Lost St. Augustine Sermons Found After 1,600 Years—On the Bible’s Spookiest Story

 

TRANSCRIPT:

Coming Up

Good news! 2 lost sermons of St. Augustine have just been found—and they’re about one of the spookiest passages in the Bible—the time a king used a medium to call up the ghost of a dead prophet.

But . . . was it really the prophet . . . or a demon wearing his face?

Let’s get into it!

* * *

Howdy, folks!

We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years to come—and get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast

 

Introduction

Wouldn’t it be cool if you—like some kind of monastic equivalent of Indiana Jones—were rooting around in a dark, dusty library somewhere, and you suddenly came across a manuscript that nobody had read in hundreds of years?

Wouldn’t it be cooler if the manuscript came from one of the greatest Church Fathers and a doctor of the Church?

Wouldn’t it be cooler yet if the manuscript gave the Father’s thoughts on one of the most mysterious passages in the Bible?

Well, something pretty close to that has happened.

In 2024, Professor Christian Tornau —a Latin scholar of the University of Würzburg—got a phone call.

The call came from an employee of a monastery association who wanted to know if Tornau could look at a 12th century manuscript housed in a monastery in Poland.

The manuscript contained 6 sermons by St. Augustine.

Tornau found that 4 of the sermons were already known to scholars, but 2 of them were new.

They were previously lost works of Augustine that nobody had read or recognized in centuries.

 

Are They Real?

But now Tornau was faced with a new question: Were they real?

There was some reason to suspect them. The fact that the manuscript was from the 12th century was unusual.

Scholars would normally expect a work of this type to have been created in the 8th or 9th century.

But Tornau was able to determine that the manuscript might be a copy of one from an abbey in Saxony, which is a state in Germany.

An old catalogue from the Saxony monastery lists a work with the same headings as the recently discovered one, so we have a plausible chain for how the 12th century version was copied.

Tornau brought in other scholars to see what they thought, and in 2025 a summer school of over 20 Latin scholars was held in Vienna to consider the find. Their conclusion was unanimous: the sermons are genuine.

Here is how Tornau put it in a press release from the University of Wurzburg:

“Two New Sermons by St. Augustine Discovered”

The style, humor, and content also clearly indicate that the sermons in the manuscripts were actually written by Augustine.

Now, a critical edition of the sermons is being prepared, and it’s scheduled to be published by the end of 2026.

How significant is the discovery? It’s not as momentous as some.

For example, in 1990, 30 previously lost sermons and other writings of Augustine were found.

But the 2 new sermons deal with one of the most mysterious passages in the Bible.

 

The Medium of Endor

These 2 sermons deal with 1 Samuel 28, which features the account of King Saul consulting the medium of Endor.

She’s sometimes called the “witch” of Endor, but that’s not what she is.

The Hebrew calls her a Ba’alat ob, which means Mistress of ghosts, ghost mistress.

That’s a woman who inquires of the dead. In our terms: a medium.

The reason Saul consults her is that he is terrified of an invading Philistine army. He wants to know what he should do, but God is not picking up the phone.

As 1 Samuel 28:6 tells us:

1 Samuel 28:6

When Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets.

In his desperation—and even though he’d previously forbidden mediums in Israel—Saul has his men find one, and he has her call up the spirit of the deceased prophet Samuel .

But Samuel can’t help the king, and he tells Saul that he’s going to die.

 

Where the Fathers Stood

The source of controversy about this text is the fact that the Israelites were prohibited from using mediums.

Because of that, some authors have held that it wasn’t really Samuel appearing to Saul but a demon pretending to be him—using a demonic illusion of the prophet Samuel to trick him.

Others have held that—by God’s permission—it really was Samuel.

Like almost every passage in Scripture, the Church has no official teaching on its interpretation.

And—as usual—the Church Fathers were split. In this case, there were 2 main camps.

On one side were the Fathers who said it was a demon. The other says it was really the prophet Samuel’s spirit.

We’ll call them Team Demon and Team Samuel.

 

Team Demon

One representative of Team Demon was the early Christian writer Tertullian . Writing around the year 200, he held—in his work On the Soul—that no demon has the power to drag a prophet’s soul out of the next world. He says:

Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul 57

God forbid . . . that we should suppose that the soul of any saint, much less of a prophet, can be dragged out of [hades] by a demon.

So Tertullian objected on the grounds that—if it was Samuel’s spirit—this would imply that a demon must have dragged Samuel’s spirit out of hades—the realm of all the dead, both good and bad.

And Tertullian objected to the idea that demons can drag people out of the afterlife.

That’s not a good argument, though, because nothing in the text suggests that Samuel’s spirit was dragged out of hell by a demon. Tertullian is just assuming that.

Maybe God just permitted Samuel’s spirit to manifest.

Now, you might wonder if the fact that the spirit actually predicts Saul’s coming death means that it couldn’t be a demon, on the idea that demons don’t know the future the way God does.

But that wouldn’t be a good argument, either. Team Demon has good responses to that.

In the first place, we don’t know how much about the future demons are aware of. Perhaps they even have some knowledge of God’s plans—perhaps from before they fell.

A more common speculation is that they can predict certain things about the future based on their knowledge of current events, the way a weatherman predicts the weather or a doctor predicts the course of a disease.

The early Christian writer Pseudo-Hippolytus stated:

On Kings (fragment on 1 Samuel 28)

Just as a physician, who has no exact knowledge of the science, might yet, seeing a patient past cure, tell of his death, though he made an error as to the hour, so, too, the demon, knowing the wrath of God by Saul’s deeds, and by this very attempt to consult the sorceress, foretells his defeat and his death at the same time.

 

Team Samuel

Team Samuel is actually the earlier of the two schools to appear among the Church Fathers, and we find the interpretation that it really was Samuel very early indeed.

For example, St. Justin Martyr —writing around the year A.D. 150—used this very passage as proof that the soul survives death. He said:

Dialogue with Trypho 105

And that the souls survive, I have shown to you from the fact that the soul of Samuel was called up by the witch, as Saul demanded.

Similarly, the early biblical scholar Origen —writing in the 200s—argued that Scripture itself says the woman saw Samuel, and the real author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, who does not lie. He said:

On the Witch of Endor 4

The one who composed these words is believed to be not a man, but the Holy Spirit who moved human beings to write. So it is the Holy Spirit who says, “And the woman saw Samuel, and cried out with a loud voice.”

Origen also asked: If Christ himself could descend to the realm of the dead, why couldn’t Samuel come up from it?

St. Ambrose —who is a doctor of the Church—agreed that it was Samuel, writing:

Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 1.33

Elisha, though dead, raised a dead man’s corpse by the touch of his own body; and Samuel, after death, according to the testimony of Scripture, did not keep silent about things to come.

 

Who’s Right?

So we’ve seen the two teams, but—before we get to what St. Augustine had to say—which one has the best scriptural evidence on its side.

Well, the inspired author of 1 Samuel never mentions demons, so that’s a strike against Team Demon. You have to suppose something that the text never mentions.

That is not—of itself—a fatal objection, but the text does more than this.

In the first place, the author repeatedly refers to the spirit that appeared as Samuel.

1 Samuel 28:12

When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice.

1 Samuel 28:15

Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”

1 Samuel 28:16

And Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has turned from you and become your enemy?”

1 Samuel 28:20

Then Saul fell at once full length on the ground, filled with fear because of the words of Samuel.

1 Samuel 28:12 says that the woman saw Samuel. Verse 15 says that Samuel said to Saul. Verse 16 says and Samuel said. And verse 20 says that Samuel was filled with fear because of the words of Samuel.

So the inspired author repeatedly refers to the spirit as Samuel, and—absent any mention of demons in the text—that’s a strong argument in favor of it really being Samuel.

You could argue against this—saying that the author is just using the language of appearances here.

But that’s a very weak rebuttal, because there is nothing in the text to support it and you could do the same thing with any passage of Scripture and say that a person it repeatedly names is really something else in disguise.

Without a basis in the text, you’re shoving your assumptions into the text, which is a practice known as Eisegesis or Reading meanings into the text—rather than the proper practice of Exegesis or Reading meanings out of the text.

However, there’s one verse that is absolutely fatal to Team Demon. In 1 Samuel 28:14, we read:

1 Samuel 28:14

And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did obeisance.

Here, the inspired author uses the factive verb “know.” Factive Verbs indicate that the Author agrees it’s a fact.

It’s the difference between saying, “John knew that it was raining outside,” and, “John believed that it was raining outside.”

If an author says that John knew it was raining outside, it means that the author agrees that it really was—factually—raining. But if the author only says John believed it was raining outside then the author isn’t making that commitment.

Here, the inspired author says Saul knew it was Samuel, and so the author agrees that it is—in fact—Samuel.

The passage itself thus proves Team Samuel’s case.

But that isn’t all, because there is another passage in Scripture that refers to this.

In Sirach 46:20, we read:

Sirach 46:20

Even after he had fallen asleep [Samuel] prophesied and made known to the king his death and lifted up his voice from the ground.

So we have a second inspired author stating that it really was Samuel.

And—as Origen pointed out—the Holy Spirit stands behind the human author and does not lie, so what the inspired author asserts is true—meaning that Team Samuel is just right.

 

The New Sermons

So what does Augustine say about this text in the 2 new sermons?

We’ll have to wait for the critical edition to be published for the details, but we know a little already.

The first of the sermons was preached on a Sunday, and the second was preached the following Wednesday.

In the first, Augustine noted how difficult the text was to interpret and mentioned possible options.

He then let his audience consider these matters until Wednesday, at which point he evaluated the options and gave his own tentative opinions.

In the press release from the University of Würzburg, Prof. Tornau gives us a few hints, and it frames the issue in terms of a theodicy.

A Theodicy is an explanation for how a good God can allow evil. Good God Evil Events

The press release states:

“Two New Sermons by St. Augustine Discovered”

The story [of Saul and the medium] raises a theological question: “Why can a necromancer summon the spirit of a prophet? This in turn opens up the theodicy problem: how can an omnipotent God allow this or is he not really omnipotent?” says the Latin scholar. There are two interpretations in theology: Either it must be a [demonic] deception on the part of the witch, or God allowed the incantation to warn Saul of certain death.

The sermons play with these interpretations. “The first was preached during the Sunday service and ends with the theodicy question and the interpretations. It was not until the second sermon on the following Wednesday that the options were weighed up,” says Tornau. The church audience was therefore given a certain amount of freedom to form their own thoughts on the biblical passage.

I really appreciate this. In my own work, I always try to sketch the range of possible opinions on a question, noting their strong and weak points, and then let people make up their own minds.

I’ll tell you what my opinion is—and how confidently or tentatively I hold it—and why, but I let people consider the arguments and decide for themselves.

Seeing Augustine showing the same confidence in his audience rather than just dogmatically telling them what they must believe on debatable matters warms my heart.

But we’ll still have to wait for the official texts to get the details of what Augustine says.

 

Team Don’t Know?

While we’re waiting for the texts of these sermons to be released, we can get some idea what they say by consulting Augustine’s other writings.

After all, he was one of the most prolific Church Fathers, and he discussed 1 Samuel 28 multiple times.

In his earliest treatment—a work called To Simplician, from around A.D. 396—he discussed both the demon interpretation and the Samuel interpretation.

He was prepared to grant that—by God’s permission—it really could have been Samuel. He says:

Augustine, To Simplician II.3.1

It is not absurd to believe that, by some dispensation of the divine will, it was permitted—not with a magical power dominating him, but willingly and in obedience to the hidden disposition of God—that the spirit of the holy prophet consented to show himself to the king.

So Augustine thinks it could have been Samuel—and notice that he rejects the argument Tertullian made that this would imply that a demon forced Samuel’s soul out of the afterlife.

He says that by a dispensation of God’s will, it was permitted—not by a magical power dominating him that Samuel willingly and in obedience to God consented to appear.

However—at least at this stage of his career—Augustine favored the demon hypothesis. He wrote:

Augustine, To Simplician II.3.2

We should believe, not that the spirit of Samuel was truly roused from his rest, but that it was some phantasm and imaginary illusion produced by the devil’s contrivances.

However—although he favored Team Demon early in his career—his views evolved.

Almost 30 years later, in a work answering questions for a man named Dulcitius, he came to the same conclusion but was more tentative.

He had done more research, and in that process he discovered the passage in the book of Sirach. He writes:

The Eight Questions of Dulcitius, 6

My later inquiry brought this to light, when I found in the book of Sirach . . . that Samuel himself was praised in such a way that he was said to have prophesied even when dead.

So Augustine notes this passage, though he doesn’t treat it as fully decisive because the canonicity of Sirach was not fully settled in his day.

A Dutch scholar named Klaas Smelik wrote a major study of how 1 Samuel 28 was read down the centuries, and he argues that by late in his career Augustine had a more settled opinion and was on Team Samuel.

So what position Augustine holds in the two new sermons may thus depend on the stage of his career in which they were written.

 

Was Saul Saved?

There is also another issue the sermons apparently engage: Was King Saul saved?

On the idea that God allowed Samuel to appear to Saul and warn him of his death, how did Saul react?

According to Fox News:

“Lost sermons from one of Christianity’s greatest saints discovered after 1,600 years”

Augustine’s sermons show him weighing the possibility that King Saul repented and was ultimately redeemed after hearing Samuel’s prophecy. . . .

The interpretation of Saul being saved is the “most remarkable element” of the new sermons, Tornau told Fox News Digital.

“This is unparalleled in Augustine and in ancient Christianity in general, where we find a very negative image of Saul,” said Tornau. “Augustine suggests it . . . and clearly takes it seriously.”

The professor noted that Augustine may have independently developed the idea that King Saul repented and was ultimately saved after hearing Samuel’s prophecy, or he may have been influenced by Jewish rabbinic interpretations that viewed Saul more favorably.

“In any event, it is indicative of Augustine’s [independence] of mind and his willingness to think everyone, even those who appear most evil, [are] capable of salvation through the grace of God,” he said.

When the texts of the two sermons are finally released, I’ll be very interested to see what Augustine has to say about the demon hypothesis.

But I’ll be even more interested to see what he has to say about Saul’s salvation, which has implications for the salvation of even the greatest sinners.

* * *

If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing

If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification—and if it won’t behave, let Samuel’s ghost give it a good scare until it agrees to notify you whenever I have a new video

We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years into the future—and can get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast

Thank you, and I’ll see you next time

God bless you always!