In both Second Temple Judaism and the patristic era, there was a conceptual exegetical practice known as defectus litterae (“the missing literal sense”) that understood absurd, dubious, or scandalous biblical passages as signifying deeper spiritual truths. The hermeneutical goal was to develop an interpretation that was theoprepēs (God-befitting). In other words, ancient writers sought a biblical interpretation that would rationalize and justify God’s immoral behavior in order to maintain belief in a good and righteous deity. However, there is another aspect of defectus litterae that patristic scholars have yet to classify. Coined here for the first time as hermeneutical hagioprepēs, or saint-befitting, many Jewish and patristic writers employed the same exegetical tactic to salvage the reputation of so-called saintly biblical characters. This stratagem allowed ancient interpreters to rationalize certain behavior in order to justify continued reverence for members of their own religious heritage. To illustrate the use of hagioprepēs, this study will first present examples of ancient interpreters minimizing, sanitizing, or omitting the embarrassing and immoral behavior of biblical saints. The study will then offer post-hermeneutical examples of hagioprepēs being used to rationalize and justify the crimes of fellow religionists.