David G. HUNTER and Jonathan P. YATES, editors. Augustine and Tradition: Influences, Contexts, and Legacy. Essays in Honor of J. Patout Burns. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021. 501 pp. $80 hardback. ISBN: 978-0-8028-7699-7. Reviewed by Steve W. LEMKE, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans, LA 70126

Augustine and Tradition is a collection of scholarly articles on Augustine in honor of J. Patout Burns written by many of his students and colleagues. Burns served as a professor of historical theology at Jesuit School of Theology in Chicago, Washington University, Vanderbilt University Divinity School, and Notre Dame University. The volume includes fifteen exceptional and diverse articles, each of which deserves careful attention. Due to space limitations, this review will address only a few representative articles.

Michael Cameron of Portland University addresses “Augustine’s Rhetorical Reading of Genesis in Confessiones 11-12.” Cameron argues that Augustine utilized several rhetorical tools borrowed from Cicero in these texts, rhetorical tools which Michael Leff has also identified in Abraham Lincoln’s rhetoric. Augustine’s “hermeneutical rhetoric” takes into account both theory and practice by utilizing both imitation (imitatio) and invention (inuentio). Imitation affirms the traditional understanding of the biblical text; invention provides it with new meanings for different settings. Augustine also interpreted Genesis 1 as both fact and norm: a fact that God created in the beginning; a norm in that this creative act launched the first of many creative acts. Augustine’s writing also illustrated the need for interpretive diversity within community formation.

Andrew McGowan, dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and McFaddin Professor of Anglican Studies at Yale Divinity School, wrote on “Augustine and the North African Liturgical Reading Tradition.” McGowan seeks to identify a set liturgy evident in Augustine’s preaching ministry. Although there is not sufficient evidence for a determinative liturgy, there is evidence that certain texts tended to be read on particular dates. It was also interesting that although most of the readings were from Scripture, some were from accounts of Christian martyrs and other nonbiblical sources.

William Tabbernee, president and Stephen J. England Distinguished Professor of the History of Christianity at Phillips Theological Seminary, addresses the related topic of “Augustine and the North African Martyriological Tradition.” Augustine gave greater attention to the martyrs from North Africa, including Namphano, the Scillitan martyrs, Cyprian, Perpetua and Felicitas of Carthage, and the eight martyrs and the twenty martyrs from Hippo. Beyond North Africa, Stephen was the archmartyr since the narrative of his martyrdom is in Scripture. In addition to the acta or passion accounts of the martyrs, Augustine had his own knowledge of some martyr narratives through Ambrose. Augustine as a young man personally witnessed miracles that took place when the remains of Gervasius and Protasius were found in Milan. The bishop of Hippo did not consider the martyrdoms of Donatists and other schismatics to be authentic because they were not of the true church. Augustine utilized the martyr narratives for pastoral instruction, correction, and encouragement in his preaching, and he chided his congregations for making the martyr’s feast days into jovial occasions with dancing and drinking.

Geoffrey D. Dunn, a fellow at the Australian Humanities Academy, contributes “Augustine and Tertullian.” Augustine at points seemed to equate Tertullian with the “Tertullianists,” Montanists who took Tertullian’s name but were not formed by Tertullian. Augustine dealt with two particular issues raised by Tertullian, remarriage and the nature of the soul. Tertullian strongly discouraged remarriage after the loss of a spouse, following Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor. 7:39-40. Augustine affirmed the legitimacy of remarriage. Tertullian’s view of the soul is more complex, speaking of it as both immortal and embodied. North African culture had nuanced ways of describing the soul which the Cartesian dualism of body and soul does not capture. Tertullian’s view of the soul was consistent with his strong endorsement of traducianism. Although Augustine could quibble with some smaller points about Tertullian’s view of the soul, he did not overtly disagree with him.

Several articles address Augustine’s relationship to Platonism. John Peter Kenney, professor emeritus at St. Michael’s College, authors “Augustine and the Platonists.” Kenny traces how Ambrose helped Augustine have an appreciation for the ways that Platonism comported well with Christianity. However, since Augustine is primarily concerned with scriptural contemplation, not philosophical discourse, Kenney labels Augustine’s use of scripture as his “originalism.” Augustine described Platonism as being something like the Egyptian gold taken by the Israelites. Platonism helped Augustine with some unresolved issues arising from Manichaeanism, as well as the problem of evil. Platonism presented a spiritual God, as opposed to the materialistic god of Manichaeanism. The Platonic concept of evil as the privation of the good helped ease his concerns about the problem of evil. However, while Platonism gave insights into the spiritual, eternal, and transcendent; Augustine insisted that only Christianity (in particular, the incarnation) could provide for personal salvation.

Joseph W. Trigg’s article on “Augustine’s Reception of Origen” addresses similar issues. Trigg, a University of Chicago Divinity School graduate and Episcopalian pastor, builds on the work of Georgy Heidl in tracing a greater impact of Origen on Augustine’s thought than is commonly assumed. Although Origen held a more positive view of human freedom than Augustine, he provided Augustine with a pattern of how to integrate Christian grace and truth with some of the teachings of Platonism. Trigg provides documentation of a number of allusions to Origen’s thought in Augustine’s writings and letters, though Augustine seldom gave credit to Origen for this contribution, probably because of the Origenist controversy that had arisen.

Two articles address the controversies over Augustine’s theological views. Mark DelCogliano, associate professor of theology at the University of St. Thomas, contributes “Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Reception of Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus.” In his debate with Julian of Eclarium, Augustine wanted evidence to counter Julian’s claim that Augustine’s view of original sin essentially condemned marriage. If all sin was transmitted through marital unions, how could marriage be a good thing? Julian built his case by citing a number of church fathers, particularly Greek fathers. It is quite evident that Augustine was neither personally familiar with the Greek fathers (including the Cappadocian fathers) nor had he read them. Augustine tended to use Latin translations, and there is a debate about whether he had facility in reading Greek. Nevertheless, Augustine felt compelled to find some Greek fathers who endorsed his perspective. DelCogliano documents that Augustine misattributed a Basil citation to John Chrysostom, and confused a quotation from Gregory of Elvira with Gregory of Nazianzus. However, Augustine was able to muster four quotations broadly supportive of his view, though the quotations actually seem to be addressing different issues.

Brian Matz’s article “Augustine’s Enchiridion 26.100 and the Ninth-Century Predestination Debate” is a rich contribution. Matz, professor of the History of Christianity at Fontbonne University, traces the controversy caused by a monk named Gottschalk who advocated predestination. His former abbot, Rabanus Maurus, alleged that Gottschalk advocated double predestination, including those predestined to eternal punishment. In fact, it could be argued that Gottschalk did not, in fact, affirm predestination to reprobation. Matz describes Gottschalk’s view as predestination being based in God’s foreknowledge, with a double effect of eternal life for some and reprobation for others. Rabanus nonetheless convened a church trial in Mainz, which condemned Gottschalk for heresy, a conviction further affirmed by a synod at Quierzy in 849. Gottschalk was convicted of heresy, flogged, and imprisoned for the rest of his life. However, Gottschalk continued the debate by writing two volumes defending his views that God’s predestination was based in His foreknowledge. In both of these works, Gottschalk cited Augustine’s statement in Enchiridion 26.100 (among other Augustinian quotations) which appeared to affirm double predestination. This passage in Augustine was interpreted in a variety of ways through the years. Fulgentius argued that Augustine did not mean that God predestined the sin of those who were punished in order to separate God from ordaining sin. Likewise, the Council of Orange in 549 CE affirmed, “We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema” (pp. 388-389). Others noted a distinction between predestination and preparation. For clarity, Archbishop Hincmar appealed to the court theologian John Scotus Eriugena. Unfortunately, Eriugena introduced a new interpretation that Augustine used predestination metaphorically a similitudine regarding the elect, but metaphorically a contrario regarding the reprobate. In short, the discussion of what Augustine actually meant about predestination extended for generations.

This is an excellent book that Augustinian scholars will want to have as a resource. The articles address very specifically targeted topics, but they convey a wealth of information and documentation. The book is a well-researched, well-written treasure. Highly recommended.