-
Chapter 10. Truth in the Realm of Lies
- University of Pennsylvania Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
C h a p t e r 1 0 Truth in the Realm of Lies Augustine’s shift from autobiography to exegesis in the concluding sections of the Confessions presents a notorious problem. There is no shortage of hypotheses that seek to account for this rather odd compositional move, linking, in Roland Teske’s all too apt characterization, “rather strange autobiography and even stranger exegesis.”1 Augustine himself exacerbated the question by providing an unusually taciturn description of Confessions in his Revisions, in which, stating that his intention had been to “lift up the understanding and affection of people to [God],” he explained the structure simply as, “The first ten books were written about myself; the last three about holy scripture” (Retr 2.32.1).2 In choosing the beginning of Genesis as the subject of exegesis, Augustine retraced familiar ground he had covered in prior efforts against the Manichaeans, as he was drawn once again to the Christian cosmogonic account, despite the fact that no pressing interpretive issue regarding this text troubled the Catholic community. His frequent allusions in the course of his exegesis to Manichaean objections to Genesis, or to alternative Manichaean conceptions of creation, have suggested to many, therefore, that Augustine intended yet another anti-Manichaean defense of the Nicene view of creation.3 Indeed, a few years later, Augustine would speak of his previous allegorical readings of Genesis, including that in Confessions, as intended to be responses to Manichaeans (GL 8.2.5). Yet why should such an effort be undertaken here, seemingly appended to a work of a quite different kind? How does it relate to Augustine’s purpose in the rest of Confessions? Identifying more of a protreptic than a polemical purpose, researchers such as Catherine Joubert and Annemaré Kotzé have proposed, in the latter’s 370 chapter 10 words, that “Augustine’s primary objective in books 11 to 13 is to redeem the story of creation in the sight of his Manichaean reader.”4 An allegorical reading of the text provided more than just a defense against Manichaean criticism of its literal meaning; it also revealed, hidden below its surface, lofty and sophisticated ideas that might prove worthy of Manichaean respect. Here again, Augustine appears to have used his own past sentiments to connect with a Manichaean audience, commenting on his own dislike and lack of appreciation of the Old Testament, both before joining the Manichaeans (Conf 3.5.9), and even after his decision to convert to Nicene Christianity (Conf 9.5.13), at a point in the narrative where the reader expects him to sing its praises unrestrainedly. Yet, even with such a protreptic theory of Augustine ’s purpose, as with proposals that envision more of a traditional antiManichaean polemic at work, Augustine’s project would entail principally an effort to prove the Genesis creation story to be true, by a combination of demonstrating its affirmation by authorities (such as Paul) the Manichaeans claim to recognize, and finding in it worthy spiritual truths by means of allegory. My proposed reading of books 11–13 of Confessions, while acknowledging the complex layering of discursive purpose evident there, highlights a slightly different aspect of Augustine’s rhetorical strategy. I agree, of course, that Augustine included familiar responses to Manichaean critiques of Genesis , and in that sense mounted a defense of the biblical text. I also recognize that Augustine did not address Manichaean readers exclusively, but devoted considerable attention to possible objections to his exegesis from within the Catholic community. It is my contention that these two directions of concern belong to a single purpose displayed in his highly eccentric interpretation of the Genesis creation story. For the most remarkable aspect of Augustine’s exegetical defense of Genesis is that he defended no particular interpretation at all. He cannot be said to have defended the Nicene or Catholic understanding of Genesis against Manichaean criticisms or alternatives, simply because there was no such thing as the Nicene or Catholic understanding of it, beyond the formal commitment to the text of Genesis itself. Nor did he defend the text of Genesis in its literal or historical sense as a true account of creation opposed to the Manichaean alternative.5 In fact, he largely departed from treating Genesis as about creation at all, preferring to find in it an account of the soteriological re-creation of fallen humanity, while not dogmatically insisting that this represented the sole correct reading of the passage. In this way, I think...