Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
VOL. LXVII
Edited by
MARKUS VINZENT
Volume 15:
Cappadocian Writers
The Second Half of the Fourth Century
PEETERS
LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA
2013
Table of Contents
CAPPADOCIAN WRITERS
ABSTRACT
In Basil of Caesarea’s Hexaemeron 1, he introduces his first sermon on Genesis, and
indeed his entire cycle of homilies on the creation narrative, by indicating that listening
properly to his preaching requires one to be a certain kind of person. More specifically,
members of the Cappadocian’s audience need to have undergone purification. This
paper explicates what Basil means by purification, and it demonstrates how this require-
ment sets up key theological moves that he makes in Hexaemeron 1 and the rest of his
sermon series on Genesis.
on what for Basil is a logically prior point, as he makes clear even in that con-
text, that is, Scripture’s role in the course of human sanctification.2 The discus-
sion that follows revolves not around the question of which interpretive tech-
niques Basil applies to the Bible; rather, it focuses on the Cappadocian’s
construal of the hearer’s identity in terms that are both dynamic and theological.3
II
alternative explanations for Basil’s language. Richard Lim concludes that the exigencies of the
situation in which Basil spoke are the primary issue. Allegorical readings are fitting for a mature
audience, but the congregation to which Basil delivered this address was immature: Richard Lim,
‘The Politics of Interpretation in Basil of Caesarea’s Hexaemeron’, VC 44 (1990), 351-70, 361f.
For his part, Stephen Hildebrand does not find this convincing. While he agrees with Lim that the
Genesis sermons were not addressed to an advanced audience, he points to evidence that the same
holds for many of the sermons on the Psalms, in which Basil does seem to engage in allegorical
interpretations of the Psalter. Hence, a supposed difference in audience does not explain Basil’s
varying ways of handling the scriptural text. See Stephen M. Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theol-
ogy of Basil of Caesarea: A Synthesis of Greek Thought and Biblical Truth (Washington, 2007),
137f. Hildebrand’s counterproposal is, first, that Genesis is intrinsically less open to spiritual
interpretation than are other scriptural texts; and, second, that Basil becomes more alert to poten-
tial abuses of allegory later in his life. Especially in this first respect, Hildebrand’s reading is a
contemporary defense of the judicious line taken in Manlio Simonetti, Lettera e/o allegoria: Un
contributo alla storia dell’esegesi patristica (Rome, 1985), 143f.
2
Hexaemeron sermons 1-9 are indisputably by Basil. A number of scholars also accept that
Basil composed two additional sermons, Hexaemeron 10-1: see the editorial introduction to Basil,
Sur l’origine de l’homme: Hom. X et XI de l’‘Hexaéméron’, ed. Alexis Smets and Michel van
Esbroeck, SC 160 (Paris, 1970), 13-26, 81-126. Be that as it may, in this paper, I deal with only
sermons 1-9.
3
For helpful historical background on preachers and audiences in the fourth century, see
Jaclyn L. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom and
His Congregation in Antioch (Cambridge, 2006), 11-41; Isabella Sandwell, Religious Identity in
Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews, and Christians in Antioch (Cambridge, 2007). For specific consid-
eration of Basil and the other Cappadocians, see the still useful Jean Bernardi, La prédication des
Pères Cappadociens: Le prédicateur et son auditoire (Paris, 1968).
4
Hex. 1.1. I use, and often modify on the basis of the original Greek text, the English transla-
tions of Basil’s Hexaemeron from Basil: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry
Wace, vol. 8 of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Edinburgh, 1975). The
critical edition of the sermons is: Basil, Homilien zum Hexaemeron, ed. Emmanuel Amand de
Mendieta and Stig Y. Rudberg, GCS 2 (Berlin, 1997).
Who Can Listen to Sermons on Genesis? 15
5
Hex. 6.2.
6
Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology
(Oxford, 2004), 314. My emphasis.
7
Hex. 1.1. Translation altered.
8
Hex. 1.1. Translation altered.
9
Hex. 1.1. The analogy is noted but not fully explored by Marguerite Harl, ‘Les trois quaran-
taines de la vie de Moïse: Schéma de la vue du moîne-évêque chez les Pères Cappadociens’, REG
80 (1967), 407-12; Andrea Sterk, Renouncing the World yet Leading the Church: The Monk-
Bishop in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA, 2004), 62.
16 D. SARISKY
focuses more on the literary integrity of the homilies than on the sources from
which Basil draws.10
The basic requirement that Basil’s audience should follow the example of
Moses applies quite broadly, to the entire range of listeners in his audience.
It is not as if Moses is a paradigm only if one renounces the demands of
ordinary life, such as work and family. That this is true is perhaps most obvi-
ous when Basil addresses himself directly to a large group of artisans who
have assembled to hear his third sermon. Although these tradesmen are
actively engaged in a life of work – Basil even concedes that he cannot detain
them for too long, due to their obligations to return to their labour – as a
preacher, he presses upon them the same essential norm that he outlines in
his opening sermon: ‘Deliver your heart…’, he tells them, ‘from the cares of
this life and give close heed to my words.’11 The artisans are not exempt from
the purity stipulation, even though they spend much of their lives working in
the world: they too must put out of their mind worldly distractions if they are
to focus their minds on the biblical message. In other sermons, Basil addresses
people that he thinks may be engaging in spouse abuse, and others that he
thinks may well become entangled in avarice while gambling,12 yet he sees
his entire audience as enmeshed in the same essential set of spiritual dynam-
ics – they are prone to sin and need constantly to be purified – and he lays
the same purity mandate upon all. According to the scriptural narrative,
Moses spent decades in the desert prior to his encounter with God, yet listen-
ing to Genesis requires that Basil’s audience members undergo the same
movement that marked his life: putting aside attachments and concerns that
occlude one’s vision of God. The way the Cappadocian addresses a wide
audience subverts what Charles Taylor calls a ‘multi-speed system’ of Chris-
tianity, by which Taylor means enjoining a drastically higher standard of
Christian conduct upon renunciative vocations than upon those who remain
involved in work, family, and civic life.13
Why is it necessary for anyone to be a certain kind of person in the sense
outlined above? Basil’s answer is evident from the variety of ways in which
the introduction to Hexaemeron 1 sets up moves that he makes in his inter-
pretation of Genesis. First, the notion of purification has a bearing on how
the Cappadocian engages with Greek philosophies and scientific systems in
the course of his preaching. According to some of these systems, the world
simply exists on its own; divine causation has no place in explaining its
10
On the question of Basil’s sources, see Yves Courtonne, Saint Basile et l’hellénisme, étude
sur la rencontre de la pensée chrétienne avec la sagesse antique dans l’Hexaméron de Basile le
Grand (Paris, 1934); Basil, Homélies sur l’Hexaéméron, ed. Stanislas Giet, SC 26 (Paris, 1949),
47-69.
11
Hex. 3.1.
12
Hex. 7.5-6, 8.8.
13
Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA, 2007), 81.
Who Can Listen to Sermons on Genesis? 17
origin. The tack Basil takes as he advances his own contrary thesis is essen-
tially to shrug off this opposition. ‘The philosophers of Greece have taken a
great deal of trouble concerning nature, and not one of their systems has
remained firm and unshaken, each being overturned by its successor. Thus
the refutation is no work for us, for they are sufficient to destroy themselves.’14
The idea that non-Christian systems conflict with and undercut one another
is a common polemical strategy among patristic authors. What is noteworthy
is that Basil’s ‘opposition’ is not entirely extrinsic to his own congregation.
He speaks as if these ideas hold some sway over his own audience: he
assumes that these systems have insinuated themselves into the thinking of
his congregation, and that they need to be opposed if the story of creation is
to become intelligible for his listeners. To the extent that these philosophies
obscure what Basil wants to proclaim, that is, the divine origin of the cosmos,
he finds it necessary to criticize them. Where no such conflict exists, the
Cappadocian is happy to adopt and employ a whole range of these conceptu-
alities.
Basil utilizes a similar strategy when dealing with scientific reflection on the
natural world. This should not be entirely surprising, since there was not, in the
Cappadocian’s milieu, a hard-and-fast distinction between philosophy and sci-
ence. He is himself steeped in scientific knowledge, which is on display in each
of his sermons on creation; he is wary of scientific systems only to the extent
that they proceed without any reference to God. Preaching on the phrase ‘in the
beginning’ (ˆEn ârx±Ç), the very first Greek words of the Genesis text, Basil
confronts those who infer that the world is without an origin from the observa-
tion that the heavenly bodies move in a circular orbit.15 According to the way
that a circle is described within geometry, it has no defined beginning point: it
has a center, of course; its circumference, though, does not have a prescribed
initial point. This lack of a starting point does not mean, however, that the
observable celestial bodies have been in orbit from eternity. Part of the sig-
nificance of the word ‘beginning’ is to oppose this kind of reasoning. Basil has
harsh words for those who misuse geometry in such a way, yet notice the
precise way in which he focuses his critique: ‘Of what use then are geometry
– the calculations of arithmetic – the study of solids, and illustrious astronomy,
this laborious vanity, if those who pursue them imagine that this visible world
is co-eternal with the Creator of all things, with God himself; if they attribute
to this limited world, which has a material body, the same glory as to the
incomprehensible and invisible nature…’.16 Applying mathematical analysis to
the created world is not a problem in and of itself; it only becomes problematic
when those undertaking the analysis put God to the side. The Cappadocian
14
Hex. 1.2. Translation altered.
15
Hex. 1.3.
16
Ibid. My emphasis. Translation altered.
18 D. SARISKY
Let us not seek for a nature devoid of qualities by the conditions of its existence, but
let us know that all phenomena with which we see it clothed pertain to the conditions
of its existence and complete its essence. Try to take away by reason each of the
qualities it possesses, and you will arrive at nothing. Take away black, cold, weight,
density, the qualities which concern taste, in one word all these which we see in it, and
the substance vanishes.20
His intention here is to hold attributes and essence together, and to show how
various attributes of the created world point toward God when they are seen
with the eyes of faith. From this point of view, there is always more about the
world to understand, for there is always more about God to understand. Facile
claims to have grasped the essence of a created object bring this process to a
premature halt.
17
Hex. 1.4.
18
Hex. 1.8. Translation altered.
19
Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta, ‘The Official Attitude of Basil of Caesarea as a Christian
Bishop Towards Greek Philosophy and Science’, in D.A. Baker (ed.), Orthodox Churches and
the West (Oxford, 1976), 25-49, 41.
20
Hex. 1.8. Translation altered.
Who Can Listen to Sermons on Genesis? 19
III
This brings the discussion to the positive correlate of the process of purification
that has been in focus so far: hearers need a kind of readiness to hear Genesis
preached in that they must be willing to see glimpses of God in the world he
created. The first sermon deals especially with the negative moment, and sub-
sequent sermons develop the positive side more fully. While this dual process
is doubtless a messy one in the life of a given believer, there is nevertheless
something of a logical sequence operative here. The positive vision of God
becomes possible only once a sufficient number of obstacles to it have been
eliminated. Those who have attained a degree of purity can see the world in its
relationship to God. Basil uses a number of different images to depict this
relationship: the world is a school in which human beings are trained in the
knowledge of God, it is a work of art that prompts those contemplating it to
admire its creator, and it is God’s workshop.21 In this section of the essay, it is
impossible to offer an exhaustive account of the ways in which Genesis serves
as a pointer to the God who created the world. All that is feasible, within the
space constraints of this paper, is to give a small sampling of the reading strat-
egies that Basil applies to Genesis.
The biblical text guides hearers in seeing the world as testimony to God: this
semiotic potential is what one scholar refers to as the ‘figural function’ creation
exercises if it is seen in the light of scriptural witness.22 Understood in this way,
creation offers various pointers to the creator. First, it highlights its own
dependency and God’s corresponding absoluteness and independence. In Hex-
aemeron 5, Basil suggests that the grass of the field ought to bring to mind the
Isaiahnic text about all flesh being grass (40:6); grass should thus remind
Christians of the impermanence of human life.23 The underlying point has to
do with the contingency of the human person on God. A person can gain
strength and display a great deal of vigor in her prime, but she will inevitably
lose this strength in due course. The preacher’s intent here is to set a specific
feature of creation against the dual backdrop of the Genesis account and wider
scriptural testimony and, thereby, to bring out a theological issue. It is an asso-
ciative interpretation of creation that links together Genesis, Isaiah, and the
world itself. There are genuine resonances here between the Hexaemeron and
much later English Romantic poets such as Wordsworth, for whom the world
is shot through with a divine presence. Of course, there are major differences
as well: Basil construes created signs as distinct from that to which they point,
as we shall see at the conclusion of this section of the essay. The world depends
21
Hex. 1.6., 1.7, 4.1. See also Hex. 1.11, 3.10.
22
L. Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy (2004), 315.
23
Hex. 5.2.
20 D. SARISKY
on God, and it evokes thoughts of its creator. Yet the two are clearly distinct:
God remains transcendent.
Second, creation also contains telling examples of divinely established order.
The world consists of an array of entities with fixed natures and correlative
proper functions; in various ways, this providential order testifies to the creator.
For instance, every plant has its place, Basil says, some for the animals to eat,
some for human beings to consume, and so on.24 This demonstrates God’s
ongoing solicitude for the created world. The same point shines through in the
way that certain animals demonstrate foresight, such as the sheep’s eating
plenty of grass when winter is approaching, and the supply of food is beginning
to dwindle. Giving this species such an instinct is God’s way of providing for
it. In addition, Basil derives a moral for human beings from the proper behav-
ior of these animals. He says, ‘When we consider the natural and innate care
that these creatures without reason take of their lives we shall be induced to
watch over ourselves and to think of the salvation of our souls.’25 In this way,
the natural world points to a spiritual truth.26
Third, the divine act of creation to which Genesis points, sometimes only with
subtle hints, is a work of the triune God, a joint act in which the Father, the Son,
and the Spirit act as the one God they in fact are. As in the passages cited previ-
ously, here Basil reads these texts against a broader biblical background. In his
third sermon, he provides a Christological interpretation of the command, ‘Let
there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from
the waters’ (Gen. 1:6).27 In his interpretive reflection, the Cappadocian utilizes
plainly theological criteria to arrive at his reading of the passage. He asks how
24
Hex. 5.9.
25
Hex. 9.3.
26
Only because the initial created order is good can Basil infer how people ought to conduct
themselves from how things are in the world. He deduces ought from is because Genesis 1 por-
trays reality as it should be. Yet Basil preaches to an audience that lives in a postlapsarian world.
So how can he use Genesis 1 as a lens through which his hearers can come to understand what
is a genuinely different situation? He offers nothing like a full-scale theodicy, but the Cappado-
cian employs a few different strategies to handle the existence of evil. Sometimes, instances of
malice serve as negative examples, ones that human beings ought not to follow. Crabs are indus-
trious but malicious, according to Basil; they love to eat oysters, but are unable to open the
oyster’s shell on their own. Therefore the crab sneaks a pebble between the two halves of the shell
when they are not entirely shut as a ploy to extract the oyster from its protective covering (Hex.
7.3). Human beings, on the other hand, are charged to love their neighbours. At other times, Basil
argues that some things that seem evil may not be straightforwardly evil, such as a plant that is
poisonous to one species yet helpful to another (Hex. 5.4). The closest he comes to offering a
comprehensive account of evil is to portray it as a privation, not an independent essence in and
of itself, not an ens creatum that issues from God (Hex. 2.4). Despite the presence of evil in the
post-fall world, Basil presupposes that reality as it exists for his audience still approximates Gen-
esis 1 sufficiently closely that it can indeed be understood through the framework of the biblical
text.
27
Hex. 3.2.
Who Can Listen to Sermons on Genesis? 21
God speaks, whether after the manner of human beings, who receive sense impres-
sions from external objects, conceptualize these data, and then articulate their
thoughts in literal speech. Or, perhaps God ‘speaks’ in an altogether different way,
issuing a command to the Word of God, by whom he works ad extra. ‘It is he [the
Word] whom Scripture indicates in its details, in order to show that God has not
only wished to create the world, but to create it with the help of a coworker.’28
Basil notes that this second reading is preferable since the first is culpably anthro-
pomorphic. The second, by contrast, is more in line with ‘true religion’.29 With
this criterion, he invokes not so much a scriptural canon as a biblically-formed
doctrine of God as his interpretive standard. The Cappadocian pauses to explain
why he thinks the command is just inchoate in its indication of Christ. ‘It is not
that [this text] grudges us knowledge’, he says, ‘but rather that it may kindle our
longing by showing us some trace and indication of the mystery.’30 Basil’s work-
ing assumption is that listeners come to full knowledge of God over the course of
time, not all at once, and are aided in this even by veiled remarks and hints in
scriptural narrative. Difficult texts require a great deal of effort, yet interpreters
tend to savor all the more that for which they must work.31
Basil is slightly more reticent in giving Genesis a pneumatological interpreta-
tion than he is in construing it Christologically. When the Cappadocian comes to
Gen. 1:2, which speaks of the Spirit moving on the waters, he deliberates between
a couple of different readings.32 Does ‘spirit’ refer simply to air? The text would
then be enumerating the elements of creation, one of them being air, which is now
said to be diffused and in motion above a body of water. The other option is to
take the text in a more directly theological way and to read ‘Spirit’ as the Spirit
of God, the person who completes the Trinity. Basil opts for this interpretation,
citing as his ground the frequency with which Scripture uses pneÕma to stand for
the person of the Spirit. Basil does not expound his exegetical argument in much
depth: he does not seem to feel a great deal of pressure to explain why pneÕma
should refer to God here, even though it often refers to other things in other con-
texts. That the term frequently carries a theological sense suffices for him in this
sermon. Finding a pointer to the Spirit in Gen. 1:2 allows Basil to claim that the
Spirit, as well as the Father and the Son, took an active part in creation.
Seeing creation as a witness to the triune God in this way is, however, mark-
edly different from identifying God with the world, something the Cappadocian
is anxious to avoid doing. Basil does want his audience to learn how to see the
divine worker in the work of creation, yet he is keen to underscore that the
being of God forever transcends creation. The Cappadocian is only a few lines
28
Ibid. Translation altered.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid. Translation altered.
31
Another Christological reading can be found in Hex. 3.4.
32
Hex. 2.6.
22 D. SARISKY
into his exposition of the opening words of Genesis when he establishes that
the infinite God exceeds the finite world. The work of creating shows only a
‘very small part of the power of the Creator’, he states, in the same way that
the abilities of a potter are not exhausted when he has made a number of ves-
sels.33 ‘The maker of all these things does not have a power that is capable of
making just one cosmos; it can extend to infinity, needing only the inclination
of his will to bring the greatness of the visible world into being.’34 So, even as
creation testifies to God, God exceeds creation and is not exhaustively known
by means of it. Basil’s intention to undercut any contrived promotions of the
created world brings him into confrontation with astrology in a later sermon.
He dedicates his sixth homily to the creation of the sun and the moon, and part
of the message is given over to a vigorous polemic against astrology. Against
the view that heavenly bodies control human destiny, and that future events can
be read off of the motion of the sun and moon, Basil emphasizes the relative
insignificance of these objects. He reads the text of Genesis to say that light
shone on creation prior to the creation of the sun, and that living things grew
without its aid at first: clearly, he is not deterred by Origen’s ridicule of any
such interpretation and thinks, instead, that with God all things are possible.
For Basil, God created in this way to undermine the belief that the sun is the
ultimate origin of the light on which life depends.35 The Cappadocian brings
his discussion back to the more general point about divine transcendence, and
ends his sixth homily with a dramatic flourish, saying: ‘Compared with their
author, the sun and moon are but a fly and an ant. The whole universe cannot
give us a right idea of the greatness of God; and it is only by signs, weak and
slight in themselves, often by the help of the smallest insects and of the least
plants, that we raise ourselves to Him.’36 Thus Scripture trains people to see
creation as a signum pointing to God, but it is one whose testimony falls far
short of the reality itself, which the sign struggles to indicate.
IV
33
Hex. 1.2.
34
Ibid. Translation altered.
35
Hex. 6.2. See also Hex. 5.1, 6.5.
36
Hex. 6.11.
Who Can Listen to Sermons on Genesis? 23
exhortations are easy to discern; and yet he made explicit his awareness that, in the
Hexaemeron, he was addressing ‘ordinary’ people with many other preoccupations.
It was to this audience that he presented the very highest ideal, an intimate dialogue
with God: for in the straightforward words of the sacred text … it was ultimately God
himself who was revealed to the true exegete.37
If the words of Genesis are straightforward in any sense, certainly the way in
which they make reference to God is not, as we have seen. What is true is that,
for Basil, the ‘true exegete’ is necessarily an ascetic in the sense that he must
divest himself of all that obscures his view of God in the created world. Seeing
God is not a task that human beings perform spontaneously, naturally, or auto-
matically. They need to be shown how to see; this is where scripture becomes
important, yet even proper reading necessitates formation on the part of the
interpreter. This involves relinquishing one’s attachment to systems of thought
that run against the grain of Scripture’s portrayal of the origin of the world;
distancing oneself from overly restrictive ontological accounts, ones that claim
that essences are easily within reach and that therefore exclude the contingency
of all created being on the divine mystery; and opening oneself to signs of God
in the created order. The positive side of this process cannot proceed unless the
interpreter has made some progress through the negative side.
Basil’s reading of Genesis is certainly not the sort of interpretation that we
are used to now, but the Hexaemeron is important precisely because it is a
compelling statement of a neglected theological anthropology, one with the
capacity to unsettle today’s ingrained habits of thought.
37
Philip Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley, 1994), 327.
STUDIA PATRISTICA
PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE SIXTEENTH INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON PATRISTIC STUDIES
HELD IN OXFORD 2011
Edited by
MARKUS VINZENT
Volume 1
STUDIA PATRISTICA LIII
FORMER DIRECTORS
Volume 2
STUDIA PATRISTICA LIV
Volume 3
STUDIA PATRISTICA LV
Volume 4
STUDIA PATRISTICA LVI
REDISCOVERING ORIGEN
Volume 5
STUDIA PATRISTICA LVII
Volume 6
STUDIA PATRISTICA LVIII
Volume 7
STUDIA PATRISTICA LIX
Volume 8
STUDIA PATRISTICA LX
Volume 9
STUDIA PATRISTICA LXI
Volume 10
STUDIA PATRISTICA LXII
HISTORICA
Volume 11
STUDIA PATRISTICA LXIII
BIBLICA
Volume 12
STUDIA PATRISTICA LXIV
ASCETICA
LITURGICA
ORIENTALIA
CRITICA ET PHILOLOGICA
Volume 13
STUDIA PATRISTICA LXV
APOCRYPHA
Julian Petkov, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Techniques of Disguise in Apocryphal Apocalyptic Literature:
Bridging the Gap between ‘Authorship’ and ‘Authority’.....................241
22 Table of Contents
Volume 14
STUDIA PATRISTICA LXVI
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
Jana Plátová, Centre for Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Texts, Olo-
mouc, Czech Republic
Die Fragmente des Clemens Alexandrinus in den griechischen und
arabischen Katenen...............................................................................3
Volume 15
STUDIA PATRISTICA LXVII
CAPPADOCIAN WRITERS
Volume 16
STUDIA PATRISTICA LXVIII
Volume 17
STUDIA PATRISTICA LXIX
LATIN WRITERS
NACHLEBEN
Volume 18
STUDIA PATRISTICA LXX