In St. Augustine's second book, he delves into the nature of logic and symbolism as it relates to the text of Scripture. Having emerged from the relatively abstract thought of the first book, he practically begins to break down the steps for interpreting and understanding Christian teaching. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To begin his discussion, St. Augustine talks about the nature of signs, then begins a discussion of the times when signs cause unnecessary ambiguity (Augustine 32). Augustine's decision to open his analysis of practical Christian teaching with this topic is, in my opinion, brilliant. It delves to the root of most interpretive problems, even today. We see many teachers and instructors of Scripture and Christian teaching misapply Scripture, because they are “casual readers,” instead of investing the proper time and energy (Augustine 32). St. Augustine is therefore able to wrestle with the complexities of correct interpretation, and we understand exactly what he is struggling with. From that opening section, St. Augustine moves on to what I find to be the most powerful section of the book. Discusses the steps by which Solomon can affirm that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Augustine 37). For much of high school and early college, the Bible really scared me. I would open it to read about God's love and instead be overcome with the fear of God. Then I would search the Bible, trying to find relief, and often quickly give up. I kept coming across scary words from God and couldn't handle them. St. Augustine, however, masterfully shows how seven steps take that fear of God and transform it into wisdom. From fear to holiness, to knowledge, to fortitude, to compassion, to purification, to wisdom, the process makes sense and serves to explain why God allows us to feel fear of Him (Augustine 33-35). This fear truly leads us to wisdom and peace. After establishing the importance of studying and investing in Christian teaching, St. Augustine spends much of the rest of the book analyzing the logic and process of correct interpretation. Outlines the canon, discusses symbolism in numbers, and works through the biblical application of the syllogism. Despite its emphasis on logic, I was surprised to find so many Platonic and Greek references in the text. He mentions “sophisms” (Augustine 58), makes use of a highly Platonic understanding of the perception of truth (Augustine 63), and uses a Greek understanding of logic (Augustine 60). I was able to follow Augustine's argument until he went so far as to state that Plato draws his arguments and writings from Jewish writings and the biblical canon (Augustine 55). This theory has never appeared in any of my reading in the past, and I find it highly unlikely. If that were the case, wouldn't we see more emphasis on logic and truth in Jeremiah's works? It seems to me that the idea that Plato wrote inspired by Jeremiah is rather exaggerated. I can imagine that there may have been an influence, but I doubt that it contributed much to Plato's writing style. It certainly seems that the Platonic emphasis that St. Augustine uses in this book is largely unfounded in biblical teaching. While an interesting perspective, it can hardly be considered a direct result of the biblical canon. In contrast, Plato's writings seem to move in a completely different direction than that found in the Old Testament or even New Testament works. Please note: this is just an example. 47).