-Donatist agenda…” (Wuellner 42). However, as stated earlier in this text, many
13
famous theologians and scholars of ancient Christianity agree that Tyconius was an
how Augustine sent Tyconius’ “classic” work to the Bishop of Carthage for him to study,
and how Augustine quotes it in works other than De Doctrina Christiana (20). If
Augustine had such a fundamental problem with Tyconius’ work, reasons Gordon
Hamilton, why did he include it in Doctrina? After all, he had 30 years to think about it
(105-106). He had 30 years of spiritual development and worldly fame behind him
before he finished Doctrina. Another intellectual who pays homage to Tyconius’ impact
on Augustine is highly respected scholar James O’Donnell, who says Augustine used “a
list of seven rules for interpreting scripture, borrowed from a Donatist writer, Tyconius—
schismatic sect” (17). Henry Chadwick says, “Certainly the extent to which Augustine’s
exegesis is in debt to the Book of Rules is remarkable” (Wuellner 49). No matter which
side of the argument is most truthful, nobody can argue that his interpretation of
Tyconius’ rules, and his elaborations on them, became the blueprint for scriptural analysis
There are many references made by scholars connecting the Neo-Platonism of the
compares the seven rules to the Neo-Platonic ideal of ascension (11). His article
examines On Christian Doctrine from the beginning, where Augustine describes his
starting with a more general base of knowledge and perspective, and how it changes to
become more introspective, with a more narrowed focus throughout the book. He shows
14
how Doctrine climbs the “ladder” to become more explanatory, until he arrives at Book
3, where he “marks out seven steps to wisdom for the study of scripture to ascend” (11).
Dr. Stephen Lewis claims that Augustine added a rule, the rule of love, as a principle of
interpretation (31). But first, what did Augustine change about Tyconius’ Rules?
Thinking that Tyconius was partially correct, but limited by a lack of intelligence (a sort
of mixture of all three of his worries about those who would read Doctrina), Augustine
added to and clarified the original seven rules. The consensus of changes, as described
by Gerald Bray, is as follows: 1-The authority of Scripture rests on the authority of the
Church, and is therefore subordinate to it. Scripture that is barely recognized by the
Church has little authority, so it is the Church that determines its level of authority. (This
later became heretical to the Church). 2-Obscurities in Scripture have been placed there
by God. 3-When Scripture is ambiguous, the rule of faith must be used to interpret it.
The faith described is the Church’s faith, and scripture cannot be considered if it does not
fit Church Doctrine. 4-Figurative passages cannot be taken literally. Augustine believed
that anything that was not seen to lead to good behavior or true faith was figurative. 5-
There can be multiple meanings for one word or figure. Bray gives the example of the
word “shield” in Ps. 5:13 (meaning God’s good pleasure), and Eph. 6:16 (faith). 6-Any
possible meaning a text can have should be considered legitimate, as the truth can be
Augustine seems to agree with Tyconius on Rule 1. He writes that common sense
indicates which is being mentioned in Scripture – God or the Church. It can pass from
one to the other without even leaving the former to become the latter (106). Augustine
with his Body. He would rather see the titles “Of the True and Mixed Body of the Lord,”
or “the True and Simulated” (Robertson 106). His example is far more specific than
Blackman’s listed earlier in this essay; Augustine describes a woman who says “I am
black but beautiful….” Augustine points out that she did not say she was black, and am
beautiful, but shows she is both, which is unity (106). An example in Scripture is
Matthew 13:47-48, which describes the Kingdom of Heaven “like unto a net, that was
cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:/ Which, when it was full, they drew to
shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.”
Tyconius might say this was the schism between the Donatist and Catholic Churches,
while Augustine would argue that it could not be interpreted as including the Church,
since the Church and Body of God are the same. Augustine would attribute the good and
bad fish explanation to the people in the Church, who are both good and bad, serving God
and the Devil. He would also argue that the next verse, Matthew 13:49, applied to the
people of the Church: “So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth,
and sever the wicked from among the just.” Tyconius might argue that the Catholic
Church would be severed from the Donatist world and be cast into the furnace, while
In Book 3, 56, Augustine finishes his analysis of the Tyconian Rules by excepting
Rule 3 from the others. He does so to explain how the other six rules allow one thing to
be understood by another. Because it relies on a correct definition of one thing (his word)
to derive a correct definition of another, Augustine argues, it is too broad for one man to
example is used, the very definition of that figurative word or thing is not literal, and
16
cannot possibly allow for a literal meaning of another thing (116). Augustine does not
like Rule 3, calling it too much of a question, rather than a rule. He disagrees with
Tyconius over it, saying that Tyconius does not account for heresies in the world. If God
allows heretics, then He must have measured less faith to those people, and therefore
gives differing amounts to different people. Tyconius might have caught that, says
Augustine, if he had an enemy, but since he wrote for his own church, he was less
vigilant (108). Augustine finds nothing wrong with Tyconius’ fourth rule. Since
Augustine’s comments on Rules 4-7 were written more than 30 years later, the threat of
siding with an ex-Donatist now would certainly be of lesser consequence than it would
have been to a brand new Bishop then. Overall, the last four Rules seem to be accepted
more readily by Augustine. He does say that Rule 4 is written simplistically enough for
uneducated people to understand it, surely a jab at Tyconius. Augustine gives numerous
examples using the fourth rule, but one scripture he does not analyze is I Corinthians
11:20. One wonders if Tyconius and Augustine would see the same meaning, if asked to
apply the Rules, especially Rule 4, to it. “When ye come together therefore into one
place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.” First, the verse surely means that the reason
for going to church is to eat the Lord’s Supper. For that analysis to be correct, “come
together” must mean to worship in a church. So allegory and/or typology must be used to
understand it. Tyconius might look at it as when there are many Christians brought
together, like in North Africa, they all do not get to eat the Lord’s Supper. Some “eat”
from the Donatist faith, while others partake of the Catholic faith. Augustine might
interpret it as the fact that everybody gets to eat the Lord’s Supper literally, as they
partake of the host at Mass, and when they are members of the Church, they are part of
17
God, and worshipping him figuratively means they partake or “eat” of His supper. The
resolution is not as easy as deciding what the Scripture was supposed to mean when it
was written. Common sense might say that it was written, with those scriptures around it,
as an always-continuing contemporary look at those who pretend to love God, but are just
going through the motions. The Scripture continues by reminding the reader of when
Jesus ate at the Last Supper, and how He gave thanks for the food and said that in all
future times when the Apostles ate, it should remind them of Him. Tyconius might very
well agree with that interpretation, but Augustine would argue that it relies on the
figurative nature of the food that is consumed after Jesus’ death. And Jesus only intended
the verse for the Apostles, who are real holy men, not ordinary Church members. The
possibilities would be endless if the verse were allowed to be interpreted based on the
Scripture around it. Even though he does not do it this time, Augustine does compare
Scripture with Scripture, and nobody is more elaborate at that than he is (Dockery 144).
In Rule 5, Tyconius does leave the Rule too undefined. According to Charles
signifying “the whole from a part, or one part from the whole…” (10). Augustine
expands this definition to include numbers and the mathematical exponents of them, as in
12 Apostles times the same number equals 144, the number of the faithful in the
Apocalypse (113). The way that numbers can be stretched or minimized depends on the
context, and the definition is made to fit the number, and not the other way around.
Numbers can also be used instead of “the whole,” as in “seven times a day I have given
praise to thee” means the same as “always his praise shall be in my mouth” (112). In
18
Rule 6, Augustine and Tyconius agree wholeheartedly. Augustine gives several examples
of the differing Scriptures that describe events, like the Creation, when one item was
described as happening before another, when in fact, it happened the opposite way. This
rule, and the fact that Augustine hammers away with so many examples to prove it, is
done to change or move those who nitpick Scripture, haggling over minor,
inconsequential points. This again appeals to common sense, and is designed to allow the
reader to focus on other, more applicable, Scripture. Rule 7 is accepted with little
Rule 1, in that the Devil’s head and Body are parallels in Scripture to God’s Head and
Body.
was going to write in Book 4. He says his ambition was two-fold (117), but it comes out
in the text as having four more parts. Professor Justin Tan, of the Bible College of
as to see the multi-layered meaning of the biblical texts” (4). David Dockery concurs
that Augustine developed four more senses, instead of two, but claims they are for the
Old Testament only, and that the four that apply to the New Testament are literal,
allegorical, tropological or moral, and anagogical (145). The four former hermeneutics
can be defined as: aetiology- telling why such an action was taken; analogy- affirming the
continuity and harmony that existed between the Old and New Testaments; allegory-
giving a figurative, eternal meaning of the text; and history- that Scripture is not a
19
technical scientific or historical guide, because it has been given to humanity through
illuminate the Rules. When discussing Rule 7, Tyconius selects two passages, one being
Isaiah 14:12-21, which explains the blasphemy of the King of Babylon. His description
makes it clear that the Devil, and evil, are in the midst of the Church, and are a part of the
Church. That concept is covered in Rules 1, 2, 6 and 7. Tyconius describes how the King
of Babylon allegorically stands for the Devil, not only because he is a part of the sinners
on Earth, but also by doing sin, he is a part of the Devil’s Body, as described in Rules 2
and 7. Tyconius describes this King, and other sinners, as living in and with the Church,
with those who are God’s Children (Burkitt 70-71). The point of Tyconius’ discourse on
this passage is not just to elucidate the fact that the Devil and his Body have the same
relationship to each other as God and His Body, but to prove once again the existence of
evil within the Church (Wuellner 35). It was for this that he was excommunicated, and it
is here that Augustine ignores most of Tyconius’ exegesis and does not take him to task
Tyconius’ identity of “Lucifer.” Verse 12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,
son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the
nations!” He claims that the first part of the verse really does apply to the Devil, and not
to the King of Babylon. The second part of verse 12 applies to the Devil’s body, which is
“cut down” (Doctrine 116). Augustine cites Psalms 1:4 as evidence to his correct
exegesis of the passage, in that the “ungodly” are “like (chaff) which the wind hath
driveth away” (116). This definition absolutely ignores the entire theme of Tyconius’
20
exegesis, covered by Rule 2 literally, and Rule 7 figuratively. Tyconius uses all of the
Augustine figuratively then, if he is to stick with his exegesis of verse 12. Verse 13: “For
thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the
stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:”
Surely Augustine did not think this verse was directed at the actual Devil? If not, then
making the argument for the previous verse to is on shaky ground exegetically. The
verses that follow verse 13 can also allegorically help Augustine’s case, but his claim is a
literal one here. So, since the historical interpretation of the passage has the King of
Babylon attempting to erect a huge “ladder” to Heaven, verse 13 seems very easily
directed at him in a literal sense. So do the rest of the verses in the passage. Cross
referencing in the King James Bible shows other Scripture that may increase the accuracy
of Tyconius’ exegesis of the passage in Isaiah. Besides his other example, Ezekial 28:1-
17 (When Prince Tyrus claims to be like God, in his riches and intellect), there is
Revelations 8:10: “And the third angel sounded and there fell a great star from heaven,
burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the
fountains of waters;” This is the story of the Devil’s angels, who comprise one-third of
the total number of original angels. In this case, they fell to the waters and mountains, in
effect, everywhere – of course they are mixed with the members of the Church. Even
though Tyconius did not reference that Scripture from Revelations, it is an easy
connection to make to help assert his hermeneutical authority in this case. And to use
examples from both the Old and New Testament only strengthens each rule, as the two
authors, and was written as a guide, warning, and assessment of and for the Donatists.
His work was powerful enough to warrant his expulsion from his church, and powerful
enough to form the basis for Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine. No matter how
exegetical style, the fact remains that the Rules had an enormous impact on his personal
philosophy of hermeneutics and the way he evaluated Scripture. The 30 years between
the beginning and finishing of On Christian Doctrine could have been logically spent
fulfilling more important roles, or could be because “fixing” the Rules was so
unimportant. Regardless of the actual truth, the first document carried such clout that it
spawned the second one, which carried such clout as to be the “official” blueprint for
Works Cited
Blackman, E.C. Biblical Interpretation: The Old Difficulties and the New Opportunity.
Bray, Gerald. Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present. InterVarsity Press; Leicester,
England. 1996.
Burkitt, F. C. The Book of Rules of Tyconius. Cambridge at the University Press. 1894.
the Light of the Early Church. Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan.
1992.
Fredriksen, Paula. “Xcaecati Occulta Justitia Dei: Augustine on Jews and Judaism.”
http://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/fredriksen/augjews.html
Lewis, Dr. Stephen. Bible 405: Hermeneutics – The Study of the Interpretation of
Scriptures. Published in PDF format only for the Chafer Theological Seminary.
1995. http://www.churchofhopeontheweb.org/Hermeneutics.pdf
Meynell, H.A. Grace, Politics, and Desire. University of Calgary Press; Calgary,
Alberta. 1990.
23
2003. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/twayne/aug2.html
Robertson, D.W., Translator. Saint Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine. The Liberal Arts
Tan, Justin. “Augustine the Ancient Exegete.” CGST Journal, Issue 27. July, 1999.
Internet. http://www.cgst.edu/Journal/27/Abstract.html
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psco/year38/tilley1.txt
Michigan. 1989.
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/augustine.html
Willis, Geoffrey Grimshaw. Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy. Cambridge
Wuellner, Wilhelm, Editor. Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern