Ancient rhetorical tradition discussed the possible semantic discrepancy between the written words (scripta) and writer’s intention (voluntas). In the case of such discrepancy, the intended meaning of an author was usually preferred to the lexical/syntactic meaning of a text. The debate about the hermeneutical importance of authorial intention continues in modern hermeneutics. There are those for whom the meaning of a text is isomorphic with authorial intention, and those for whom the meaning of a text is completely independent from authorial intention. In comparison with these extreme positions, Augustine seems to hold a middle ground. He has both hermeneutical and theological reasons for avoiding the one-sided extremes. Augustine defends the importance of human authorial intention as an undeniable factor not only in the existence of the signa data (i.e., words/sentences as intentional signs), but partially also in the establishment of their meaning(s). Nevertheless, he postulates certain restrictions to the human authorial intention in determining the meaning(s) of scriptural texts. Accordingly, this paper investigates these restrictions or qualifications that Augustine postulates for the acknowledged hermeneutical role of authorial intention. I will argue that, for Augustine, there were primarily two reasons for defending a limited role of (the human) authorial intention in interpretation of the Scriptures. 1. The Scriptures as a double-authored text (i.e., a text authored by God and humans) prevent the human authorial intention from being the ultimate hermeneutical criterion. 2. To equate the human authorial intention with the meaning of a text would tie the meaning of the canonical texts to the past history and may eliminate the possibility of Christological interpretations of the Old Testament.

In this paper, I propose a new approach to the role of the Bible in systematic theology. I take my starting point in the contemporary clash between those who follow the Enlightenment disintegration of Scripture, and conservative attempts to do theology on the basis of Scripture as the infallible Word of God. Subsequently, I present my research project into the reception of John as a way of pursuing insights from all major stages of the history of theological hermeneutics. A deconstructive reading of pre-modern use of the Bible shows that it is much more sensitive to diverging voices in Scripture than is often assumed. Scrutinizing the reasons that pre-modern theologians have for privileging John over Paul or the other way around, brings up theological motives that become fresh material for doing theology today.