Patristic Hermeneutics: Tyconius’ Influence on Augustine

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-

Christian, non-Jewish philosophers relied heavily on allegory to explain the misdeeds of

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

important of those ancient philosophers in the field of hermeneutics include Aristobulus

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

few of the major research works concerning hermeneutics is Tyconius mentioned as a

leader of hermeneutical thought. This is intolerable, since Tyconius was a huge factor in

Augustine’s hermeneutical development. Without Tyconius to shape both what

Augustine believed in and reacted against, Christian hermeneutics would not have

developed the way they are today.

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

almost completely obliterated him as the author of Christian hermeneutics, great

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

radical transformation of African--and thus, ultimately of Latin—theology…” (29). At

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:

I thought it necessary before writing anything else which occurred to me to

write providing something like keys and windows to the secrets of the law.
For there are certain mystical rules which govern the depth of the entire law
and hide the treasures of truth from the sight of some people. If the logic of
these rules is accepted without prejudice as we set it down here, every closed
door will be opened and light will be shed on every obscurity. Guided, as it
were, by these rules in paths of light, a person walking through the immense
forest of prophecy may well be defended from error (Dockery 142).

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

prophets, and 28 percent from the Pauline corpus (Tilley 237).

These are the regulae:

1. De Domino et corpore eius (Of the Lord and His Body)

2. De Domini corpere bipertito (Of the Lord’s Bipartite Body)
3. De promissis et lege (Of Promises and the Law)
4. De specie et genere (Of Species and Genus)
5. De temporibus (Of Times)
6. De recapitulatione (Of recapitulation)
7. De diabolo et eius corpore (Of the Devil and His Body) (Willis 20)

The rules are further explained in layman’s terms by Gordon Hamilton, in his essay

“Augustine’s Methods of Biblical Interpretation,” published in Grace, Politics, and

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

verses in Corinthians I described women as playing a subjugated role in Christian life. It

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

with the Catholic Church in the Rules, as quoted by Tilley:

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

worshiped when he sits in the temple of God pretending that he is God…

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,

except that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that

is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing

himself that he is God.

6: And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his

time.

7: For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth

will let, until he be taken out of the way.

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

and signs and lying wonders,

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

of reasons in all number of directions. The schism might apply to Americentric

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,

seem to concern only the Jewish apocalypse of the time (19).

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

himself a base idea for his own scriptural hermeneutics.

Augustine’s undertaking of analyzing Tyconius’ work and writing his own

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

unsound and unnecessary (3). According to Charles Kannengiesser, when Augustine

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.

Augustine describes Tyconius in Book Three, XXX.42, as having an “absurd

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

Catholicism. Despite this anger, disappointment, or frustration, he initially appears 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

Holy Scriptures” (104). But he continues his introduction by stripping Tyconius of

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

able to opine on because of Tyconius’ hermeneutics. This kind of spiritual distancing 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

Doctrina Christiana) was an amplification of Tyconius, whom he regarded as too

 12

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’

work. Here is the argument proffered by Maureen Tilley, concerning Augustine’s

treatment of Tyconius:

Augustine picked up Tyconius’ volume and summarized it for his own

clergy. It is my opinion, as I have defended elsewhere, that Augustine

deliberately misinterpreted Tyconius’ work to suit his own program,

transforming its program from the typological to the allegorical in De

Doctrina Christiana…. Tyconius gave him a way to interpret Scripture

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

of interpreting parables of separation of the good and evil within the

Church as happening at the end of the world” (“Factor” 5)

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

response to Kannengiesser’s essay at the Colloquy held at California-Berkeley, says,

“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

enormously helpful influence in Augustine’s hermeneutics. Geoffrey Willis describes

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—

a rare example of a patristic writer publicly acknowledging a debt to a member of a

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

for the next 1000 years.

There are many references made by scholars connecting the Neo-Platonism of the

four-fold hermeneutics implemented by Augustine to the seven rules. James O’Donnell

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

assumptions on all Christianity in Book 1. O’Donnell’s description shows Augustine

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

apprehended at many levels (109).

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

renames Tyconius’ second law, because “Bipartite” allows hypocrites to be associated

 15

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

Augustine would obviously disagree.

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

comprehend entirely. A more complex description of this problem is that if a figurative

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

Kannengiesser, “Tyconius limits himself to using a definition dropped from an

elementary manual of rhetorics: the figure of speech called synecdoche consists in

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

comment compared to the other Rules by Augustine, although he compares Rule 7 to

Rule 1, in that the Devil’s head and Body are parallels in Scripture to God’s Head and

Body.

Augustine continues to show his Neo-Platonic background by describing what he

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

Victoria, in Melbourne, describes how Augustine “implemented the four-fold

hermeneutics of the neo-Platonic tradition, historia, aetilogia, analogia, (and) allegoria, so

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

imperfect people speaking inconsistent language (Virkler 61).

Augustine comments on several of Tyconius’ Scriptural references, used to

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

on verses 13-21. Rather, Augustine attacks verse 12 only, particularly as it applies to

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

passage to carry his successful exegesis. Verse 13 would have to be interpreted by

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

books are supposed to work together in all matters of doctrine.

 21

Tyconius’ Book of Rules was greatly influenced by the earlier hermeneutic

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

Augustine treated Tyconius, either in words directed at him, or by following his

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

hermeneutical exegesis for at least 1000 years.

 22

Works Cited

Anderson, David. “The Soteriological Impact of Augustine’s Change from

Premillenialism to Amillennialism” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society.

Spring, 2002. http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2002i/anderson.pdf

Blackman, E.C. Biblical Interpretation: The Old Difficulties and the New Opportunity.

London Independent Press. 1957.

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.

Dockery, David. Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in

the Light of the Early Church. Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan.

1992.

Fitzgerald, Allan. Editor. Augustine: Through the Ages. William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company; Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1999.

Fredriksen, Paula. “Xcaecati Occulta Justitia Dei: Augustine on Jews and Judaism.”

Accessed 15 July, 2003.

http://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/fredriksen/augjews.html

Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. Fortress Press; Philadelphia. 1984.

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

O’Donnell, James. “Augustine: Elements of Christianity.” Internet. Accessed 12 July,

2003. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/twayne/aug2.html

Robertson, D.W., Translator. Saint Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine. The Liberal Arts

Press; New York. 1958.

Tan, Justin. “Augustine the Ancient Exegete.” CGST Journal, Issue 27. July, 1999.

Internet. http://www.cgst.edu/Journal/27/Abstract.html

Tilley, Maureen. “The Missing Factor: Donatist Influence on Augustine’s Concepts of

the Will.” Internet. January, 2001.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psco/year38/tilley1.txt

Tilley, Maureen. The Use of Scripture in Christian North Africa: An Examination of

Donatist Hermeneutics. University Microfilms International; Ann Arbor,

Michigan. 1989.

Virkler, Henry. Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation.

Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1981.

Vlach, Michael J. “Augustine in Summary.” TheologicalStudies.org. July 15, 2003.

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/augustine.html

Willis, Geoffrey Grimshaw. Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy. Cambridge

University Press. 1950.

Wuellner, Wilhelm, Editor. Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern

Culture: Protocol of the Fifty-Eighth Colloquy. University of California-

Berkeley. 16 October, 1988.