Augustine scholarship on grief has mostly focused on Confessiones 4 and 9 and De ciuitate dei 14.9, with a focus on how Augustine legitimates Christian expressions of grief. In this essay, I explore the ways in which his account of grief is inflected Christologically, with a primary focus on In Iohannis euangelium tractatus 49, 52, and 60, where Augustine reflects on a set of Johannine texts that speak of Jesus being “troubled”: John 11:33, 12:27, and 13:21. The homiletic context adds (...) to the traditional picture of grief in Augustine scholarship by drawing more attention to issues of Christology. In particular, the Johannine passages afford Augustine the opportunity to highlight the ways in which conceptions of divine power (potestas) shape an interpretation of the difference between Christ’s unique experience of grief in comparison with ours. Christ’s grief, Augustine emphasizes, is only ever voluntary, whereas we experience it involuntarily, and yet it is precisely this difference that prompts Augustine to focus his hearer’s attention on how Christ’s grief serves as the healing of our griefs. (shrink)

Among both the defenders and adversaries of orthodox Trinitarian dogma, the so-called “kenosis hymn” of Philippians 2 was of the utmost importance, whether in refuting opponents’ teachings or articulating one’s own. While historical theologians have extensively investigated its place in the works of Sts. Hilary and Augustine—each the leading Latin pro-Nicene authority of his time—a comparative examination of the two has not yet been undertaken. This article seeks to trace and account for Augustine’s noteworthy improvement upon his predecessor’s thought in (...) the closely related realms of exegesis and Christology. It first summarizes the most relevant points of continuity and discontinuity in the Latin bishops’ uses of the Pauline language of forma dei–forma serui. From there, it turns to the role of Phil. 2 in countering subordinationist readings of hotly contested scriptural texts, arguing that Augustine more ably responds to the challenges at hand. Finally, it argues that his employment of the forma dei–forma serui paradigm is closely linked to his teaching on the revelatory capacity of Christ’s human nature. With regard to both, Augustine’s teaching marks a bona fide development of Hilary’s and thus of the Latin tradition more broadly. (shrink)

Since the early Christian era, Psalm 142:2b, which declares the impossibility of anyone being justified before God, has elicited diverse interpretations from theologians. In this article, we examine the exegesis of Ps. 142:2 by two prominent theologians of the late fourth and early fifth centuries, Jerome and Augustine. We show that their interpretations of this verse were heavily influenced by their respective theological backgrounds and the controversies they were facing at the time. Jerome’s anti-Origenist exegesis explains his rejection of the (...) Pelagian perspective on Ps. 142:2, and Augustine’s interpretation was mainly shaped by his (early) anti-Pelagian insistence on rejecting the possibility of living without sin. This article illustrates the complex interplay between theological controversies and scriptural interpretation in the early Christian Church. (shrink)

This article explores Karl Rahner’s assessment of Augustine’s treatment of Old Testament theophanies and the Incarnation. It scrutinizes Rahner’s contention that Augustine deviated from the Christological interpretation held by earlier church fathers and finds that while Augustine’s interpretation differs from the majority of his predecessors, he is not the first significant church father to embrace such a view. Moreover, Augustine’s approach to the theophanies is shown to have deep roots in both tradition and scripture, challenging the explanatory power of the (...) Christological interpretation. The article then argues that it is unreasonable to link Augustine’s theophanic non-peculiarity directly to a rejection of incarnational peculiarity. In addition to the absence of definitive texts denying Christ’s incarnational peculiarity, along with texts clearly affirming it, Augustine’s close association between the missions and processions—an association that ultimately supports Rahner’s Rule—eliminates the possibility of him rejecting the Son’s incarnational peculiarity. Consequently, Rahner’s assertion about Augustine’s alleged denial of incarnational peculiarity lacks solid grounding in Augustine’s body of work. (shrink)

This article traces Augustine’s presentation of an exegetical rule for oneness based on scriptural patterns in three different anti-Homoian contexts throughout his life. First, his letter to Pascentius outlines how descriptions of oneness in Scripture that include an added phrase detailing “one what” indicate substantial difference. Pericopes without the additional “one what,” though, reveal that the beings are of the same substance. Then, Augustine’s De trinitate builds upon this initial distinction by outlining how Trinitarian unity becomes the soteriological aim for (...) the believers’ oneness with one another. Just as the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are of one substance and of one mind and volition, so too humanity, who is already of one substance, must become of one mind and volition through the same faith. Finally, Augustine’s encounter with Maximinus toward the end of his life elaborates further by explicating the significance of a verb’s singularity or plurality in a biblical verse for substantial oneness. He incorporates an argument that has already appeared in his thought into his approach to oneness in Scripture. This article, therefore, contributes to a greater understanding of Augustine’s exegetical arguments against Homoian theology and the trajectory of his pro-Nicene explanations over his life. (shrink)

The present article examines Contra Academicos 2.5 in which Augustine seems to detail the influence of the libri Platonicorum on his conversion. In the first part of the paper, I argue that Michael P. Foley is correct to interpret Augustine’s phrase “libri quidam pleni” as a reference to the libri Platonicorum. I advance the further claim that Augustine primarily has in mind Ennead I.6. This is in contrast to the argument alluded to by Pierre Courcelle and formally given by John (...) J. O’Meara where such a reading of Contra Academicos misconstrues the relationship between Augustine and Plotinus. In response to O’Meara, I advance a threefold argument, a corollary of which is a novel reading of a Latin phrase (bonas res Arabicas) that has perplexed scholars. In the second part of the paper, I use my reading of Contra Academicos along with two considerations from Ennead I.6 to motivate a deeper understanding of Augustine’s conversion. The present study develops recent lines of thought in Augustine scholarship and seeks to open new avenues for understanding the libri Platonicorum and their influence on Augustine’s conversion. (shrink)