Costache - Approaching An Apology for the Hexaemeron: Its Aims, method and Discourse (Cappadocian Legacy)

7/27/2019 Costache - Approaching An Apology for the Hexaemeron: Its Aims, method and Discourse (Cappadocian Legacy)

1/27

CAPPADOCIAN LEGACY

ACriticalAppraisal

Editedby

DoruCostacheandPhilipKariatlis

StAndrewsOrthodoxPress

Sydney,2013

StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 1 5/09/13 12:10 AM


2/27

Textcopyright2013remainswiththeauthors

Allrightsreserved.ExceptforanyfairdealingpermittedundertheCopyrightAct,

nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedbyanymeanswithoutpriorpermission.

Inquiriesshouldbemadetothepublisher.

NationalLibraryofAustraliaCataloguing-in-Publicationentry

Title: Cappadocianlegacy/DoruCostacheandPhilipKariatlis(eds).

ISBN: 978-0-9775974-9-9(paperback)

Notes: Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.

Subjects: Gregory,ofNazianzus,Saint. Basil,Saint,BishopofCaesarea,

approximately329-379.

Gregory,ofNyssa,Saint,

approximately335-approximately394

Theology--Earlyworksto1800

Christiansaints--Biography--Earlyworksto1800.

OtherAuthors/Contributors:

Costache,Doru,editor.Kariatlis,Philip,editor.

DeweyNumber:230

StAndrewsOrthodoxPress

242ClevelandStreet,Redfern,NSW,2016

www.standrewsorthodoxpress.com.au



3/27

Contents

PREFACE..................................................................................................................................................5

1.THECAPPADOCIANSWITHINTRADITION

TheCappadocianFathersasFoundersofByzantineThought

DavidBradshaw..................................................................................................................................... 11

WeretheFathersProponentsofaFamilialImagoTrinitatis?

AdamG.Cooper..................................................................................................................................23

2.THELEGACYOFSTBASILTHEGREAT

StBasiltheGreatsExpositionofNiceneOrthodoxy

JohnAnthonyMcGuckin......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ..................47

WhyDidntStBasilWriteinNewTestamentGreek?

JohnA.L.Lee........................ ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ................61

Light(/)anditsLiturgicalFoundationintheTeaching

ofStBasiltheGreat

AdrianMarinescu...................................... ......................... ......................... ......................... .................77ChristianWorldview:UnderstandingsfromStBasiltheGreat

DoruCostache......................................................................................................................................... 97

StBasilsTrinitarianDoctrine:AHarmoniousSynthesisof

GreekPaideiaandtheScripturalWorldview

PhilipKariatlis..................................................................................................................................... 127

TheRecapitulationofHistoryandtheEighthDay:

AspectsofStBasiltheGreatsEschatologicalVision

MarioBaghos........................................................................................................................................ 151

StBasiltheGreatasEducator:ImplicationsfromtheAddresstoYouth

DimitriKepreotes................................................................................................................................169

3.THELEGACYOFSTGREGORYTHETHEOLOGIAN

TheTeachingsofGregoryofNazianzusontheTrinity

ArchbishopStylianosofAustralia......................... ......................... ......................... .....................187

Self-KnowledgeandKnowledgeofGod

accordingtoStGregorytheTheologian

GeorgiosMantzarides....................................................................................................................... 203



4/27

GregorytheTheologianASpiritualPortrait

ArchbishopStylianosofAustralia......................... ......................... ......................... .....................215

SeekingOuttheAntecedentsoftheMaximian

TheoryofEverything:StGregorytheTheologiansOration28.DoruCostache...................................................................................................................................... 225

Whatthen?IstheSpiritGod?Certainly!StGregorysTeaching

ontheHolySpiritastheBasisoftheWorldsSalvation


ScriptureintheWorksofStGregorytheTheologian

MargaretBeirne.................................................................................................................................. 261

StGregorytheTheologiansExistentialMetanarrativeofHistory

MarioBaghos........................................................................................................................................ 275

FeaturesoftheTheandricMysteryofChristintheChristologyofStGregorytheTheologian

AnthonyPapantoniou......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ...................299

4.THELEGACYOFSTGREGORYOFNYSSA

DivineProvidenceandFreeWillinGregoryofNyssa

andhisTheologicalMilieu

BronwenNeil........................................................................................................................................ 315

DazzlingDarknessTheMysticalorTheophanic

TheologyofStGregoryofNyssa


ApproachingAnApologyfortheHexaemeron:

ItsAims,MethodandDiscourse

DoruCostache...................................................................................................................................... 349

SpiritualEnrichmentthroughExegesis:StGregoryofNyssa

andtheScriptures

MargaretBeirne.................................................................................................................................. 373

ReconsideringApokatastasisinStGregoryofNyssas

OnTheSoulandResurrectionandtheCatecheticalOration

MarioBaghos........................................................................................................................................ 387

INFORMATIONABOUTTHECONTRIBUTORS.................................................................. 417



5/27

349

ApproachingAnApologyfortheHexaemeron:ItsAims,

MethodandDiscourse

DoruCostache

Abstract:Thearticleaddressesaseriesofcurrentassumptionsabout

StGregoryofNyssasApology,suchasitssupposedexegeticalchar-

acter,anditsintentofdefendingandcontinuingStBasils Homilieson

theHexaemeron.Thepresentationofthisotherwiseignoredtreatise

isfollowedbyananalysisofitspeculiarities,mainlyitsunstructured

formtogetherwithitslackofinterestintheologyandspirituality.The

articlelikewisediscussestheApologysattitudetowardstheBasilian

Hexaemeron

Thelastaspectpointstotheapologeticaspectofthetreatise,asprev-

alentovertheexegeticalone.Thearticleconcludesbyhighlighting

therelevanceofthistreatisetotheunderstandingoftraditionandthe

effortsofmediatingthescripturallybasedChristianworldviewbythe

Inthefollowing,IexplorealargelyignoredtreatiseauthoredbyStGregory

ofNyssa,entitled ,AnApology for the

Hexaemeron,alsoknownas,OntheHexaemeron.1After

ThearticlewasinitiallypublishedinPhronema27:2(2012),andreprintedhereinarevised

ofDavidBradshaw,AdamCooper,Fr JohnAnthonyMcGuckin,PhilipKariatlis,BronwenNeil

andJohannesZachhuber.Asusual,MarioBaghostookcareofmystylisticshortcomings.Iamdeeplygrateful.

1 Iused thecritical editionof the, published inGregoriiNysseni In

Hexaemeron:OperaExegeticainGenesim,partI,ed.HubertusR.Drobner(Leidenand

Boston:Brill,2009).Inaddition,Icheckedthe

,publishedinMignesPatrologiaGraeca(PG44,61-124),in-

cludingitsreeditedversionasin,

, vol. 5, ed. Panayiotis Chrestou (: and

,1987),248-360.Alltranslationsfromtheoriginalaremine;I

alsoconsultedthemodernGreekrenditionofChrestouandtheRomanianversionfrom

SfntulGrigoriedeNyssa,Scrieri,SecondPart:ScrieriExegetice,Dogmatico-Polemice

Morale,EdituraInstitutuluiBiblicdeMisiunealBisericiiOrtodoxeRomne,1998),92-128.In



6/27

350

introducingthecontextandthemainfeaturesoftheApology,asthetrea-

tisewillbedesignatedhereafter,IshalldiscusstheNyssensapproachto

thecreationnarrativeinGenesis1andtothenaturalsciencesofthetime

(withoutoffering adetailedanalysis of thecosmographytherein), along

withexaminingtherapportsbetweenhismethodandtheoneemployed

byStBasiltheGreatintheHomiliesontheHexaemeron.Thiscomparisonis

requiredbythefactthatusually,asweshallsee,theApologyisconsidered

primarilyadefenceanddevelopmentoftheBasilianhomilies,anopinion

whichIchallengeinpart,giventhediscontinuitiesbetweenthetwoworks,

andStGregoryspersonalagenda.Itisthecontentionofthispaperthatin

writingtheApologyStGregorywaslessinterestedinsecuringhisbroth-

erslegacyandinfactmoreinterestedtoasserthisownscholarlystanding.

Withreferencetothemethod,IshallarguethatStBasilsmorerigorous-

lyexegeticalapproach,anapproachdoubledbyhisintentiontoinspirean

Apologyanditseducatedread-

ership.2AndrewLouthwasrighttoobservethat,apartfromtheirtheolog-

icalcommonalityandinterwovenlives,theCappadocianshadindividual

minds.3Theultimatepurposeofthisarticleistodeterminethenatureof

theNyssensApology,usuallyconsideredanexegeticalworkwhenitshould

-

calincursions.Therearewithinit,asweshallsee,featuresthatpertainto

thegenreofearlyChristianapologetics,concernedwithbridgingtheolo-gyandculture,andwithpresentingtheologyasaworthwhilecontributor

inmattersofworldview.Accordingly,whilstengagingthevariousancient

cosmologies,StGregorysworkaimstoprovethedivinemakingoftheuni-

versethroughthecontemplationofitsunderlyingorder(anaspectwhich

cannotbeaddressedhereindetail).Thearticlewillclosebyhighlighting

thecontributionofthetreatiseintheareasoftraditionandtheeffortsof

allreferencestotheApology,thetitleoftheworkisfollowedbynumbersindicatingthechaptersaccordingtotheeditionofDrobner,followedwithinthebracketsbythecorre-

spondingcolumnsinPGandtherespectivepage(s)andline(s)intheeditionofDrobner.

2 OnthecontrastbetweentheNyssensintentionsandStBasilspastoralapproach,see

TheBrillDictionaryofGregoryofNyssa ,ed.by

LucasFranciscoMateo-SecoandGiulioMaspero,revisedandexpandedEnglishedition,

in

,,Vol.5(citedaboven.1):7-16,esp.10;PeterC.

Bouteneff,Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives

(GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2008),155.

3

(eds.),TheCambridgeHistoryofEarlyChristianLiterature (Cambridge:CambridgeUni-versityPress,2004,reprinted2006):289-301,here289.



7/27

351

paradigms.

IntroducingtheApology

Giventherelativesilencesurroundingthistreatiseinrecentscholar-

ship4anditsabsencefromthemainstreampatristictradition,anintroduc-

tiontotheApologyisnecessary.InEnglishspeakingscholarshipthissilence

isonlyrarelybroken,suchasinthereviewincludedbyPeterBouteneffin

hisBeginnings,5theanalysisoftheconceptofseedbyCharlotteKckert, 6

andthe(recentlytranslated)encyclopaediaarticlebyJuanAntonioGil-Ta-

mayo.7

WecannotestablishwithanycertaintywhentheApologywaspub-

-

possibility,oftracinginanincontrovertiblewaythechronologyofStGreg-

orysworks,8mainlybecauseofthesparsereferencestohistoricalevents

inhiswritings.ForthisreasonIdonotintendtoventureintothislandof

uncertaintyotherthantangentially,bothinrelationtothedateoftheApolo-

gyandthebetter-knowntreatisewhichaccordingtoanauctorialnote 9pre-

cedesit,namely,OntheMakingofMan

4 OntheMakingofManasan

appendixtoStBasilsHexaemeronbutpaysnoattentiontotheApology.Forasimilar

approach,seeCharlesKannengiesser,HandbookofPatristicExegesis:TheBibleinAncient

Christianity(LeidenandBoston:Brill,2006),753.

5 Cf.Bouteneff,Beginnings,154-57.

6 Ap-

ologiainHexaemeron,StudiaPatristica 47(Leuven-Paris-Walpole:Peeters,2010):

27-32.

7 TheBrillDictionaryofGreg-

oryofNyssa(citedaboven.2):387-89.

8 Cf.HubertusR.Drobner,TheFathersoftheChurch:AComprehensiveIntroduction,trans.

byS.S.Schatzmann,withbibliographiesupdatedandexpandedbyW.Harmless,SJ,and

H.R.Drobner(Peabody:HendricksonPublishers,2007),279;RonaldE.Heine, Gregory

ofNyssasTreatiseontheInscriptionsofthePsalms:Introduction,Translation,andNotes,

TheOxfordEarlyChristianStudies(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1995),8;PierreMaraval,

TheBrillDictionaryofGregoryofNyssa(citedaboven.2):153-

69,esp.153,157;AnthonyMeredith,TheCappadocians(Crestwood,NY:StVladimirs

SeminaryPress,1995),53-54.9 Cf.Apology77,epilogue(PG44,124A;Drobner,84.3).



8/27

352

bothtreatiseswerepublishedsoonafterStBasilsdeath,althoughnotallscholarssharethisopinion.10

Togetherwithitsprecedinganthropologicaltreatise,the Apologyisdedicatedtoayoungersibling,StPeter,laterbishopofSebasteia.Accordingtotheprologue,PeteraskedtheNyssentoclarifysomeobscurepointsinthecreationnarrative,whichStBasilsHexaemeronhadleftunaddressed

ofsomeunnameddetractors.Interestingly,asweshallseebelow,thesecriticismscoincidedwiththeconcernsofStPeterhimself,andonemightwonderwhetherornotthelatterwastheactualsourceofthosequeries. 11AnissueraisedbytheanonymouscriticswasStBasilssilenceregardingthepossibilityofdayandnightinthe initialstagesofcreation,i.e.intheabsenceofthesunandothercelestialbodies,whichwerementionedbyGenesisonlyinthefourthday.12AnotherquestionunansweredbytheBasil-ianHexaemeronreferredtothedisinterestofGenesisinthethirdheaven,

10 Apologywaspub-lishedinearly379,afewmonthsafter OntheMakingofMan -ductionofhistranslationofthe ApologyintoRomanian,TeodorBodogae(cf.SfntulGrigoriedeNyssa,Scrieri,citedaboven.1,9-14,esp.10,12),arguesthatthetwotreatisesrelatedtotheBasilianHexaemeronwerewrittenshortlyafterthegreatCappadocians

supposedyearofrepose,i.e.379.BodogaetakesthementionofEasterintheprologueofOntheMakingofManasreferringtothePaschalseasonof379,concludingthattheApologyshouldhavebeenwrittentowardsthemiddleofthesameyear.ThisopinionisalsosharedbyAnnaM.Silvas, GregoryofNyssa:TheLettersIntroduction,TranslationandCommentary(Leiden:Brill,2007),40.Inthesamevein,ManlioSimonettisarticleTheBrillDictionaryofGregoryofNyssa,citedaboven.2,331-38,esp.331)placesthetwoworksalittleafter379,whereasJeanLaplace,translatorofOntheMak-ingofMan -tiontoGrgoiredeNysse,LaCrationdelHomme,SourcesChrtiennes(ParisandLyon:ditionsduCerfandditionsdelAbeille,1943):5-77,esp.4.ThesamegoeswithKck-

Meredith(TheCappadocians ,53)pushesthedateofredactionsomewherebetween380and382.Later,inhisGregoryofNyssa,TheEarlyChurchFathers(London:Routledge,1999,reprinted2002),5,MeredithproposesthatthetwowritingswerepublishedintheintervalbetweenBasilsdeathand386.Similarly,Heine(GregoryofNyssasTreatiseontheInscriptionsofthePsalms,7)believesthatOntheMakingofManwaspublishedsometimebetween383and385,orsoonafter,possiblyinConstantinople,areasoningwhichimplicitlyreferstotheApologytoo,althoughHeineignoresthelattertreatise.Verygenerally,Kannengiesser,HandbookofPatristicExegesis,753,believesthatmuchofthe -posedlydiedin395).ThepossibilityofalaterredactionwasalsosuggestedbyJohannesQuasten,Patrology,Vol.3(Westminster:ChristianClassicsInc.,1986),256.

11

Cf.Bouteneff,Beginnings,154.12 Cf.Apology3(PG44,64C;Drobner,8.12-9.1).



9/27

353

mentionedin2Corinthians12:2.13TothesequeriesStPeterexplicitlyadd-

edhisowninterestinalogicallyorganised()storyofcreation,

)pre-

sentationofthefacts,andinbringingGenesistoanaccord(

withthewholeofScripture.14Inadditiontotheworriescausedtohimby

necessaryorderofcreation().15Thinking

oftheNyssensapproachtosuchmatters,asmadeobviousbyhislengthy

and erudite expositionsonnaturalphenomena, it seemsthatPeterwas

mayexplainwhytheApologyissometimesconsideredatreatiseconcerned

withmetaphysicalspeculations.True,theNyssenhintedthathisyounger

brotherwasinterestedincertainmysticalaspects,termedasthedarknessofvisionofineffablethings(

inaccessibleforthoseatthefoothillsofSinai. 16Forsomereason,however,

andinstarkcontrasttohisOntheMakingofMan,inwhichspiritualinter-

pretationsabound,theNyssenwasnotinterestedinsuchtopicsherejust

ashewasnotsteadilyconcernedwithapproachingGenesisexegetically,as

weshallseeinduecourse.

-

derbrotherschoiceofcircumventingthemoredelicateaspectsofGene-sisbyhispastoralsensitivity.Thus,henotedthatinhishomiliesStBasil

purposelyadoptedamethodandamannerofspeechwhichaimedated-

ifyingthemembersofthecongregation,botheducatedanduneducated.17

Thedetractorscouldnotgraspthetruepurpose()pertainingto

13 Cf.Apology3(PG44,64CD-65A;Drobner,9.1-9).TheNyssenattemptedtoanswerthis

questioninApology75-76(PG44,120D-121D;Drobner,81.1-83.9)by identifyingthe

thirdheavenwiththevisionofthenoeticrealm.OntheinterestofStGregoryinthis

Paulinetext,seeJamesBuchananWallace, SnatchedintoParadise(2Cor12:1-10):Pauls

HeavenlyJourneyintheContextofEarlyChristianExperience(BerlinandNewYork:Wal-terdeGruyterGmbH&Co,2011),304-12.

14 Cf.Apology1,prologue(PG44,61A;Drobner,6.4-6).

15 Cf.Apology5(PG44,65C;Drobner,11.8).

16 Cf.Ibidem(Drobner,11.3-8).ThephraseanticipatestheNyssensfamouspresentation

oftheascentofMosesonSinaiasamysticalexperience(PG44,372C-376C).Cf.TheLife

ofMoses(2.152-61),trans.,intro.andnotesbyAbrahamJ.MalherbeandEverettFergu-

son,TheClassicsofWesternSpiritualitySeries(NewYorkandMahwah:PaulistPress,

1978),90-93.

17 Cf.Apology4(PG44,65AB;Drobner,9.16-11.2).Seefurthernuancesonthismatterin

Christians,StudiaPatristica47(citedaboven.6):117-22.



10/27

354

theteaching(NyssenswiftlytodiscardasimproperboththeirquestionsandthequeriesofStPeter. 18Re-

gardingPetersinterestinmysticalspeculations,StGregoryurgedhimto

leadthesearchbyprayeronlyandguidedbytheSpiritofrevelation().19WediscernhereanechooftheprecautionstakenbyStBasilintheprologueoftheHexaemeron,20whenreferringtothe

rehearsingthepresuppositionsoftheprayerfullifeanddivineillumination,

undertakings.Hisprovisionnotwithstanding,bytrustingintheprayersof

hisyoungerbrother,theNysseneventuallyacceptedthechallenge,which

consistedinsearchingtheScripturesfortheorderofthingscreated.21We

willseelaterthatthisamountedtotakingGenesisasapretextforanin-

Whilstembarkingonthistask,theNyssenstatedonceagainhisreverence

forStBasilandthelatterscelebratedhomilies,whoseauthorityonsuch

topicswas yet unsurpassed.By contrast, hecontinued humbly, his own

Apologywasmorelikeaconjecturalscholarlygymnastic(),22adraftessayoranintellectualexercise23ratherthanacommandinginterpretationofGenesis.24

Mentioning the provisional character of the writing, we reach the

interestingmattersof the shapeand contentof this puzzling text,25asBouteneffdubbedit.Whereastheearliertreatise,OntheMakingofMan,is

bothelegantandrigorouslystructured,afactmadeobviousfromitspro-

logue,26theApologydoesnotseemtofollowaplanandthereforepresents

18 Cf.Apology4(PG44,65A;Drobner,9.16-17).Formoreonthismatter,seeGil-Tamayo,

19 Cf.Apology5(PG44,68B;Drobner,13.4-6).

20 Cf.Hexaemeron

UnderstandingsfromStBasiltheGreat,Phronema25(2010):21-56,esp.29-31.21 Cf.Apology6(PG44,68D;Drobner,14.6-12).

22 Cf. Apology 6 (PG 44, 68C; Drobner, 13.17). PG and the edition of Chrestou read

insteadof.23 24 Cf.Apology6(PG44,68BC;Drobner,13.11-14.2).

25 Cf.Bouteneff,Beginnings,154.

26 Cf.OntheMakingofMan ,prologue,inNiceneandPost-NiceneFathers,secondseries,

vol.5(GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1979),387-88,givesthe

contentsbeforetheactualtreatise.SodoestheRomanianversion,at16-8.Inturn,the

contentsarealtogethermissingfromthePatrologiaGraeca44,theeditionofPanayiotisChrestouandtheFrenchversionintheSourcesChrtiennesseries.



11/27

355

nodiscernibleorder incontrastwithStGregorysclaimedcommitment

totheprincipleofortheorderedsequence.27Thedivisionof

thetextinnumberedsectionsbelongstomoderneditors,28andshouldnot

betakenasillustratingaconsistentarrangementofitsdiscourse.Theonly

noticeablestructure is thatof theNyssen loosely following the creation

narrative,29whichdenotesadiscontinuousinterestintheinterpretationof

thelatter.Carefullyexamined,thewritingappearstobealabyrinthofvari-

ationsonandnotesrelatedtoGenesis1andcosmology,withtheauthor

onlytoreturntoitandthentoleaveitagainattimesreiteratingthesame

topicincontradictoryoratleastdifferentways,aspointedoutbyMonique

Alexandre.30Inshort,theApologyisanunsystematicparadeofsophistica-

tion,anddoesnotpresentthestructureofarigoroustreatise.

Weretainfromtheabove thatinhisengagementwiththeGenesis

-

-

sive,ifwethinkofhismostlyinformaleducation,andpeculiar,sincehewas

27 TheBrillDic-

tionaryofGregoryofNyssa(citedaboven.2):14-20,esp.16.

28 Drobnergives78chapters,whereasChrestougivesanumberofnolessthan102.

29 Thesearethereferences,eitherdirectorinparaphrases,tothecreationnarrativewithin

theApology(followingDrobnersedition):chap.7,14.13(Gen1:1);chap.8,16.14-17.2

(Gen1:1),17.12-13(Gen1:1);chap.10,20.2-3(Gen1:2),21.1(Gen1:3);chap.12,22.22,

23.11-13(Gen1:3),23.18-19(Gen1:4);chap.13,24.15(Gen1:5);chap.14,25.16-19

(Gen1:3-5);chap.15,26.1-2,4-5(Gen1:5);chap.16,26.17-18(Gen1:1),27.10,14-15,

28.8-11(Gen1:2);chap.17,28.14-15(Gen1:2);chap18,30.2-5,31.3-6(Gen1:5-8);

chap.19,31.10-11(Gen1:2),32.2-4(Gen1:6-8);chap.21,33.7-8(Gen1:31),33.9-10,

12-14,15-16(Gen1:2),33.17-19(Gen1:6-8);chap.23,35.7-9,12-14,17-18(Gen1:6-

8);chap.24,37.5-6(Gen1:5),37.9-10(Gen1:8);chap.26,39.13-15(Gen1:8-9),40.8-11

(Gen1:9);chap.27,40.16-17(Gen1:7);chap.31,44.3-4,10-13(Gen1:31);chap.44,

57.12-14,57.1-2(Gen1:6-8);chap.63,71.13-14(Gen1:6-7);chap.64,71.20-21(Gen

1:13-7),72.12-13(Gen1:1);chap.65,72.16,73.7-9,17-18(Gen1:3-5);chap.66,74.3(Gen1:13);chap.67,75.1-2(Gen1:16);chap.70,76.15(Gen1:13),76.18(Gen1:16-8);

chap.72,78.2(Gen1:3-5),78.3-4(Gen1:6-8),78.6-7(Gen1:10-2);chap.73,79.1-2(Gen

1:3-5,19),79.5-6(Gen1:3-5,16),79.9(Gen1:13),79.15-17(Gen1:3-5,16);chap.75,

81.16-17(Gen1:8),82.2-5(Gen1:20,26),82.5-6(Gen1:6),82.7-10(Gen1:16-7),82.13-

14(Gen1:8);chap.77,83.18-84.1(Gen1as ,themakingofthe

worldinsixdays),84.3(Gen1:26-27as thestructureofthe

humanbeing).Notethelargegapsbetweenchapters31and44andfrom44to63.

30 InHexaemerondeGrgoirede

Nysse:Deuxapproachesduproblmedelamatire,inHeinrichDrrie,MargareteAl-

tenburger,UtaSchramm(eds.),GregorvonNyssaunddiePhilosophie:ZweitesInterna-

berGregorvonNyssa,FreckenhorstbeiMnster18-23Sept1972(Leiden:Brill,1976):159-86,esp.160-61.



12/27

356

afterallaChristianshepherd.True,onecandiscerninthisdisplayofschol-

arlyprowessanefforttoemulatetheapproachofStBasilintheHexaemer-

on.31Itislikewiseobvious,however,thattheApologyillustratesthismeth-

odonlyinareductionistway,sincetheBasilianhomilies,apartfromtheir

equallyimpressiveproofofscholarship,ultimatelyaimedatexhortingthe

audiencestowardaChristianlifestyleandadoxologicalmindset.Bycon-

trast,deprivedofformativegoals,themaintopicsdiscussedbythe Apology

are thenaturalmovementoftheuniversewithin thedivineparameters,

togetherwiththephysicalphenomenarelatedtolight,thecombinationof

thefundamentalelementsandthecyclesofwater.Bouteneffcharacterised

thesecondpartofthetreatisequiteaptlywhenobserving:

[It]mightjustaswellbeentitledOnFire,Light,andEspeciallyWater.

aboutwater,vapour,ice,andmorewater,andonlythena(consider-

ablyshorter)discussionoflight.32

Takingintoconsiderationtheseaspects,towhichIshallreturn,Johannes

Quastenscommentthatalongsiderectifyingsomemisunderstandingsof

thebiblicaltextandofBasilsexegesistheApologydealswithmetaphysi-

calspeculations,33

-

icalspeculations.ThesamegoesforPaulBlowersassessmentthatinhisownApologiainhexaemeron,Gregoryprovidesakindofphilosophicaland

theological supplement to thedoxological approach tocreationtaken in

Basilshomilies.34Bothaspects,thephilosophicalandthetheological,do

notcountamongthestrengthsofthetreatise.Andagainthesamegoesfor

PanayiotisChrestousconvictionthatwhilstStBasilsHexaemeronillustrat-

edthehistoricalandethicalsideoftheinterpretiveapproachtocosmogo-

ny(),also

apracticalwayoftacklingthematters,StGregorypresentedthespiritual

31 AspointedoutbyQuasten,Patrology,264.

32 Bouteneff,Beginnings,156.Onthenatureofthewatersasthemaintopicofthe Apology,

GrgoiredeNysse,StudiaPatristica1:1(Berlin:Akademie-Verlag,1957):94-103,esp.

97,100.

33 Cf.Quasten,Patrology,264.

34

NatureandInterpretationoftheBibleinthePatristicPeriod,inJitseM.vanderMeer

andScottMandelbrote,NatureandScriptureintheAbrahamicReligions:Upto1700,Vol.1,BrillsSeriesinChurchHistory36(Leiden:Brill,2008):147-76,at157.



13/27

357

)asperceivedbywayofcontemplation().35With

twoexceptions,thereisnoconsistentspiritualcontemplationintheApol-

ogy.Themetaphysicalandmysticalsidesarepoorlyillustrated,mainlyby

-

perishabledomain,36and,moreimportantlyfromanexegeticalperspective,

hisclaimedpenchantforaliteralapproachtothecreationnarrative37as

ametaphorfortheheavenlypowers.38Thatsaid,giventhissampleofspiri-

tualisingexegesisthescholarlyopinionvouchingforaconsistentlynon-al-

legoricalapproachtoGenesis39intheApologydoesnotstandeither.For

instance,insupportofhisconvictionthattheNyssenfollowedtheliteral

method,Bouteneff40arguedthatthelengthydealingsofStGregorywith

thewaterscouldhavebeenadirectreactiontothespiritualisationofthis

cosmicelementinOrigen.Giventheinterpretationofthewatersaboveasametaphorforunseenrealities,asplausibleasitseemsBouteneffsun-

derstandingshouldbeconsideredcautiously.TocharacterisetheApologys

task.StanislasGietwasrighttoobservethatStGregorysmethodherewas

neithersimplyliteralnoruniquelyallegorical.41

ToendthisintroductiontotheApology

mostcuriousfeatureofthetreatise,namely,itslackingspiritualscopeand

formativepurposes.Theworkdistinguishesitselfbyascantytheologicaldiscourseandanalmostcompletelackofinterestintopicspertainingtothe

spirituallife,bywhichitremainsuniquewithintheNyssensentireliterary

corpus.Forsomereason,contemporaryscholarsignorethispeculiarity.In

35 11.Similarly,DonaldL.RosssharestheopinionthattheApolo-

gy

InternetEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(http://

www.iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/),December2006.

36 Apology75-6(PG44,120D-121D;Drobner,81.1-83.9).

37 Cf.Apology21(PG44,81D;Drobner,33.1-2);77(PG44,121D;Drobner,83.10-18).OnTheBrillDictionaryofGregory

ofNyssa(citedaboven.2):21-26,here21.

38 Cf.Apology19(PG44,81BC;Drobner,32.4-7).

39 SeeBouteneff,Beginnings

Great,GregorytheTheologian,andGregoryofNyssa,inS.T.Kimbrough,Jr.(ed.), Ortho-

doxandWesleyanScripturalUnderstandingandPractice(Crestwood,NY:StVladimirs

40 Cf.Bouteneff,ibidem.

41 BasildeCsare,HomliessurlHexamron,Greektext,intro.andtrad.byS.Giet,SourcesChrtiennes(Paris:Cerf,1949):5-84,here23.



14/27

358

turn,theChurchdidnotoverlookit,andconsequentlypushedthetreatise

intooblivion.BeforeStJohnDamascenesExactExpositionoftheOrthodox

Faith

nootherpatristictextseemstohavefavouredthemethodadoptedbythe

Nyssenswork(tomyknowledge,anotheraspectignoredbyscholars),al-

though itisnot theplaceheretodiscusswhetherornottheDamascene

drewontheApology.Iturnnowtotheconsensusonthecontinuitybe-

tweentheApologyandtheBasilianHexaemeron,anticipatedbytheabove

discussion.

ContinuityorDiscontinuity?

IalreadymentionedthatthechronologyofStGregoryswritingsisuncer-tain.Nevertheless,aswehaveseenthereisarelativeconsensusregarding

histwoworksoncreation,i.e.OntheMakingofManandtheApology,usu-

allyconsideredashavingbeenpublishedverysoonafterStBasilsrepose.

thespiritinwhichtheNyssenelaboratedthetwobooks,withoutthegrasp

ofwhich,furthermore,someofthepeculiaritiespertainingtotheworkof

interesthere,namely,theApology,cannotbeproperlyassessed.Havinga

holdonthisspirit,inturn,castslightbackupontheissueofchronology,

andintruththeevidencepointstoanearlyratherthanlatedate 42oftheirredaction.WhatmattersatthisstagehoweveristheconsensusontheApol-

ogyaswrittensoonafterStBasilsdeath.Theimportanceofthisaspectwill

emergeimmediately.

Possibly because the Nyssens two treatises on creationwerepub-

lishedshortlyaftertheBasilianHexaemeronandthegreatCappadocians

demise,scholarsassumethatthereisacontinuationbetweentheseworks,

similartothelinkbetweenStGregorystreatisesAgainstEunomiusandthe

homonymoustomeauthoredbyhisoldersibling.43

Thus,theApologywouldrepresentacorollaryoracomplementofStBasilsHexaemeron.44Inreit-

eratingtheconsensus,AnthonyMeredithnotedthatmuchoftheNyssens

bodyofwritingswascomposedindirectresponsetothesuggestionand

represent

42 Withoutprovidingdetails,Quasten(Patrology,263)leavesthequestionopen,asserting

thatOntheMakingofManwasprobablypublishedeitherimmediatelyafter1January

379orlaterinStGregoryslife.

43

Cf.e.g.Drobner,TheFathersoftheChurch279.44



15/27

359

criticalcontinuationsofBasilsownworksinthesameareas. 45Giventhat

theprologuesofthetwoworksdulyacknowledgedtheBasilianinputasa

startingpointfortheNyssenselaborations,46

Whilstsharingthisopinion,AnnaSilvaspusheditevenfurtherbysuggest-

ingthatinhisdevelopmentoftheBasilianlegacytheNyssenactedupona

mandatefromhisdyingbrother.Moreprecisely,sheproposedthat,likein

asymbolicrecurrenceofthepassingonofpropheticgracefromElijahon

Elisha,weimagineStBasilonhisdeathbedaskingtheyoungerGregoryto

continuehisworkamissionwhichtheNyssenwouldhaveaccomplished

asaworthyheirindoctrinalexposition.47AlthoughIdonotdismisssuch

apossibility,Ibelievethatbehindhisdiptychoncreation,andespeciallythe

Apology,thereisalittlemorethantheNyssensvenerationofhisbrother.

WhatIproposeisthatalongsideundertakingtodefendhisdepartedsib-

ling,throughthetreatiseunderconsiderationStGregorysoughthisownestablishmentasanauthority.Iameventemptedtobelievethathepur-

suedthisgoalirrespectiveofandapartfromhisbrotherslegacy,although

thisisnottheplacetodelveintothematter,whichwouldrequirefurther

exploration.ItiscertainhoweverthathisreferencetoStBasilsheritagein

theApologyisbothlimitedandcritical,totheextentthatthecurrentideaof

continuityintheCappadocianapproachestoGenesisbecomesproblemat-

-

playofemotionstranspiringfromtheApologyandsecondbytheNyssens

scarcereferencestoStBasilsteaching.ItistotheseaspectsthatInowturn.

TheintenseemotionalburdenonStGregorysshoulderswhencom-

posinghisOntheMakingofManandtheApologyisbeyonddoubt.Thereis

asharedopinionamongscholars,48thathisearlycareerwaseclipsedbythe

ofthewoodsofanonymityonlyafterhissiblingdeparted.Indeed,boththe

-

45 Meredith,TheCappadocians,53.InhisGregoryofNyssa ,5,Meredithaddsthatthetwo

workscontinueandpartiallycorrecttheBasilianHexaemeron-

gesis,331)observesthatbyhistwotreatisesStGregorydefendsanddeepenstheBasil-

10.

46 Cf.OntheMakingofMan,prologue(PG44,125BC);Apology2,prologue(PG44,64BC;

Drobner,7.14-8.11).

47 Cf.Silvas,GregoryofNyssa,40.

48 SeeJohnBehr,FormationofChristianTheology,Vol.2:TheNiceneFaith,part2(Crest-

wood,NY:StVladimirsSeminaryPress,2004),411;Meredith,TheCappadocians,53;Silvas,GregoryofNyssa,40.



16/27

360

ary379,thepresumedtimeofhisbrothersdeath.49Thisevidenceprompts

metoproposethatbehindhistwoworksoncreation,andparticularlythe

second,therecanbediscernedasenseoffrustrationwithStBasilsimpres-

OntheMakingofMan,aworkintended

-

trationislikelytohavetriggeredinhimthedesiretoprovehisworth.What

wassupposedtobeaprudentstatementintheprologueofOntheMaking

ofMan

-

ryoftheteacherwasnotdiminishedinhisdisciples.50Thisistantamount

With the months passing after St Basils repose, this nuance reap-

peared evenmoreexplicitly intheApology.Theprologueofthetreatise

containsthestunningpropositionhiddenundertheguiseofahorticultur-

alparableandrepeatedexpressionsofrespect51thattheNyssenswork

wouldimproveStBasilsteachingonthecreationthewayanoblesprout

booststhenaturalqualitiesofalowerclasstreewhengraftedontoit. 52This

beingthecase,thetitleofthetreatisemaysuggestonlytoacarelessread-

erthatitisprimarilyaboutdefendingtheBasilianHexaemeron.Anumber

ofscholarsbelievejustthat,53althoughtheinterestoftheApologyseems

tolieelsewhere.Deprivedofthehighereducationenjoyedbyhisbrother,

whomhehad inturnasaprivateteacher,andovershadowedbythe lat-

logicalike,pervadethework.GivenourlegitimatereverencefortheNys-

Christiantheologyandspirituality,perhapsthisassessmentlooksimperti-

nent.Nevertheless,therearesignsintheApologywhichbetraytheimpet-

uousnessofsomeoneeagertoconquerthestage,asitissaidincommon

parlance,afterElvishasleftthebuildinglikethestraightforwardremark

thattheauthorwillbeadoptingapositionatvariancewiththatofhissib-

49 ForarecentreviewofthedebatesaroundStBasilsdeath,seeSilvas, GregoryofNyssa,

32-39.

50 Cf.OntheMakingofMan,prologue(PG44,125C).

51 Cf.Apology1-2(PG44,64BC;Drobner,6.13-7.3;7.17-8.8).

52 Cf.Apology2(PG44,64BC;Drobner,7.18-8.11).

53 -aemeron,387.



17/27

361

inallthings.54RonaldHeineobservedthatthisadversarialattitudereap-

pearedinotherworksbyStGregory,likethetreatiseOntheInscriptionsof

thePsalms.55Wemayinferthat,togetherwithrevealingtheNyssensintent

ApologysoonafterStBasilsdeath.

Closely relatedto the previous, the second ground onwhich I chal-

lengethe idea ofcontinuity betweenthe Nyssens tract and the Basilian

homiliesoncreationreferspreciselytotheattitudetowardStBasilexhib-

itedbytheApology.ReadingthetitleofStGregoryswork,i.e.AnApolo-

gyfortheHexaemeron

workismeanttodefend.Theprologuedoesnotclarifythisaspecteither.

Asshownabove,itreferstotwodistinctissues,namely,somequeriescon-

cerningtheGenesisnarrativeandanumberof criticismslevelledagainst

the Basilian homilies. StGregorypointed tothesematters fromthe out-

set,whenheexpressedahumblereticencetowardscrutinisingthedivine

inspiration ()pervadingtheGenesisaccount,aswellas

StBasilsdivinelyinspired()andrichinterpretationofit.56

Yet,althoughthetermhexaemeroninthetitleoftheApologymaysuggest

issuesaddressedintheprologue,thetreatiseisnotprimarilyconcerned

withthecelebratedhomiliesonthecreation.Indeed,withtheexceptionofApologydid

StGregorytouchonparticularaspectspertainingtohisbrotherssermons,

differentmethodhewastoadoptinthetreatise.Hepreferredinsteadto

addresstopicsrelatedtothecreationnarrativeand,evenmoreso,cosmol-

ogyandnaturalphenomena.MyunderstandingcorrespondstoE.Corsinis

followingobservation.

[ - quelquunquidfendelacausedunautre.Toujoursest-ilquaulieu

unethsequinonseulementnestpascelledeBasilemaisquisy

opposedirectement.57

54 Cf.Apology28(PG44,89BC;Drobner,41.12-42.6).

55 Cf.Heine,GregoryofNyssasTreatiseontheInscriptionsofthePsalms,9.

56 Cf.Apology1-2(PG44,61A-64B;Drobner,6.1-8.1).

57 -

gumentsisnotthatofsomeonewhodefendsanotherscause.Itisobviousthatinstead



18/27

362

Ishallreturnwithmoredetailsinthenextsection.Inlightoftheabove,we

Apologywasnotprimarilyaboutdefend-

ingtheHexaemeronoraboutcontinuingStBasilswork.Usuallyignoredby

-

datehispositionasanindependentthinker,albeitwithinaCappadocian

context.InlinewithLouthscommentreferredtoearlier,Iwouldtherefore

reverseBouteneffsnote58concerningthetwoCappadociansandsaythat

althoughrelatedstilltheirsweretwodisparatevoices.Iturnnowtothe

Nyssensapproachtothecreationnarrativeandcosmology,whichoffers

moreglimpsesoftheApologysnatureandtheliterarygenretowhichit

belongs.Thesedetailswillcontributetofurtherourunderstandingofthe

rapportsbetweentherelevantworksofthetwoCappadocianfathers.

TheMethodandtheGenreoftheApology

Earlierwesawthat,alongsidethepervadingorderofthecosmos,thepro-

logueoftheApologyemphasisesthedesireofStPetertolearnaboutlessob-

viousaspectspertainingtoGenesis,interestswhichcoincidedwiththoseof

theunnamedcriticsofStBasilsHexaemeron.Relevanthereisthat,follow-

ingPetersrequest,thepurposeoftheApologyshouldhavebeentodeter-

minethecoherenceoftheGenesisaccountassuchandwithinthebroader

scripturalcontext.AnthonyMeredithandJohnBehrconcurredinidenti-fyingthisasthegoalofthetreatisewhentheyobservedindependently

thatwhereasStBasilendeavouredtodepictacomprehensiveimageof

thecosmos,theNyssenwasinterestedinthecoherenceofthescriptural

plotandtheorderofcreation.59Inotherwords,incontrastwithStBasils

homilies,whenconsideredfromanexegeticalviewpointtheApologywould

representamorerigorousapproachtoGenesis.PartlyIdisagreewithMer-

edithandBehrsassessmentoftheBasilian Hexaemeron

overallillustratingthecommonexegeticalpracticeofthetime,ofanalysing

thetextsline-by-line;however,hereisnottheplacetoaddresssuchmatters

which,farfrombeingthatofBasils,opposesitdirectly(mytranslation,emendedby

MargaretBeirne).At102CorsinireiteratedtheindependentnatureoftheApologyfrom

theBasilianHexaemeron On

theMakingofManandtheApology

Basil,enralit,lepointdevuequedirigelesdeuxfrresestfortdifferent(inreality,

thepointsofviewdrivingthetwobrothersareverydifferent).Seealsothesimilarcon-

58 Bouteneff,Beginnings,166,notesthatitisabouttwodisparate,yetrelated,voices.

59 SeeBehr,TheNiceneFaith,411;Meredith,GregoryofNyssa ,5.Forfurtheropinionson



19/27

363

indetail.Instead,Ishallfocusonboththeirsandtheestablishedperception

oftheApologyasanexegeticalworkaconsensusrecentlyendorsedbythe

criticaleditionofHubertusDrobner,whichpresentsthetreatiseasapartof

StGregorysOperaExegeticainGenesim.60Ichallengethisconsensusonthe

groundsofthemethodemployedbytheauthor,whichpointsmoretothe

apologeticgenreandlesstotheexegeticalone.

ThevariousquestionsregardingGenesisandconveyedbyPeterserve

indeedaspretextsfortheApology.Thatsaid,Iproposethatboththeco-

herenceofthenarrativeofcreationanditsconsistencywiththewholeof

Scripturebecamesecondaryconcernswithinthetreatise.Thesuggestion

thattheapproachoftheApology-

mation,asweshallseebelow,envisagedtheexpectationsofaneducated

readership,61couldnotjustifytheNyssenscarelessdealingwiththeques-

tionsposedbytheprologue.Mycontentionisbasedontheevidencethat

StGregoryneitherinsistedonthebroadscripturalcontext,whichseems

tohaveofferedhimavocabularyratherthanthemeanstosubstantiatehis

assertions,62norengagedtheGenesisnarrativeinameticulousmanner,as

shownabove.63

heanalysedmorecarefully,totheextentthathecomparedfouravailable

60 Cf.alsohisTheFathersoftheChurch,279.61 SeeBouteneff,Beginnings

62 AccordingtothecriticaleditionofDrobner,thefollowingaretherelevantparallelsto

thecreationnarrativeintheScriptures,citedeitherdirectlyorbyparaphrase.Iindicate

themintheorderofthechapterswheretheycanbefound:2Cor12:2,thethirdheaven

(chap.3);Rom1:20;2Cor12:4,gazingupontheunseenofGodviathevisiblecreation

(chap.5);Col1:17,allthingsexistinthepowerofGodastheirbeginning(chap.9);Ps

103:24,allarecreatedinGodswisdom(chap.11);Ps18:2,theheavensproclaimGods

glory(chap.11);Ps18:4,thevoicesofcreation(chap.11);Ex7-14andPs104:27,mir-

aclesinEgypt(chap.11);Ps94:4,allcreationisinGodshands(chap.16);2Macc1:24,

Godastheonebringingtoexistenceallcreation(chap.17);John1:9and1Tim6:16,

Godaslightanddwellinginthetranscendentlight(chap.19);Deut4:24andHebr12:29, -

itingtheabyss(chap.19);Ps76:17,theabysstroubledatthesightofGod(chap.19);Ps

103:24andJohn1:1,thewisdominwhichallarecreatedistheLogosofGod(chap.26);

Eccl1:4,theearthisestablishedforever(chap.31);Amos5:8and9:6,Godcommands

thewaters(chap.42);Gen7:11,19-20,thecataractsofheaven(chap.43);Luke4:25,3

Kings17,18:44-45,Gen7:11,4Kings7:2,andJames5:17-18,Elijahclosingandopen-

ingthewaterfallsofheaven(chap.44);Is40:12,Godmeasuresthecreation(chap.45);

Ps135:7and1Cor15:41,theluminaries(chap.65);Ps103:24,thegreatnessofGods

creation(chap.69);2Cor12:2-4,thethirdheaven(chap.75);2Cor4:18,thevisibleand

theinvisible(chap.76).Noneoftheseparallelscontributedecisivelytosolvetheissues

pointedoutbytheprologue.63 Cf.n.29.



20/27

364

translationsinGreek,64therestofthetreatiseshowsfarlessinterestinthe

narrative.There isactually amassive gap,betweenchapters31and63,

whereexceptforoneinstance(inchapter44)noreferencetotheaccount

onthecreationcanbefound.BeforeweproceedwiththeexaminationofSt

Gregorysmethod,itmaybeusefultopayattentiontotheuniquesample

ofconsistentexegesisintheentireApology,namely,theinterpretationof

Genesis1:1-2.65

Asageneralrule,StGregoryreadGenesisfromtheSeptuagint,the

versionpreferredbytheearlyChristianslongbeforehisowncentury. 66Itis

thecreationnarrativehefelttheneedtocomparetheSeptuagintwithother

translationsintoGreek,byAquila,SymmachusandTheodotion,whichwere

mainlyusedbytheHellenisedJewsofLateAntiquity.Itisuncertainwheth-

ertheNyssencitedtheseothersourcesdirectlyorfromOrigens Hexapla,

asitisalsounclearwhyheneededtovisitotherversionsofthetext.With

referencetothelatteraspect,Iwouldsuggestthatthiscomparativeanaly-

siswasperhapsmotivatedbyhisawarenessofthemisuse()ofthedivinewordsinthescripturalpractice;67thus,hemayhavedecided

thattoreachaclearerunderstandingofthefactsitwasnecessarytocollate

varioustranslations.Irrespectiveofthereasons,onethingiscertain,name-

ly,thathealternatedtheSeptuagintandAquilasversionintheelucidation

reads(inthebeginning).68Thispreferencemayhavebeendrawnfromthefactthat

Genesisasofferingtwodistinctviewpointsonthecreation,thatis,asone

eventandasaseriesofevents.69

64 Apology7(PG44,68D;Drobner,14.13).

65 Gen1,1-2a,161-82.

66 Cf.NatalioFernndezMarcos,TheSeptuagintinContext:IntroductiontotheGreekVer-

sionsoftheBible,translatedbyWilfredG.E.Watson(BostonandLeiden:BrillAcademic

Publishers,Inc.,2000),47-50.

67 Apology44(PG44,101C;Drobner,57.2-3).

68 Apology8(PG44,69D;Drobner,16.14-17.1).Cf.MoniqueAlexandre, LeCommencement

,ChristianismeAn-

tique3(Paris:Beauchesne,1988),67,71,withreferencestotheNyssensuseofAquilas

phrase.

69 Forcreationasoneevent,see Apology8(Drobner,16.14-17.19).Forcreationasaseries

ofevents,suggestede.g.bythemetaphoroftheseedthathasthepotentialtogrow,see

Apology16(Drobner,27.11-14).ThebestsummaryofthisdoubleperspectivecanbefoundinApology64(PG44,113C;Drobner,72.10-15).



21/27

365

StGregorysanalysisofthechaosmetaphorfromthesecondverseof

Genesisisevenmoreremarkable.Herehecitedallfourtranslations,point-

ingoutthatwhereastheSeptuagintreads

(invisibleandunstructured),70theotherthreeversionscontainverydif-

ferentsolutions.According to theNyssen,71

72 Theodotion renders the

phraseas

reduceseverything to (utter nothingness).73 These cita-

tionsdonotwhollycorrespondtotheHexapla;74eitherStGregoryuseda

differenteditionofit,orhesimplymisquotedit,iftheOrigenianworkwas

indeedhissource.Afewlinesbelow,theNyssennotedhisdislikeforthe

lastrenditionofthechaos,which,alongsideechoingtheEpicureannihilism

infactthefamouspolarityofDemocritus,

notionsofbodyandnothingnesswaslogicallyunsound( unintelligible).75Hisinterestinthesenuancesnotwithstanding,neveragain

didStGregoryrepeatthisexerciseintheApology,infactpayinglessand

lessattentiontothetextafterthispoint.

thecreationnarrativequiteinfrequently,thismayindicatethattheNys-

senprimarilyusedGenesisasapretextforhisowndiscourse.Forinstance,

whenheeventuallyaskedwhythescripturalaccountmentionedthelumi-

nariesafterthreedayswhereastheirrolewaspresupposedfarearlier,76StGregoryposedthisquestiononlyafterlengthyexplanationsofthevarious

naturalphenomena.77Moreover,whenreturningtothescripturalaccount,

sometimestheNyssenprovedtobeacriticalreader.Atsomepointhefelt

70 QuotedinApology

71 Apology17(PG44,80B;Drobner,28.12-15).

72

Gen1,1-2a,173-74.73 ForAquilasversion,PG44,80B,gives 74 The text of theHexapla as we know it offers different solutions for Aquilas and

OrigenisHexaplo-

rum,TomusI:Prolegomena,GenesisEsther,ed.FridericusField(Oxford:Clarendon,

1875),7.Fordetailsonthesetranslations,see

70;eadem,LeCommencementduLivre,76-77,79.

75 Apology

170.

76

Cf.Apology64(PG44,113AB;Drobner,71.19-21).77 Cf.Apology27-63(Drobner,40.16-71.18).



22/27

366

theneedtoquestiontheaccuracyofGenesis,whichdidnotseemtofol-

lowtheorderofcreation,atleastaspresentedbylogicandtheavailable

sciences.Moreprecisely,hefoundwhatappearedtobeanillogicalbreak

withinthenarrative,which,ratherthanintroducinglaterstagesofthecre-

ationprocesswassupposedtodealwiththemakeup( )ofthe

78Caughtinhis

atall,justasitdoesnotsharetheHellenisticdoctrineofthefourelements

either.Givensuchexamples,itisclearthattheApologywasintendedlessas

arigorousexegesisofGenesisandmoreasacosmologicalcomplementof

theanthropologyarticulatedinOntheMakingofMan.Certainlythelatter

-

mationmainlybiological,anatomicalandmedicalinnaturewithinthe

theologicaldiscourse,andcanitselfbeconsideredasanexegeticalworkonlyinalooseway.Itisverylikelythatbothworksaimedtofacilitatethe

transferoftheGenesismessagefromitsoriginal,Semiticsetting,intothe

culturalcategoriesoftheHellenisticworldofLateAntiquityataskonly

note,IturnnowtothemethodatworkintheApology.

Wehave found that in theApology the creationnarrative seems to

haveservedasapretextfortheNyssenseruditedescriptionsofnatural

phenomena,inlightoftheavailablesciences. 79earlierobservationthatoneofStPetersquerieswasabouttheorderofthe

cosmosassuch,irrespectiveofGenesis.Atleastonethingiscertain;byhis

brother.Iproposethereforethattheopinions,mentionedabove,accord-

ingtowhichtheApologyapproachesGenesisinanexegeticalfashion,and

thatitinterpretsthenarrativeofcreationliterally,arequestionablewhen

consideredoutsidethecomplexitiesofthetreatise.Afterall,theendofthe

prologuewarnsthatsincetheworkillustratestheauthorsefforttoexer-

cise()intellectuallytowardsmakingsenseofthings,itshould

78 Cf.Apology24(Drobner,37.11-38.10sq).

79 theApology,referredtoeitherdirectlyorindirectly,likewiseaseitherreliableorques-

tionableauthorities,amountto23authors.ItisnotclearwhetherDrobnerconsidered

thesesourcesasactuallyusedbyStGregoryorheonlymeanttodrawparallelstowell-

whomIamgratefulforthisobservation,noticedthatSimplicius,twicementionedby

Drobner(at25.7and29.12-17),wasa6 thcenturyauthor;theNyssencouldnothave



23/27

367

notbecreditedasanexegeticalteaching().80We

themethodatworkinthetreatiseandthegenretowhichitbelongs.One

waytodeterminetheseisbydiscoveringtheNyssenstrueinterests.Itis

-

timesStGregoryemphasisedthatcreationpointstotheCreator.Hisexpo-

sitiononGenesisandcosmologybegins,symptomatically,byevokingGods

will,wisdomandpower( )81asthe

vantagepointfortheconsiderationofeverythingthatis.CharlotteKckert

82Thus,despitePetersotherquery,which

referredtoalogicallyorganisedaccountonthedaysofcreation,theaimof

StGregorywasnottoreachabetterunderstandingofGenesis.Hisinterest

seemstohavebeen,alongsidetheefforttointegratethescripturalmessage

withGreekculture,andatleasttosomeextent,tofunctionaliseGenesisasatheologicaltool,morepreciselytoascribeitthetaskofinterpretingthe

cosmoswithinaGod-centredperspective.Inhisownwords,

[T]heprophetwrotethebookofGenesisasan introductionto the

divine knowledge ( ), the intention

()ofMosesbeingtoleadbythehand()those

enslavedbythesensesthroughthevisiblethingstothepercep-

tionofthethingsthattranscend()thesenses.83

Togetherwith its obviousPlatonic overtones, the above citation evokes

twopassagesfromtheBasilianHexaemeron,84relevanttothethemeofthe

cosmosasaschoolfortheGod-seekingpeople. 85StGregoryenvisagedthe

Apology as an interpretive toolindeed,butnotofGenesis.Regardlessof

theissuesraisedbyhisyoungersibling,itwasnotthenarrativeofcreation

thatwasinquestionhere;weshouldnotforgetthattheNyssenvoicedhis

respectfortheinspiredcharacterofGenesisfromtheoutset. 86Mypoint

coincideswithanoteofBouteneff,whodiscoveredasimilarattitudeto-

80 Apology6(PG44,68C;Drobner,13.20-14.2).

81 Apology7(PG44,68D-69A;Drobner,14.13-15.8).

82 83 Apology8(PG44,69D;Drobner,17.2-6).Here,theNyssenreiteratedwhathealready

statedabouthisbrotherspastoralstrategyadoptedintheHexaemeron;cf.Apology4(PG

44,65AB;Drobner,10.9-13).Cf.Apology13(PG44,69D-72A;Drobner,23.19-24.10),a

passageignoredbyKckertwhoonlyreferstochapters5,8and64.

84 Cf.Hexaemeron1.6(PG29,16BC);1.11(PG29,28AB).

85

86 Cf.n.56above.



24/27

368

wardGenesis inanotherNyssenianwork.87 Inall likelihood our treatise

wasmeantasaframeworkfortheconsiderationofthecosmostheway

itwasdepictedbytheavailablesciencesthroughascripturallens.Only

whenperusedwiththeeyesoffaith,asshapedbythewisdomofGene-

sis,couldtheworldbeseenasadivinesymboland/oratheophany.Daniel

StramaraaptlysummarisedtheNyssensnotionofthecosmosasleadingto

theknowledgeofGod,inpenetratingwordsalbeitwithoutreferringtothe

Apology.

Godscreationrevealstheologicalprinciplesatwork.Thelawsofna-

appreciationfortheDivineNature.88

Althoughthetheologicalperspectivewasnotthefocusofthetreatise,by

thisinterest,namely,thedepictionofcreationaspointingtoGod,theApol-

ogyismorecloselyrelatedtotheBasilianHexaemeronthanadmittedby

theNyssentotheGenesisaccountwaslessexegeticalandinfactmoresci-

Basil,inpresentingthecosmosasatheophanytheNyssenborrowedfrom

theapologeticgenre,illustrateddecadesearlierbyStAthanasiusAgainst

thePagans.89

TogetherwiththeunavowedgoaloftranslatingtheChristianworld-

viewthroughthe available sciences, theprominentfeatureoftheApolo-

gyremainsStGregoryspassionforcosmology.Bothaspectscorroborate

theapologeticgenreasthecontextofthetreatise.Corsiniseemstohave

alsohintedattheapologeticnatureofthewriting,withoutusingtheterm

though,whenstating thatthe treatisewasprimarilyconcernedwiththe

refutationoftheStoicdoctrineofekpyrosis.90WhilstIamnotconvinced

Asalreadypointedout,therearehoweverstrangeaspectsaboutthe

Apology,suchasitsverythintheologyandtheheavydisplayofscientif-

icprowess,whichmakeitpeculiarevenfortheapologeticgenre.Scholars

87 Cf.Bouteneff,Beginnings,154-55.

88 St

VladimirsSeminaryQuarterly46:2-3(2002):147-62,at155.

89

SeeforinstanceAgainstthePagans34-44(PG25,69A-88D).90



25/27

369

haverepeatedlypraisedtheNyssensawarenessofthesciencesofhistime,

inparticularphysicsandcosmology,91whichheexuberantlyparadedforhis

eruditereadership.TheportrayalofMoses,thepresumedauthorofGene-

sis,asphilosophisingontheemergenceofthecosmos()92seemstohavebeenthepretextforthisabundantre-MoniqueAlexandrepointedouttheNyssensintentiontoelaborateune

vision systmatiquedumonde, de sa cration,de son ordonnancement,

desapermanence,93emulatingthatofMosesandtheoneofhisownold-

ersibling.Inturn,andalongthesamelines,Gil-Tamayoassertedthatthe

Apology

thecreationnarrativeasaworthwhilesourceforthegeneralworldview.94AlthoughattheendoftheprologueStGregorystatedthathispurposewas

not toreconcile the contradictory opinions thatwere put forward,95the

prospectofhisattempttobridgethetwovisionsintoaholisticdepiction

ofrealityisworthpursuing;infact, Iintendtoreturntothismatterina

separatearticle.

Wehavenotyetreachedananswertothequestionsconcerningthe

reasonsforwhichStGregoryadoptedthisunusualapproachofdiscussing

-

91 -cianCosmology,DumbartonOaksPapers -vellesPerspectives,95,101-103;Meredith,GregoryofNyssa Nysseetlaphilosophie,inDrrie,Altenburger,Schramm(eds.), GregorvonNyssaund

diePhilosophie-DeAnimaetResurrectione:AstronomyandAutomata,JournalofTheologicalStudies-

sasVigiliaeChristianae63(2009):24-46.ForthepropensityoftheCappadocianstorelyonscienceinordertodemonstrateChristiantruths,andtheirgen-

eralappreciationforscholarship,seeJaroslavPelikan,ChristianityandClassicalCulture:

TheMetamorphosisofNaturalTheologyintheChristianEncounterwithHellenism (New

HavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,1993),22-39.

92 Apology1(PG44,61A;Drobner,6.2).Althoughscienceshouldbealsoconsideredinthis

-

93 creation,orderandpermanence(mytranslation).

94

95 Cf.Apology,prologue(PG44,68D;Drobner,14.6-8).



26/27

370

erIdiscussedapossiblesolutionforthisconundrum,namely,hisintention

toasserthimselfasascholarafterthereposeofhisbrother,andtheidea

proposedbysomescholarsthatheexclusivelytargetedaneducatedread-

ership.Itcouldlikewisebeaddedherehisapologetic-likeinterestinshow-

ingtheChristianworldviewasarespectablevoiceinthecosmologicalde-

batesofthetime.Furthermore,andrelated,itcouldbeevokedacontextual

reason,namely,thefactthat,togetherwiththeothertwoCappadociansand

otherChristianwritersofthetime,StGregoryhadtocounteracttherevival

ofpagancultureboostedbytheshortreignofJulian;inshort,hemusthave

believedChristiantheologianstobeunableoflikeexploits.Giventhelack

ofclaritywithinthetreatise,theissueremainsundecidable.Whatmatters

isthattheabovearesignsoftheApologyscomplexmethod,which,farfrom

beingreducibletoscripturalexegesis,prominentlydrawsontheearlytra-ditionofChristianapologetics.

ConcludingRemarks

Thearticleaddressedanumberofmisunderstandingsrelatedtothepur-

poseandthecharacterofStGregoryofNyssasApologyfortheHexaemeron,

mainlyreferring toitsconnectionwithStBasils legacyand thegenreto

whichitbelongs.WenoticedthattheNyssenstreatisewasnotprimarilyaboutdefendingand/orcontinuingtheBasilianHexaemeron,andthatSt

Gregoryentertainedhisowndistinctaims.Althoughtheauthorneverdis-

closedhisgoalsinfull,otherthanexpressinghisinterestintheorderofthe

cosmosandthelogicalarrangementofthecreationnarrative,weinferred

thattoalargeextenttheApologywasdesignedtodemonstratehisown

scholarlyworth,notwithstandingthetreatisespeculiarlackofstructure.

Welikewisefoundthatthemetaphysicalspeculationsandthespiritualtop-

icsarenotamongthestrengthsofthistreatise,andthatitstheologicalside

isnotverysolideither.Verylikelybecauseofitsweaktheologyandthelackofspiritualrelevance,theApologywasforgottenbytradition,althoughsim-

ilarapproachesemergedagainlater,intheByzantineera.Intermsofthe

methodatworkinthetreatise,wehaveseenthateventhoughbeginning

fromcertainexegeticalpresuppositions,StGregorypreferredtheapologet-

in the descriptionofnaturalphenomena, andthe attempt tobridge the

thetaskathand,theNyssenoversteppedhoweverthenaturalistdimension

ofthecommonCappadociandiscourseandthusproducedatreatisewhich

-



27/27

371

icalcontemplationofthecreation.Nevertheless,thisnaturalisticandscien-

statementontheprimacyofGodscreativeintention,wisdomandpower.

ThisstatementpointedtoStGregorysapologeticattempttomakeroom

forGenesisandtheologywithinthecosmologicaldebatesofhisowntime.

Therearehoweverotheraspectsthatdeservetobehighlightedbyway

ofconclusion.OneisthefactthatwithallitseccentricitiestheApologyof-

fersaglimpseofthecomplexitiesofpatristictradition,whichcannotbe

reducedtoanyfacileconsensus.Likewiserelatedtopatristictradition,by

thecriticalappreciationforthelegacyofhisoldersibling,theNyssenset

throughtheApologyaliteraryprecedentforthecenturiestocome.Forin-

stance,StMaximustheConfessorsMystagogyadoptedasimilarapproach

intheseventhcentury,96havinghadtograpplefurtherwithcertainliturgi-

calriteswhichhadalreadyreceivedtheirstandardinterpretationintheAr-

eopagitictreatise,TheEcclesiasticalHierarchy.97VerymuchlikeStGregory,

theConfessorwaschallengedtonavigatebetweenhisrespectforthework

ofanotherandhisownpursuits.

AnotherworthwhileaspectistheNyssenscontributiontoChristian

Itsweaknessesaside,thetreatiserepresentsafascinatingexperimentin

thecontextofthefourthcenturyattemptstoarticulateaChristianworl-

-

poraryChristianshavemuchtolearnfromtheknowhowofthosetimes.

Nevertemptedtoconsidertheologyandscienceasantagonistic,StGregory

showedinhisApologyhowthenarrativeofcreationcanserveasatheolog-

approach remains relevant since the currentclimate isnoless challeng-

ingtotheChristianconsciousnessthanthatofLateAntiquity.Givenallthe

above,itresultsthattheApologyremainsarichtreasurewhichrequires

furtherexploration.

96

Cf.TheMystagogy,prologue(PG91,660D-661A).97 TheEcclesiasticalHierarchy(PG3,369-584).

Documents

Costache - Approaching An Apology for the Hexaemeron: Its Aims, method and Discourse (Cappadocian Legacy)