Talk:Augustine of Hippo/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pierced heart or flaming heart

I wonder if someone can clarify this attribute. The article lists a pierced heart but the painting appears to show a flaming heart and the statue of Augustine on the West Front of Salisbury Cathedral seems to show a flaming heart. Richard Avery (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Automatic archiving and indexing

Just a note that I added automatic archiving of threads inactive for 30 days. I also added an archive index, and index template, and fixed up the talk page headers to reflect this. The index will be automatically generated by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot, starting from next time it runs. If, for some reason, this is not desired here, just undo this edit.  Begoon^talk 02:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Much better than me doing it by hand; thanks. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The article page was on my watchlist, so I noticed all the hard work you just needed to do with the recent archiving. Because I have the templates from a few other pages I did this for, it only took a few minutes to set up. Occasionally, contributors actually prefer to do manual archiving on the talk pages they are involved with, which is why I tried to do it in one "easy to undo" edit, and ask the question. Glad you found it helpful.  Begoon^talk 05:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I just thought of this...say at some point the talk page is 90kb+, and the bot has not archived. May I archive manually at that point, or will it mess things up somehow? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I do that with my talkpage and it works fine - you can move stuff any time to the end of the last archive, and the bot will just carry on afterwards. It's never given me a problem manually archiving something before it meets the bot parameters. If it happens a lot then adjusting the parameters might help.  Begoon^talk 01:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, just to note: the bot has written the archive index now: so Talk:Augustine of Hippo/Archive index (as linked from talk page header) is functional, and should be automatically updated by the bot in future.  Begoon^talk 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Translations

The "Translations" section contained only one work so I deleted it. I wrote instead a couple of sentences about what is considered by many the best translation into English, but plan to do more to give a comprehensive view of what's available in English. Since even Google won't be much help on this score, this seems a project worth doing. Tangentialine (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea, but is there a source for the statement that New City Press' translations are the best? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, it's something that is known in the field, but let me work on it and see if I can find a source. In fact, the whole issue of English translations of Augustine should be addressed more thoroughly, since it seems important. It seems also important to discuss what collections are available, which are scholarly, which are more on the popular side, which are complete (do we have the COMPLETE works of Augustine in English?), which have parallel texts, etc. Btw, I see you moved this section up. Good. I was going to do it myself. --Tangentialine (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If I can help with anything, just let me know. I have easy access to the volumes here if any of them would be of use. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe a complete English translation of Augustine exists from one publisher. New City Press is attempting this feat, but I believe they are about 3/4 of the way there. Most of the big stuff is done though, and I do know that they've finished all the sermons. (Even the newly discovered ones--oh wait, I think they just found one more a couple of years ago. So all the sermons but one.)Cgarbarino (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

According to them (disclosure, I'm friends with the editor), New City Press has done 40 out of 48 works. They claim that, once they get all 48, they will have translated the complete works. I don't know how to verify this. I have found citations that cite Maria Boulding OBS as a great translator, but failed to find the source of the Catholic Library World citation. It should have come out in 1997 or the following year. Carl, if it's easy for you to check in your library, could you take a look? Also, do we have the complete list of Augustine's works in Works? I don't see the Exposition of the Psalms, but maybe they are part of the Sermons or Homilies? Sorry for the endless edits. I should definitely use a sandbox! And of course I still mean to address the subject of other translations! Tangentialine (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be a few weeks (ie, until school starts), but yeah I'll see if I can find it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And idk if we have the complete works listed here or not. I think I might just redo it based on | this. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I too noticed that the current list is not complete. I just glanced at it, and I didn't see De Musica. My suggestion would be to merge "works" and "translations" into one section. (Interestingly, there are two sections currently titled "Works.") My idea is that we list the works roughly in chronological order in the following format--Latin title, English title, date, Patrologia vol. and col., and english translation. Brown's biography would be a great starting point on this project. Actually now that I think about it, a "complete list of works" would be best on its own page with a link from the Augustine main page. Providing all this helpful information will make the page exceedingly long. The sermons however are a little more tricky, but there is a great table with all that info just for the sermons in part 3, vol. 1 of NCP's complete Augustine. Thoughts?Cgarbarino (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have exhausted whatever information on translations there is to be gathered with a (relatively) quick online search. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy suggests this reference work: Fitzgerald, Allan D. (ed.) (1999): Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999. It might be useful to take a look at it, see what it has to say about individual translations. It is not a bad idea at all to conflate works with translations -- the idea of a separate page with Latin titles, English titles, and one or two (or three) translations is great and I think of great help to readers, though it will not be able to offer an evaluation of the translations. For the time being, I suggest we leave the translation section up. Google yields no guidance on the subject, which is a shame.Tangentialine (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got a copy of Augustine Through the Ages on my shelf. I forgot to look in it. Yes, on pages xxxv-xlii is an alphabetical list of complete works with PL info and major translations. Pages xliii-il contain an explanation of dates. There are about 120 works listed, with the sermons counting as one work. Transcribing this will take some time. And if you want a separate table on the sermons, it will take longer. There are hundreds of sermons.Cgarbarino (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely a complete list of all his sermons translations is not needed, even if the article was not as long as it is.

You could place all (or most) translations on a new page, Translations of Augustine; direct people to where to get more infomation on a list of translations in a physical text (what I would do); or just drop the sermons translations altogther. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Box consolidation

The article has three boxes, titled variously: "Augustine of Hippo, "St. Augustine of Hippo" (both near the start) and "Augustine of Hippo" (half way through). The intented content of these boxes are very similar. IMO it would be an editorial improvement to encapsulate all this material into a single box. Comments?

Philopedia (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They really do serve separate purposes, though they do overlap. I'm not sure how we would go about consolidating them. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Original sin

What's wrong with the Bonner quote? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone was messing with the page, so I fixed it

The anonymous person wrote "hi im gay" and then removed 3 pictures. I don't know what else they did, but I reversed all that I could find.Glorthac (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A very typical vandal ;-) Thanks for undoing. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

St. Augustine quotation taken out-of-context

Under "Sacramental Theology", there is an argument that St. Augustine changed his beliefs over time, that at first he taught only the baptised could be saved, but later he taught that "For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism." (City of God, Book XIII, Ch. 7)

However, this quote is taken out of context. The context is key to realize he did NOT contradict himself. The context is as follows:

"For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kigndom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;" and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it." And this explains the verse, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints." For what is more precious than a death by which a man's sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism."

Obviously, the context shows that the first sentence is speaking of those who are martyred, that their deaths has the same effect as baptism does. This is the Catholic doctrine called "Baptism of blood". St. Augustine was NOT teaching Sola Fide here, as the Protestants would like for him to have taught. Therefore, I will remove the mis-quotation, since it is irrelevant when understood contextually. Thanks!Glorthac (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe I was the one who provided that quote, and I must admit that it was lacking its proper context. However, I don't think it is obvious that this applied only to martyrs, nor is it a mis-quotation, especially in the light of Augustine's other writings. In his "On Baptism, Against the Donatists", he states

That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:43 On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. (book 4, chapter 22)

later in the same work, he writes "But what is the precise value of the sanctification of the sacrament (...) and what is the effect on a man of its material application, it is not easy to say. Still, had it not been of the greatest value, the Lord would not have received the baptism of a servant." I think that sums it up quite well: baptism is not (always) an absolute requirement, but it is still very important.

Also note that you yourself just quoted "where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;"" As you can see, here Augustine acknowledges that a true confession is sufficient for salvation (Sola Fide).

However, what this section really needs is published sources, because what we're doing here is actually OR, as we are providing interpretations of Augustine's words that are apparently contested. Lindert (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be a learned man, why do you misrepresent Augustine then, especially when you and I are the only one reading? Let me show you your errors. 1) In regards to Matthew 10:23 Augustine is arguing that he who "confesses me before men" is in reference to martyrs only, since they have an exception that Augustine speaks of later on. Matthew 10:23's confession is not about faith, but martyrdom. 2) In regards to On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Augustine is teaching Baptism of Desire, which many have pointed out is not the same thing as Sola Fide.Glorthac (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1) Where Augustine speaks concerning Matthew 10:23 I understand that this can be interpreted as applying only to martyrdom. To me, however it seems that he is using martyrdom as an example to show that the necessity of baptism is not an absolute principle. The latter interpretation is, in my view, supported by the other statements mentioned.

2) Although Baptism of Desire was of course not formalized in his time, I agree that this is what Augustine is essentially saying here. And you are of course right that Baptism of Desire is distinct from Sola Fide. However, they are compatible, and I believe Augustine taught both. I think the former means that it is necessary to have a desire to be baptized and that when circumstances prevent actual baptism, this does not matter. The latter signifies that true faith is both necessary and sufficient for salvation. I don't think many protestants would have any problem with Baptism of Desire. After all, when one truly loves Christ and wants to follow Him, it is only logical that he/she desires to be baptized. In this view, the dogma of Baptism of Desire (or any dogma connecting baptism with salvation) is redundant, as it follows logically from saving faith.

BTW I am hardly learned (I get much of my information straight from google). The only work of Augustine that I've read in full is his Confessiones. Lindert (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody ever argued water baptism was an "absolute" principle, seeing Baptism of Blood and Desire are other options. However, baptism of 1 of these 3 types are. And yes, Baptism of Desire and Sola Fide are compatible, but your "On Baptism, Against the Donatists" is speaking of Baptism of Desire alone. So you've yet to justify your pro-Sola Fide misrepresentation of City of God with a Sola Fide passage itself. Anyway, together we've pointed out something we can add: Augustine taught Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire! All we gotta do is find a scholar that agrees to that, type his words up, and BAM, we've made the world smarter!Glorthac (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Augustine and the Deuterocanonicals!

I've been re-reading his Confessions (I've read it 4 times now) and I came across 10.34.52:

"Light, which Tobit saw even with his eyes closed in blindness, when he taught his son the way of life - and went before him himself in the steps of love and never went astray; or that light which Isaac saw when his fleshy eyes were dim, so that he could not see because of old age, and it was permitted him unknowingly to bless his sons, but in the blessing of them to know them; or that light which Jacob saw..."

Obviously St. Augustine is quoting Tobit 2-4, which is part of the Deuterocanonicals. He also quoted Wisdom in 5.4.7 and 6.11.20; and Ecclesiasticus in 6.12.22, 9.8.18, 10.31.45, 12.15.20, and 13.21.31. So, it's pretty obvious that he used the Deuterocanonicals. We should find a scholar that agrees to that, and quote the guy.Glorthac (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Augustine and the necessity of Baptism

I've found ANOTHER reference to St. Augustine's views of the necessity of baptism, he said: "And there can be no other entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, since you have appointed that baptism should be the entrance." (Confessions 13.21.29)Glorthac (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Saint Augustine's final position on Baptism can be found here:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/augustine-final.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.177 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Augustine: "The founder of Roman Catholicism in the west."

I restored the “Converts to Roman Catholicism” category. I believe this is justified since Augustine was unquestionably a Catholic and indeed, may even be properly termed a “Roman Catholic.” Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Augustine's doctrine bears an eminently Catholic stamp and is radically opposed to Protestantism. It is important to establish this fact, principally because of the change in the attitude of Protestant critics towards St. Augustine. Indeed, nothing is more deserving of attention than this development so highly creditable to the impartiality of modern writers. The thesis of the Protestants of olden times is well known. Attempts to monopolize Augustine and to make him an ante-Reformation reformer, were certainly not wanting. Of course Luther had to admit that he did not find in Augustine justification by faith alone, that generating principle of all Protestantism; and Schaff tells us that he consoled himself with exclaiming (op. sit., p. 100): "Augustine has often erred, he is not to be trusted. Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in true faith as well as the other Fathers." But in general, the Reformation did not so easily fall into line, and for a long time it was customary to oppose the great name of Augustine to Catholicism. Article 20 of the Confession of Augsburg dares to ascribe to him justification without works, and Melanchthon invokes his authority in his "Apologia Confessionis."
In the last thirty or forty years all has been changed, and the best Protestant critics now vie with one another in proclaiming the essentially Catholic character of Augustinian doctrine. In fact they go to extremes when they claim him to be the founder of Catholicism. It is thus that H. Reuter* concludes his very important studies on the Doctor of Hippo: "I consider Augustine the founder of Roman Catholicism in the West....This is no new discovery, as Kattenbusch seems to believe, but a truth long since recognized by Neander, Julius Köstlin, Dorner, Schmidt, ...etc.. The Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo by Eugène Portalié,S.J.

Also consider the fact that Augustine, and sixty of his fellow bishops from the council of Milevis, wrote the following to Pope Innocent I: “But we think that with the help of the mercy of the Lord our God, who deigns to guide you when you consult him and to hear you when you pray to him, those who hold such perverse and destructive ideas will more easily yield to the authority of your holiness, which is derived from the authority of the holy scriptures." Letter 176:5
Patristics scholar Daniel E. Doyle O.S.A., comments: “Thus, we have an explicit affirmation by a regional council of bishops in the early fifth century that Petrine ministry is grounded on no less than the authority of Sacred Scripture. Once again, Hofmann, tends to downplay the significance of this by stating that all African bishops essentially trace their authority back to Sacred Scripture. He insists that we not isolate the phrase but see in it the context of the African tradition. Nonetheless, I believe that we are here dealing with a more precise recognition on the part of the African bishops of a special role enjoyed by the bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor.” The Bishop as Disciplinarian in the Letters of St. Augustine, D. E. Doyle, Peter Lang, 2003, ISBN 082046130X ISBN 978-0820461304, pp. 208-209. [1] Delta x (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is quite simply religious revisionism. In Augustine's days, there was one Christian church. If we accept the argument that Augustine "founded Roman Catholicism", and that's a big 'if', it logically follows that he could not convert to something that was not yet founded. We might just as well add the category 'Converts to Orthodox Christinaity, as the church in Augustine's day was just as Catholic as it was Orthodox. Jeppiz (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with the previous post, and I would add that, because it is common for various denominations to 'claim' church fathers, especially Augustine, that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not exactly an objective source for this. Yes you could term Augustine a 'catholic' (though not a Roman Catholic), because the church in those days considered itself both the 'catholic' and the 'orthodox' church. Both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church today claim both these titles. (Heck, even the Mormon church today claims apostolic succession). The fact is that before any of the schisms in the church, these distinctions did not exist. Because of the modern understanding of the words, it would be misleading to call Augustine a 'Catholic' or 'Orthodox' etc. Lindert (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To the previous two posters:
There is no revisionism here. The suggestion that Augustine was the “founder of Roman Catholicism” is simply an exaggeration, a bit of hyperbole, a way of expressing the very Catholic (and even “Roman Catholic”) character of Augustine. It ought not to be taken literally.
But Augustine may indeed be called a “Roman Catholic” inasmuch as he was a Catholic bishop in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome and acknowledged the authority of the Pope. Catholic clergy (and laity) in communion with that See are generally referred to as “Roman Catholics,” to distinguish them from other Christian communions. Delta x (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Anthropology!?

Claiming that Augustine developed an "anthropology" doesn't sound correct. In Wikipedia I cannot find any anthropology before Albiruni c:a 1000 AD. Presenting the body-soul dichotomy as "anthropology" is similar to Pseudo-science unworthy for true religion. If there is a separate Anthropology (religion), which I suspect, the matter comes in another light, then it is a philosophical-spiritual model ("theory" by philosophical terminology) used as a basis for spiritual speculations and meditations. Until then I propose using a related word/phrase which is more conventional in religion. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the word anthropology, which simply means "the study of man". Plato had his own anthropology, for example. Just because you understand anthropology as the study of the evolution of man, does not mean that is its sole area of study. Also, anthropology is the most conventional term in religious studies, but you were obviously ignorant of this.Glorthac (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The comment is off-topical: I'm misunderstanding nothing, and I'm very well aware about the greek etymology of "anthropology". My objection is about the usage of an established term that in common English is a science, while Augustine's philosophical theory does not belong to that science. In the view of a common reader this becomes pseudo-science, i.e. charlatanism that poses as science but doesn't adher to its methods. Therefore I propose another formulation than "anthropology". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And I forgot to say: the comment is inflammatory by trying to interpret my state of mind. WP:CIVIL! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Anthropology would be the correct term for the article. A simple google search of Augustine's anthropology renders several million hits. His anthropology is quite significant to Christendom (though the article does not mention this) as it includes Original Sin a concept which does not have a ton of historical backing before him. It also is used as the foundation of other doctrines in the realm of anthropology such as (in Roman Catholicism) limbo or (in Protestantism) total depravity. In fact it was Augustine's anthropology which in part led him to his disputes with Pelagius. --Rchaplin1 (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 09:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You suspected right, there's a theological anthropology which is a completely separate usage from the social science. I've linked it in the article to be clear. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Too long

This article has been (rightly) tagged with {{very long}} for a few months now. It should be easy to fix: just fork off the "Theology" section. All that's needed is someone knowledgeable to do a summary to remain in the main article. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 09:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree, I've been thinking about making a separate theology article for a while now, but haven't come around doing it because of other things. You rightly point out that we need someone knowledgeable, not only for the summary, but also for the new article. My own knowledge is quite limited, but I'm willing to do some literature digging.

However, the more contributors the better, not only for quality, but also for balance, which may be a concern, because theologians from widely different denominations have been inspired by Augustine and have diverse interpretations and stress different aspects of his theology. Also, the extent of his writings and sermons, even what has survived, is so vast that few people have a comprehensive understanding of his entire theology, so Augustine experts are hard to find; like Isodore of Seville wrote that 'the man who claims to have read all of Augustine is a liar'. --Lindert (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There's already enough material for a separate Theology of St. Augustine article, so I don't think any extra research is necessary to start with. Just enough background knowledge to decide which bits in the current "Theology" section absolutely need to be summarised in the main article and which are less important. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with making a new page Theology of St. Augustine, although the material here does not do justice to Augustinian theology - it is pretty much a "haphazard quote farm" now. But one has to start somewhere. I am not going to separate it out now, because I am busy with other things, but please do copy it out if you want and be done with it. We can clean it up later. History2007 (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Influence on the Protestant Reformers is insufficient

The influence of Augustine on the reformers is lacking in many ways. Calvin himself claimed that 'Augustine is ours'. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk. Following the reformation the Jansenism movement in the Roman Catholic church also held to doctrines similar to Calvin's viewpoints. One I remember for sure is Limited Atonement. I think 4 other points of what is today known as calvinism was held to as well. Since they were Augustinians this gives additional foothold to the idea that these were indeed Augustine's view that the reformers were at least particularly correct. It has also commonly been stated among scholars that the reformation was simply Augustine's ecclesiology versus his soteriology. Also in regards to what is currently there regarding the will. It leaves room for some of Augustine's later works to say that he believed the Fall completely destroyed man's ability to choose good. I am not an Augustinian scholar, but I do know in his later works he published corrections to his former theology. Is this a correct view that he changed his position on this? If so it should be noted as the bondage of the will was at the heart of the reformation.139.102.233.236 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox OD

There is a saint and a theologian infobox here, as well as an Augustine template! Pretty confusing and a lot of overlap. I think just one or two of them are enough, if expanded. The theologian template can move to the Augustinian theology page. The page is just too long and too hard to follow and had I been a new reader, new to the topic, I would have avoided the page due to indigestion. Needs to be simplified and the theology moved out, as above. History2007 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Views on birth

Simone de Beauvoir's attribution to Augustine of the sentence, "Any woman who does what she can so as not to give birth to as many children as she is capable of is guilty of that many homicides, just as is a woman who tries to injure herself after conception" is, to my knowledge, without any grounds. de Beauvoir is well known for controversial quotes for which she gives no source. I am very familiar with St. Augustine and, having applied a search engine to all his works in Latin, cannot find this text or anything like it. I am therefore removing this section. If anyone can show where the statement appears in Augustine’s writings, then by all means restore it.Unimpeder (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I can only find two other books that use this quote, and neither book is impressive enough to restore it here, in my opinion. They are "Sexual behavior and the law" by Ralph Slovenko (1965) and "Sex, gender, and sexuality: the new basics : an anthology" by Abby L. Ferber, Kimberly Holcomb and Tre Wentling (2008). But I would like to ask if it is perhaps unfair for you to say "Beauvoir is well known for controversial quotes for which she gives no source". What is your source for that statement? SusanLesch (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Her Le deuxième sexe (which I have read in the original) is itself the best confirmation. See the section on “Histoire”, IV where she has twenty pages filled with negative views attributed to early and later Christian writers, without a single source being given (see especially p. 159). Again on pages 169 and 171 she makes further attributions precisely to Augustine, without citing any source. This is not serious scholarship.Unimpeder (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That also makes it your opinion and not true, unless you supply a source, that she is "well known" for "controversial quotes". -SusanLesch (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I’ll retract that and say it is just my view. But if pushed for a ‘source’, I’d say it is there precisely in her best-known book. Reading through it shows dozens of unsourced attributions.Unimpeder (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Abortion in "Theology"

Abortion should not classed under Augustine's theology. It should be classed under another category such as Ethics. Also, I'm not convinced it doesn't undermine the neutrality of the article - especially with the claim that Augustine was following in the tradition of the Church Fathers - who were not so concerned with abortion as they were laying out the basic doctrines of the Christian church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.220.6 (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Flash photography and paintings regarding "St Augustine and Monica"

the photograph of this painting is reflecting the strobe or flash used to light the painting. it is not an acurate representation of the painting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.173.24 (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done--JFH (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Augustine & the Orthodox Church

Augstine of Hippo remains a very controversial figure among Orthodox. The article is misleading in assuming that the reception of him as Blessed or as a Saint, and thus by inference of his theological concepts, by Archbishop Chrysostomos is universal among Orthodox hierarchs or theologians or jurisdictions. Many consider him to be a Western European parallel in the history of heresy to Origin who, they point out, is the source in content and methodology for many of the subsequent heresies condemned by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. See the numerous works of and webpages devoted to leading theologicans like Fr. John Romanides, Fr. Georges Florovsky, Archimandrite Justin Popovich, Fr. Michael Azkoul, Metr. Ephraim of Boston and many others. It is important to point out that until well into the 20th century there was no listing of Augustine in the Orthodox menology, nor was there a service dedicated to him. This alone despite his prominence in the heterodox Churches of the West (and perhaps because of it) should be a warning that many of his original theological ideas need to be carefully considered by Orthodox hierarchs and theologians and have been rejected by so many.

Timothy Fisher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.163.3 (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

What does it mean in the introduction: 'the section of the church that adheres to the Trinity'? The Trinity is a central tenant of Christianity. I feel this phrase is quite misleading. Augustine is regarded as a church father in all branches of Christianity but these phrase seems to suggest he is not as influential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telopase (talk • contribs) 15:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Adeodatus and his mother

Hello! I would like to discuss about phrase:

He abandoned them finally on his conversion in 389 when the boy was 17

The conversion was not in 389. Ambrose baptized Augustine in 387 and most sources say he converted in 386. However, I do believe the boy was 17 in 389. I recommend deleting "on his conversion" in this sentence. It confuses the dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.197.116 (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm Italian and I'm not sure that I've understood this, but I think it means that Augustinus, in 389, has abandoned his lover and child. however I find another phrase, well-sourced, on this article, in which Adeodatus dies after 389:

On the way back to Africa, Augustine's mother Monica died, and Adeodatus soon after

I think that Augustine never abandoned Adeodatus. And I think that he never abandonate his lover. Infact, in "Confessions", 6,15.25, it's written:

Meanwhile my sins were multiplied, and when I was torn from the side, as an obstacle to the marriage, the woman with whom I used to go to bed, my heart, to which was attached, was deeply lacerated and bled for a long time. She satarted for Africa, making vow not know any other man, leaving me with the natural son got from her. (my traduction from italian version)

I can understand that the phrase about the neglect is sourced by Uta Ranke-Heinemann, but I don't understand why is reported only her point of view as if it is a certain fact: the grater part of the sources reported other facts.

There is also another phrase that I would like to discuss:

Possibly because his mother wanted him to marry a person of his class she remained his lover

I do not recommend removing it because it is well-sourced. However, the only news on the relationship between Augustine and this woman are reported by the same Augustine, who does not report why they are not married. Besides, the Catholic encyclopedia reports this:

St. Monica, his mother, desired him to marry the mother of his child.

Also in this case, the sources are discordant.

Allow me also to suggest this reading --Anakynus (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

13 Images!

Why 13 images from each darned renaissance painter, why? Just remember that 1. images take time to load from the server, 2. this is an encyclopedia, not a piece of art, wherein we're wallowing in sentiment like pigs in dirt. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

For some, the pictures tell a more important story than the words, and no, visual texts are not sources of sentiment only. And maybe an encyclopedia is a work of art....96.233.98.135 (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Anthropology section has POV problems at the end

There is more that could be said about Augustine's theological anthropology but the final para of this section is not very balanced from POV. One has to try pretty hard to find as much substantiation as the writer of that section is trying to muster to prove a particular stance on abortion, which might in some ways have been important to Augustine, but could not have been as focal for him as the writer has made it, given that abortifacients were so ineffective at that time, that the question was moot.96.233.98.135 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The source cites a WP:RS for the information. Just because they were not reliable, does not mean the question was moot. The source cited itself cites several places in Augustine where abortion is discuses, across the spectrum of his works. I don't see any reason why this presents a POV problem... if anything it MIGHT be WP:UNDUE but since it constitutes a few sentences in a rather large article, I think we can probably consider it not WP:UNDUE since it is appropriately sourced. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Name of article

Surely the article should go by the common name 'Saint Augustine'? Then mention the formal 'of Hippo' title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.150.23 (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Real St Augustine

Its almost sad, but mostly repulsive that this article contains no images of the St Augustine statues or paintings that are found in the Vatican. Instead, this article shows artists' portrayal of what they wanted the saint to look like. The statue found in the Vatican and the older paintings, portray a man of color (and not from the smoke of candles staining the art).

Its very disheartening to rely on a source of information (wikipedia), when it clearly is not trying to represent fact, but distort it. This website, along with the article is a farce. The agenda is clearly to eliminate any idea or notion that any biblical figures could have been people of color. This website seems to strictly cater to, and is managed by bigots, not set on representing truth or fact, but to distort it in order to cater to an euro-centric thought of mind. The fact of the matter is Augustine was an African, as stated in many writings that date back over 1000yrs.

After reading this article, I will never use wikipedia as a valid source of information, because it is clearly the very opposite. And to those of whom who are trying their best to cover up HISTORICAL FACT, the truth can never be erased or 'edited'. Its shameful and this website should no longer call itself an "encyclopedia", but an opiniontive blog. I will do my best to discourage anyone from using this website again, much less "donate" to a website dedicated to bigotry and racial discrimination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.6.117 (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2014‎ (UTC)

thanks for your thoughts. do you have any reliable sources (as we define them in Wikipedia here: WP:RS) that Augustine had dark skin (which I take it is your point)? I found this which states he was fair skinned. this source which seems quite good, says that he self-identified as African and even references Augustine describing himself as "an African, writing of Africa, or at any rate, with that flat nose you see in Africans", and descibes him as Berber. I will go ahead and add that to the article. I found some better images too, and put them in the article. Am interested to see what sources you can bring. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it is important to use the oldest, most original depictions of the saints, and not the images created during the Renaissance era or later..... The internet is a very unreliable source to find factual information, but here are some links you might find interesting that supports my argument. http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Religious-Phenomena/Christian-Mystery-Schools-Cults-Heresies-Black-madonna.html (concerning the madonna)

http://dilemma-x.net/2013/03/23/pope-francis-and-pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-pray-together-at-castel-gandolfo-in-front-of-the-black-madonna/

Here are some links concerning St Augustine: http://www.josephitepastoralcenter.org/black-catholic-history-month/

http://faculty.buffalostate.edu/smithrd/PR/history.htm

http://professorjohnston.com/?m=201403 (scroll to the bottom of page to find St Augustine)

http://thealternatepath.blogspot.com/2013/08/st-augustine-and-miley-cyrus.html

I hope these images are deemed reliable enough since they have all come from multiple sources. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.34.172 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Anybody can edit this article. So find some good sources and then introduce a section on his race if you want to, or change a picture and see if nobody protests. But keep in mind a couple of things: 1) Christianity is nonracial; no white or black or chosen, just children of God. 2) Most of the Augustines here look, not white, but Italian and French, because the artists were using local models, not because of racist revisionism. 205.232.191.16 (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The editing "Augustine of Hippo"

Hello, my name is, Lindsey Walton. I have edited this article because it needed a little revising and it fit perfectly. I have no proof that this was his real name, and actually I know for a fact that this was not his name; but it seemed a very hilarious name to make up.

     I am sorry if I caused you any trouble , can you direct me to, how you say,"sandbox"? I've heard that I can

"play" around in there.

                           thank you.
                                ~Lindsey Walton~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:226A:ADB8:744C:1A59:9428:BC64 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC) 

Likely wrong information

The article states that:

"Augustine's view of sexual feelings as sinful affected his view of women. For example he considered a man’s erection to be sinful, though involuntary,[145] because it did not take place under his conscious control."

However, after having read all of Book 14 of the City of God (which is the reference of citation 145), I found nothing on men's erections being sinful. Thus, I think this should be removed or a new source should be found. Feel free to read Book 14, Chapter 17 or even all of Book 14 to see for yourself.

66.227.159.219 (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree, I don't find any such statement in the text. It may be that someone deduced that somehow from the paragraph, maybe some translations give a different impression, but there's definitely not an explicit statement that erections are sinful. I will remove the statement; if someone wants to argue that that's what Augustine meant, he/she will have to provide a secondary source for that. - Lindert (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: I also looked at the source cited in the following sentence, as the paragraph is presented as a connected whole, and found this: "In sexual attraction and intercourse, the male experiences the erection of his penis, which is not (as it would have been in paradise) under the control of his mind.", the author then cites City of God 14:16, so she is saying that according to Augustine, erections did occur in paradise, before Adam had ever sinned, but that after the fall these erections became involuntary and connected to fleshly (sinful) lust, not that they are inherently sinful. She also quotes Augustine as saying that there is no sin in sexual intercourse for the purpose of procreation in marriage (p. 67, footnote 56). I have therefore removed the entire paragraph, as it would not make much sense without the part about erections. - Lindert (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Augustine as 'Roman Catholic'

Given that the division of the church hasn't happened yet, it is simplistic to describe Augustine as an RC, especially as his mantle is strongly claimed by many Protestants. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think it's worth some consideration! Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Other Bishops of Hippo?

"Bishop of Hippo" redirects here, but there is little to nothing about the other bishops before or after. Hippo Regius mentions (under §Ecclesiastical history) that there were seven and lists some (without in-line citation). Does anyone have any further information (either enough to make a new article, or as a section in an appropriate article? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Augustine of Hippo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jcreeves/manichaean_version_of_genesis_2-4.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060610111127/http://augnet.org:80/ to http://www.augnet.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Date of conversion

In the lead the article says AD 387, in the specific section it says 386... --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Blessed

I removed the phrase that said that in the Orthodox Church Augustine has the title of Blessed. 'Blessed' is not a formal title. It tries to translate 'Ιερός' but this is something that is also used in relation to John Chrysostom. The Orthodox Church does not have a two-tier system of recognition of sanctity, and to imply that 'Blessed' is a formal title is misleading, because it suggests that he is not recognized as a full saint. Augustine is a recognized saint for the Orthodox Church and whether he is referred to as Blessed (which is not a formal title such as the Western use of beatus) or not has nothing to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.58.55 (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Colour

Very informative work! Thank you. I noted though that all the images selected for this article show St Augustine as white. I am aware that such classical depictions tend to be 'Romanised' depending on the period, but it may cause some readers to check their own cultural assumptions (often supported by such repeated representations) if the images used reflected his actual origins...so I would encourage the inclusion of depictions of him as a black African next time it is updated. I do hope this will be seen as the constructive critisism it is intended as. TThirlestane50 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you know of any images that fit our image use policy that would work? By posting here, you're just as much a volunteer and so are just as responsible for updating the article as anyone else here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Original Sin

The section 'Original Sin' refers to the original sin, and also associates the term with the disobedience of Adam and Eve, both of which are errors, as 'original sin' refers to the state of mankind following the disobedience of Adam and Eve, as the article Original sin makes clear. Clivemacd (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Page image

I propose that the page image be changed to one in which Augustine has a beard, since most depictions of him have a beard. I would do it myself but I can't change an image without wrecking the formatting. 200.150.189.119 (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Done

Non-encylopedic wording.

Footnote #7: "Gerald Bonner's comment explains a little bit why there are so many authors who write false things about Augustine's views: "It is, of course, always easier to oppose and denounce than to understand."" Could the author please find a way to re-phrase his thoughts in a more encyclopedic way? Thanks! Wordreader (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Augustine of Hippo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911164130/http://www.canadianjournalofphilosophy.com/PDFs/cjp39-2--195-214--Ballantyne-King.pdf to http://www.canadianjournalofphilosophy.com/PDFs/cjp39-2--195-214--Ballantyne-King.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/augustineofhippo.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/augustineofhippo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Augustine of Hippo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://orthodoxwiki.org/Augustine_of_Hip/po
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222172526/http://www.augnet.org/default.asp?ipageid=2213&iparentid=145 to http://www.augnet.org/default.asp?ipageid=2213&iparentid=145

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Augustine of Hippo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101105045903/http://goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8153 to http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8153

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Argument from truth

I think that a section should be added on Augustine's argument for the existence of God- the argument from truth. I would write it in as follows: "Augustine advocated an original argument for the existence of God, sometimes termed the argument from truth. It has often been compared to the argument from consciousness. Peter Kreeft, a Catholic philosopher, has phrased it as follows:

1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
2. Truth properly resides in a mind.
3. But the human mind is not eternal.
4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

Kreeft has stated that such an argument would appeal to those who believe in Plato's theory of forms, because the view that eternal forms require an eternal mind is a logical step. However, Kreeft, a nominalist, feels that such an argument is premature, because science may disprove it- fitting into either the God of the gaps or the argument from ignorance fallacy.

The argument was also phrased by the philosopher Gordon Clark, who summarised it as follows:

1. Truth exists.
2. Truth is immutable (unchangeable).
3. Truth is eternal.
4. Truth is mental (pertaining to mind or minds).
5. Truth is superior to the human mind.
6. Truth is God."

I feel that this is an important contribution as Augustine spends many pages discussing it in The City of God. A reference for this information included above is here: A reference could also be taken from Augustine's book, where the matter is discussed more thoroughly.

EDIT: Here is another reference to a page where the argument is discussed, and from where I have found further information upon the later developments in Augustinian philosophy that have furthered the argument: 109.151.189.203 (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bradv🍁 13:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Augustine and Jerome

Somewhere I read Augustine opposed Jerome's correction of the Septuagint using material from Hebrew texts. (Septuagint used as a prophecy source in the Gospels.) Can anyone verify this source? If so, shouldn't this be contained in this article? Miistermagico (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox philosopher

Re this edit: we have to place the Infobox philosopher template below the Infobox saint template as per common Wikipedia practice. See Albertus Magnus, Anselm of Canterbury, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas. Both infoboxes should go at the top of the article. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The Donatists

The single thing Augustine is most remembered for--and misunderstood about, considering--is his relation and response to the Donatists. People who actually know nothing about Augustine still think they understand what he actually said about coercion. They rarely do, but they write on it anyway, so why isn't a discussion of Augustine's writings on coercion here? Can anyone explain? I would like to see a section added and would be happy to volunteer to do that work. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

If the lovely people who have created and contributed to this wonderful article will allow it, I have about 8 paragraphs on coercion that it seems to me should be here under theology. If you are unwilling to have it here, I can create a sister article instead, but I wanted to see if there was strong feeling one way or the other before acting. If you want to read it first, it's in my sandbox [2], which I am happy for you to take a look at, or I am happy to post it here in Talk. Don't leave me on my own to decide! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

So, no immediate response. I think this material needs to be included as it is one of Augustine's most influential and certainly his most controversial teaching, but I am concerned that, in order to properly present it, this is simply too long. There are already some long sections here--which can either be an argument for or against having it--but it needs its own section if included. Just to be sure everyone knows what I'm talking about, I am posting it here:

Augustine on coercion

Peter Brown says Augustine had to deal with issues of violence and coercion throughout his entire career and is one of very few authors in Antiquity who ever truly theoretically examined the ideas of religious freedom and coercion. It is this teaching on coercion that has most "embarrassed his modern defenders and vexed his modern detractors," making him appear "to generations of religious liberals as le prince et patriarche de persecuteurs."

Historical background

During the Great Persecution, "When Roman soldiers came calling, some of the [Catholic] officials handed over the sacred books, vessels, and other church goods rather than risk legal penalties" over a few objects. Maureen Tilley says this was a problem by 305, that became a schism by 311, because many of the North African Christians had a long established tradition of a "physicalist approach to religion." The sacred scriptures were not simply books to them, but were the Word of God in physical form, therefore they saw handing over the Bible, and handing over a person to be martyred, as "two sides of the same coin." Those who cooperated with the authorities became known as traditores. The term originally meant one who hands over a physical object, but it came to mean "traitor."

According to Tilley, after the persecution ended, those who had apostatized wanted to return to their positions in the church. The North African Christians, (the rigorists who became known as Donatists), refused to accept them. Catholics were more tolerant and wanted to wipe the slate clean. For the next 75 years, both parties existed, often directly alongside each other, with a double line of bishops for the same cities. Competition for the loyalty of the people included multiple new churches and violence. No one is exactly sure when the Circumcellions and the Donatists allied, but for decades, they fomented protests and street violence, accosted travelers and attacked random Catholics without warning, often doing serious and unprovoked bodily harm such as beating people with clubs, cutting off their hands and feet, and gouging out eyes.

Coercion

Augustine became coadjutor Bishop of Hippo in 395, and tried appealing to the Donatists verbally for several years believing that conversion must be volunatry. He used popular propaganda, debate, personal appeal, General Councils, and political pressure to bring the Donatists back into union with the Catholics, but all attempts failed.

The harsh realities of the Donatist-Catholic conflict can be found in the recently discovered Letter 28 written to bishop Novatus around 416. Donatists had attacked and cut out the tongue and cut off the hand of a Bishop Rogatus who had recently converted to Catholicism. An unnamed count of Africa had sent his agent with Rogatus, and he too had been attacked; the count was "inclined to pursue the matter." Russell says Augustine demonstrates a "hands on" involvement with the details of his bishopric, but at one point in the letter, he confesses he does not know what to do. "All the issues that plague him are there: stubborn Donatists, Circumcellion violence, the vacillating role of secular officials, the imperative to persuade, and his own trepidations." The empire responded to the civil unrest with force, and thereafter, Augustine changed his mind on using verbal arguments alone, and instead came to support the state's use of coercion.

The primary 'proof text' is from a Letter 93 written in 408, as a reply to the bishop Vincentius, of Cartenna (Mauretania, North Africa). This letter shows that both practical and biblical reasons led Augustine to defend the legitimacy of coercion. He confesses that he changed his mind because of "the ineffectiveness of dialogue and the proven efficacy of laws." He had been worried about false conversions if force was used, but "now," he says, "it seems imperial persecution is working." Many Donatists had converted. "Fear had made them reflect, and made them docile." Augustine continued to assert that coercion could not directly convert someone, but concluded it could make a person ready to be reasoned with.

In Letter 93 and in Letter 185, Augustine makes use of the parable of the Great Feast in Luke 14.15-24 and its statement compel them to come in to legitimize coercion. Russell says, Augustine uses the Latin term cogo, instead of the compello of the Vulgate, revealing his thinking on this, since to Augustine, cogo meant to "gather together" or "collect" and was not simply "compel by physical force."

According to Mar Marcos, Augustine makes use of many other biblical examples to legitimize coercion as well, because in Augustine's view, there is such a thing as just and unjust persecution. Augustine explains that when the purpose of persecution is to lovingly correct and instruct, then it becomes discipline and is just. He said the church would discipline its people out of a loving desire to heal them, and that, "once compelled to come in, heretics would gradually give their voluntary assent to the truth of Christian orthodoxy." Frederick H. Russell describes this as "a pastoral strategy in which the church did the persecuting with the dutiful assistance of Roman authorities."

Augustine placed limits on the use of coercion, recommending fines, imprisonment, banishment, and moderate floggings, preferring beatings with rods which was a common practice in the ecclesial courts. He opposed severity, maiming, and the execution of heretics. While these limits were mostly ignored by Roman authorities, Michael Lamb says that in doing this, "Augustine appropriates republican principles from his Roman predecessors..." and maintains his commitment to liberty, legitimate authority, and the rule of law as a constraint on arbitrary power. He continues to advocate holding authority accountable to prevent domination, but affirms the state's right to act.

H. A. Deane, on the other hand, says there is a fundamental inconsistency between Augustine's political thought and "his final position of approval of the use of political and legal weapons to punish religious dissidence" and others have seconded this view. Brown asserts that Augustine's thinking on coercion is more of an attitude than a doctrine, since it is "not in a state of rest," but is instead marked by "a painful and protracted attempt to embrace and resolve tensions." Russell says "Augustine's attack upon the Donatists was a precariously balanced blend of external discipline and inward nurturance."

In 1970, Robert Markus argued that, for Augustine, a degree of external pressure being brought for the purpose of reform was compatible with the exercise of free will. Russell asserts that Confessions 13 is crucial to understanding Augustine's thought on coercion; using Peter Brown's explanation of Augustine's view of salvation, he explains that Augustine's past, his own sufferings and "conversion through God's pressures," along with his biblical hermeneutics, is what led him to see the value in suffering for discerning truth. According to Russell, Augustine saw coercion as one among many conversion strategies for forming "a pathway to the inner person."

Augustine and "dubito ergo sum"

Is there a Vol 20 of De Trinitate? Per this source, Augustine is indicated as stating "Dubito, ergo sum" at De Trinitate 20:21. Some time back, I had tracked down a document that appeared to be the source, but was uncertain re its provenance and can no longer locate it. Can someone help? (It would make a nice addition to the Cogito, ergo sum page. Thanks Humanengr (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No, there are only 15 books in the De Trinitate. The most relevant passage I've found is this, from book 10:

Etiam si dubitat, vivit; si dubitat, unde dubitet meminit; si dubitat, dubitare se intellegit; si dubitat, certus esse vult; si dubitat, cogitat; si dubitat, scit se nescire.

Even if he doubts, he lives; if he doubts, he remembers why he doubts; if he doubts, he understands that he doubts; if he doubts, he wishes to be certain; if he doubts, he thinks; if he doubts, he knows that he does not know. 18.20.188.223 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There is also: De Civitate Dei (book XI, 26): "If I am mistaken, I am" ("Si…fallor, sum"). --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Come on guys, nothin'? Really? I've put it up for review as a draft but it really belongs here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:BEBOLD and add it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: That's all I needed! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Notes

I apparently did this incorrectly in the addition on coercion, or it would have shown up in your list, which it wouldn't--it wouldn't show up at all without the separate group=note, but I didn't know how to fix that--so someone who does--please fix it and tell me what I did wrong! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. group=note is a bit redundant, I used Template:Efn instead. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A thousand blessings upon your head! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

ERA

Since I believe it is abundantly obvious that Augustine lived and died in the Anno Domini range of years, unambiguously, I am inclined to remove "AD" from wherever it appears in this article, and avoid WP:ERA disputes entirely. Comments? Elizium23 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Articles about 4th century figures have no reason to include AD notifications. Dimadick (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hebrew, Greek and Latin

In the Italian article it is linked a renown students' textbook of philosophy which affirms Augustine recommended the teaching of Latin, Greek and Hebrew as well as of the Greek philosophy as a propedeutic tool for improving the knowledge of the Holy Scripture. It isn't available on Google Books nor in an English translation, so I have uniquely to mention it for this source whose full text version disappeared today a couple of hours after the citation on WP.

It talked about the Masoretic text more times. The edit had a concern on the continuity of the Hebrew Bible across centuries even after the LXX and independently from the differences occurring in the two texts. In the City of God (book VIII, chapter 3), Augustine ascribed those textual differences to the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit God:

. If, then, as it behoves us, we behold nothing else in these Scriptures than what the Spirit of God has spoken through men, if anything is in the Hebrew copies and is not in the version of the Seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets.

— [3]

It was based on the Letter of Aristeas according to which the 70 Greek translators worked individually and then discovered their texts were identical (p. 2, with refeence to the Ep. 28.2.2).

So it seems lowly probable the fact that Augustine could have defined the Septuaginta as the second main authoritative translation of the Bible, uniquely second to the "Hebrew MS", without having a specific knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew Grammar and authors. The questioned "Hebrew MS" couldn't be the Masoretic texts, but at least one or more of the preceeding versions, not so well specified. I apologize for a not enough clear WP edit. Best regards, Philosopher81sp (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew

I don't have access to the cited source that is meant to support the statement that Augustine knew Hebrew, but there are tons of sources out there that state the opposite: "Augustine knew no Hebrew". M.Bitton (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have access to the cited source; it says "he himself knew no Hebrew, and his knowledge of even the Greek language progressed to a proficient level only in his later years". --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I deleted text which stated that Augustine studied the Masoretic text, since that dates to the 9th century. And in any case it is not a version of the Bible in Hebrew, since it is mostly written in Aramaic. Dimadick (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The two mistakes (the Hebrew and the Masoretic Text) aside, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this cherry picked addition that touches on Augustine and Jerome's academic disagreement without addressing what it was about. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Ken Wilson Scholarship used uncritically-Violation of NPOV

I have done a couple of edits that have removed most of the quotation of the work of one Ken Wilson from the article in the "Philsophy: Free will" section. His scholarly view that all the Fathers affirms what he calls "traditional free choice" and that Augustine's views are essentially Manichean are not affirmed by most scholars, either of Augustine or of Patristics generically. Certainly the assertions that "Every early Christian author with extant writings who wrote on the topic prior to Augustine of Hippo (412) advanced human free choice rather than a deterministic God.(Cites Wilson) Augustine taught traditional free choice until 412, when he reverted to his earlier Manichaean and Stoic deterministic training when battling the Pelagians."(Citing Wilson again) require far more evidence than one scholar who has a known agenda. Particularly when it comes to earlier fathers, Wilson is known to really reach with them (for example, he argues that Ignatius of Antioch taught his doctrine of free will, because he said that he went to martyrdom willingly) and sometimes downright misquote the fathers entirely.

It is true that Augustine has a more pessimistic anthropology towards the end of his life; but Ken Wilson's view has a very specific bias (Free Will Baptist) that isn't very subtle. As a result the article should not essentially quote him verbatim without any opposing scholarship with regard to Augustine or any other Father on Free Will. The terminology he uses is itself requiring definition, and such defintions would not be appropriate for an article on Augustine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.100.117 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This is unsigned, and IMO the decidedly wrong approach that itself evidences bias. I do not support it.

1. See [4]: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. This is the approach that should be taken. Replace and rewrite please. And sign it.

2. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Even if this is a minority view, it should have a place in the discussion, since it has a place in the secondary sources.

3. Even if the source is biased, that is not by itself a reason for exclusion. It is a reason for a recognition of that possibility within the text instead: [5] says biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view.

4. Different interpretations need to be included as there is not universal agreement on this particular topic. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777:, the anon's main contention that he took an issue about is not only bias simply for bias' sake alone, but the veracity of Wilson's specific claims drawing the comparison to manichaeans and stoics, 412, etc. If Wilson holds some fringe view that no known authors share, and especially if Wilson is making factual claims about events in the past that cannot be verified, the Wilson material might be WP:UNDUE. (I have no knowledge of this issue myself, so whether or not that is the case I have no idea. just bringing it to your attention :) Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Firejuggler86 but I don't think I know what bias simply for bias' sake alone is. A bias is simply a tendency to favor things we agree with, so I don't see how your definition applies. Bias seems to me to be exactly what has gone on here and not from Wilson. We are not scholars - even if we are - as WP editors, we are not the scholars being referenced, and it isn't our job to determine whether or not we think a scholar is correct. If he's fringe, find a source that says so. If his book is biased, find a book review that says so. Even fringe views have their place in most articles. Fringe views have a way of becoming standard views quite often. We don't make the news we just report it. That includes the fringe - just report it as that. Over-referencing a single source is a valid complaint however.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, I see two sources; one is Wilson's doctoral thesis, and another is a self-published book. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, has the thesis been peer reviewed or vetted? These are the kinds of questions we should be asking to evaluate Wilson's work as sources. Elizium23 (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23 Self-published? That's sufficient right there to exclude that one. I agree with the rest of what you say as well, it seems inarguably correct to me. That gives a whole different basis for removing him. It isn't on the basis of bias or because someone says he has a fringe view. RS is required. Absolutely. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

My issue here was not with the fact Ken Wilson is cited but rather that he was beinf cited unchallenged without context as well as being repeated redundantly. As my new edits appear to have been maintained regarding this passage I can only assume that other editors agree with me that the way it is now is better as it gives context to Ken Wilson's claims and removes a redundant paragraph that didn't add anything to the article. Anyway I think we can consider the matter closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.203.82 (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Influences

Under the "ïnfluences" section in Augustine's info box Seneca the Younger is indicated as an influence to Augustine. However, the source of the "citation" is a work of Quintilian who lived 3 ages earlier than Augustine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.204.143 (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

His name is not just "AW-gus-teen"

Augustine was a member of the Catholic Church (Latin). His name in English is pronounced by Catholics: "uh-GUHS tihn." That, then, is the standard pronunciation. The alternate pronunciation, "AW-guhs-teen," is prominent amongst American Protestant Christians and, therefore, should be given as the alternate -- not the standard -- pronunciation.Mwidunn (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2021

Augustine of Hippo (/ɔːˈɡʌstɪn/; Latin: Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis; 13 November 354 – 28 August 430[26]), also known as Saint Augustine, was a theologian and philosopher of Berber origin and the bishop of Hippo Regius in Numidia, Roman North Africa. His writings influenced the development of Western philosophy and Western Christianity, and he is viewed as one of the most important Church Fathers of the Latin Church in the Patristic Period. His many important works include The City of God, On Christian Doctrine, and Confessions.

instead of

Augustine of Hippo (/ɔːˈɡʌstɪn/; Latin: Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis; 13 November 354 – 28 August 430[26]), also known as Saint Augustine, was a theologian, philosopher, of Berber origin and the bishop of Hippo Regius in Numidia, Roman North Africa. His writings influenced the development of Western philosophy and Western Christianity, and he is viewed as one of the most important Church Fathers of the Latin Church in the Patristic Period. His many important works include The City of God, On Christian Doctrine, and Confessions. 2600:1700:1DF0:6960:5D18:784D:1BB:9DC0 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• ?? Aren't these the same? What's the difference? Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done The only difference I could see was changing this: “was a theologian, philosopher, of” to “ was a theologian and philosopher of” so I have changed this. If there was another alteration please reopen this request. Thanks, DigitalChutney (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Chronological difference between the deaths of the Saints Monica and Augustine

Saint Augustine died 43 years and one day after the death of his mother Saint Monica. Your liturgical feasts occur on 27 August and on your 28. 177.102.163.131 (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Nationality discussion

This is one reason why the 'Ancient Roman' Category is quite helpful. Most of the Ancient saints fall into categories that make some sense, ie, Syrian etc. However, some, like St. Augustine do not fit well into any modern understanding of the term. He was by all intents an 'Ancient Roman'. It doesn't make sense to class him as Algerian, because Algeria didn't exist back then, and he would not have considered himself one of those. African I think is the best category, but even that is not great.

What would people suggest is the best category to put him in? Personally, 'Ancient Roman' makes the most sense, as he is a Roman from before the fall of the Empire. Suggestions? Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)