CAPPADOCIAN LEGACY

ACriticalAppraisal
Editedby
DoruCostacheandPhilipKariatlis
StAndrewsOrthodoxPress
Sydney,2013
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 1 5/09/13 12:10 AM
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
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 2 5/09/13 12:10 AM
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..................................................................................................................................77
ChristianWorldview: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
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 3 5/09/13 12:10 AM
GregorytheTheologianASpiritualPortrait
ArchbishopStylianosofAustralia................................................................................................ 215
SeekingOuttheAntecedentsoftheMaximian
TheoryofEverything:StGregorytheTheologiansOration28.
DoruCostache...................................................................................................................................... 225
Whatthen?IstheSpiritGod?Certainly!StGregorysTeaching
ontheHolySpiritastheBasisoftheWorldsSalvation
PhilipKariatlis..................................................................................................................................... 243
ScriptureintheWorksofStGregorytheTheologian
MargaretBeirne.................................................................................................................................. 261
StGregorytheTheologiansExistentialMetanarrativeofHistory
MarioBaghos........................................................................................................................................ 275
FeaturesoftheTheandricMysteryofChristin
theChristologyofStGregorytheTheologian
AnthonyPapantoniou....................................................................................................................... 299
4.THELEGACYOFSTGREGORYOFNYSSA
DivineProvidenceandFreeWillinGregoryofNyssa
andhisTheologicalMilieu
BronwenNeil........................................................................................................................................ 315
DazzlingDarknessTheMysticalorTheophanic
TheologyofStGregoryofNyssa
PhilipKariatlis..................................................................................................................................... 329
ApproachingAnApologyfortheHexaemeron:
ItsAims,MethodandDiscourse
DoruCostache...................................................................................................................................... 349
SpiritualEnrichmentthroughExegesis:StGregoryofNyssa
andtheScriptures
MargaretBeirne.................................................................................................................................. 373
ReconsideringApokatastasisinStGregoryofNyssas
OnTheSoulandResurrectionandtheCatecheticalOration
MarioBaghos........................................................................................................................................ 387
INFORMATIONABOUTTHECONTRIBUTORS.................................................................. 417
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 4 5/09/13 12:10 AM
349
ApproachingAnApologyfortheHexaemeron:ItsAims,
MethodandDiscourse
DoruCostache
Abstract:Thearticleaddressesaseriesofcurrentassumptionsabout
St Gregory of Nyssas Apology, such as its supposed exegetical char-
acter,anditsintentofdefendingandcontinuingStBasilsHomilieson
theHexaemeron.Thepresentationofthisotherwiseignoredtreatise
isfollowedbyananalysisofitspeculiarities,mainlyitsunstructured
formtogetherwithitslackofinterestintheologyandspirituality.The
articlelikewisediscussestheApologysattitudetowardstheBasilian
Hexaemeron anu the scientiic oi natuialistic appioach auopteu by it
Thelastaspectpointstotheapologeticaspectofthetreatise,asprev-
alent over the exegetical one. The article concludes by highlighting
therelevanceofthistreatisetotheunderstandingoftraditionandthe
effortsofmediatingthescripturallybasedChristianworldviewbythe
means of vaiious scientiic paiauigms
Inthefollowing,IexplorealargelyignoredtreatiseauthoredbyStGregory
of Nyssa, entitled , An Apology for the
Hexaemeron,alsoknownas ,OntheHexaemeron.
1
After
ThearticlewasinitiallypublishedinPhronema27:2(2012),andreprintedhereinarevised
form At vorious stoqes of eloborotion tbis poper bos qreotly beneiteJ from tbe observotions
of David Bradshaw, Adam Cooper, Fr John Anthony McGuckin, Philip Kariatlis, Bronwen Neil
andJohannesZachhuber.Asusual,MarioBaghostookcareofmystylisticshortcomings.Iam
deeplygrateful.
1
I used the critical edition of the , published in Gregorii Nysseni In
Hexaemeron: Opera Exegetica in Genesim, part I, ed. Hubertus R. Drobner (Leiden and
Boston:Brill,2009).Inaddition,Icheckedthe
,publishedinMignesPatrologiaGraeca(PG44,61-124),in-
cludingitsreeditedversionasin,
, vol. 5, ed. Panayiotis Chrestou (: and
, 1987), 248-360. All translations from the original are mine; I
alsoconsultedthemodernGreekrenditionofChrestouandtheRomanianversionfrom
SfntulGrigoriedeNyssa,Scrieri,SecondPart:ScrieriExegetice,Dogmatico-Polemice,i
Morale,Piini ,i Sciiitoii Biseiice,ti tians anu notes by Teouoi Bouogae Bucuie,ti
EdituraInstitutuluiBiblic,ideMisiunealBisericiiOrtodoxeRomne,1998),92-128.In
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 349 5/09/13 12:11 AM
350
introducing the context and the main features of the Apology, as the trea-
tise will be designated hereafter, I shall discuss the Nyssens approach to
thecreationnarrativeinGenesis1andtothenaturalsciencesofthetime
(without offering a detailed analysis of the cosmography therein), along
with examining the rapports between his method and the one employed
byStBasiltheGreatintheHomiliesontheHexaemeron.Thiscomparisonis
requiredbythefactthatusually,asweshallsee,theApologyisconsidered
primarily a defence and development of the Basilian homilies, an opinion
whichIchallengeinpart,giventhediscontinuitiesbetweenthetwoworks,
andStGregoryspersonalagenda.Itisthecontentionofthispaperthatin
writing the Apology St Gregory was less interested in securing his broth-
erslegacyandinfactmoreinterestedtoasserthisownscholarlystanding.
With reference to the method, I shall argue that St Basils more rigorous-
lyexegeticalapproach,anapproachdoubledbyhisintentiontoinspirean
ethical conuuct anu a uoxological attituue inus only weak echoes in the
scientiically oiienteu methou at woik in the Apologyanditseducatedread-
ership.
2
AndrewLouthwasrighttoobservethat,apartfromtheirtheolog-
ical commonality and interwoven lives, the Cappadocians had individual
minds.
3
Theultimatepurposeofthisarticleistodeterminethenatureof
theNyssensApology,usuallyconsideredanexegeticalworkwhenitshould
be classiieu as an apologetic tiact that contains only infiequent exegeti-
calincursions.Therearewithinit,asweshallsee,featuresthatpertainto
the genre of early Christian apologetics, concerned with bridging theolo-
gyandculture,andwithpresentingtheologyasaworthwhilecontributor
in matters of worldview. Accordingly, whilst engaging the various ancient
cosmologies,StGregorysworkaimstoprovethedivinemakingoftheuni-
versethroughthecontemplationofitsunderlyingorder(anaspectwhich
cannot be addressed here in detail). The article will close by highlighting
the contribution of the treatise in the areas of tradition and the efforts of
allreferencestotheApology,thetitleoftheworkisfollowedbynumbersindicatingthe
chaptersaccordingtotheeditionofDrobner,followedwithinthebracketsbythecorre-
spondingcolumnsinPGandtherespectivepage(s)andline(s)intheeditionofDrobner.
2
On the contrast between the Nyssens intentions and St Basils pastoral approach, see
}uan Antonio uilTamayo Akolouthia in TheBrillDictionaryofGregoryofNyssa,ed.by
LucasFranciscoMateo-SecoandGiulioMaspero,revisedandexpandedEnglishedition,
tians by Seth Cheiney Leiuen Biill esp Chiestou in
, , Vol. 5 (cited above n.1): 7-16, esp. 10; Peter C.
Bouteneff, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives
(GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2008),155.
3
Cf Anuiew Louth The Cappauocians in Fiances Young Lewis Ayies anu Anuiew Louth
(eds.),TheCambridgeHistoryofEarlyChristianLiterature(Cambridge:CambridgeUni-
versityPress,2004,reprinted2006):289-301,here289.
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 350 5/09/13 12:11 AM
351
aiticulating the Chiistian woiluview within vaiious cultuial anu scientiic
paradigms.
IntroducingtheApology
Giventherelativesilencesurroundingthistreatiseinrecentscholar-
ship
4
anditsabsencefromthemainstreampatristictradition,anintroduc-
tiontotheApologyisnecessary.InEnglishspeakingscholarshipthissilence
isonlyrarelybroken,suchasinthereviewincludedbyPeterBouteneffin
his Beginnings,
5
the analysis of the concept of seed by Charlotte Kckert,
6

andthe(recentlytranslated)encyclopaediaarticlebyJuanAntonioGil-Ta-
mayo.
7
We cannot establish with any certainty when the Apology was pub-
lisheu Contempoiaiy scholais insist on the extieme uificulty if not the im-
possibility,oftracinginanincontrovertiblewaythechronologyofStGreg-
orys works,
8
mainly because of the sparse references to historical events
inhiswritings.ForthisreasonIdonotintendtoventureintothislandof
uncertaintyotherthantangentially,bothinrelationtothedateoftheApolo-
gyandthebetter-knowntreatisewhichaccordingtoanauctorialnote
9
pre-
cedesit,namely,OntheMakingofMan Sufice it to say that in all likelihoou
4
Foi instance Louth The Cappauocians consiueis On the Making of Man as an
appendix to St Basils Hexaemeron but pays no attention to the Apology. For a similar
approach,seeCharlesKannengiesser,HandbookofPatristicExegesis:TheBibleinAncient
Christianity(LeidenandBoston:Brill,2006),753.
5
Cf.Bouteneff,Beginnings,154-57.
6
Chailotte Kockeit The Concept of Seeu in Chiistian Cosmology uiegoiy of Nyssa Ap-
ologia in Hexaemeron, Studia Patristica 47 (Leuven - Paris - Walpole: Peeters, 2010):
27-32.
7
}uan Antonio uilTamayo BEX Apologia in Bexaemeion in 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,
Chionology of Woiks in TheBrillDictionaryofGregoryofNyssa(citedaboven.2):153-
69, esp. 153, 157; Anthony Meredith, The Cappadocians (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs
SeminaryPress,1995),53-54.
9
Cf.Apology77,epilogue(PG44,124A;Drobner,84.3).
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 351 5/09/13 12:11 AM
352
both treatises were published soon after St Basils death, although not all
scholarssharethisopinion.
10
I shall ietuin to the signiicance of this mattei
Together with its preceding anthropological treatise, the Apology is
dedicatedtoayoungersibling,StPeter,laterbishopofSebasteia.According
to the prologue, Peter asked the Nyssen to clarify some obscure points in
the creation narrative, which St Basils Hexaemeron had left unaddressed
anu foi which ieason the gieat Cappauocian hau come unuei the ciossiie
of some unnamed detractors. Interestingly, as we shall see below, these
criticisms coincided with the concerns of St Peter himself, and one might
wonderwhetherornotthelatterwastheactualsourceofthosequeries.
11

An issue raised by the anonymous critics was St Basils silence regarding

the possibility of day and night in the initial stages of creation, i.e. in the
absence of the sun and other celestial bodies, which were mentioned by
Genesisonlyinthefourthday.
12
AnotherquestionunansweredbytheBasil-
ianHexaemeronreferredtothedisinterestofGenesisinthethirdheaven,
10
uilTamayo BEX Apologia in Bexaemeion believes that the Apology was pub-
lished in early 379, a few months after On the Making of Man Similaily in the Intio-
duction of his translation of the Apology into Romanian, Teodor Bodogae (cf. Sfntul
GrigoriedeNyssa,Scrieri,citedaboven.1,9-14,esp.10,12),arguesthatthetwotreatises
related to the Basilian Hexaemeron were written shortly after the great Cappadocians
supposedyearofrepose,i.e.379.BodogaetakesthementionofEasterintheprologue
ofOntheMakingofManasreferringtothePaschalseasonof379,concludingthatthe
Apologyshouldhavebeenwrittentowardsthemiddleofthesameyear.Thisopinionis
alsosharedbyAnnaM.Silvas,GregoryofNyssa:TheLettersIntroduction,Translation
and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 40. In the same vein, Manlio Simonettis article
Exegesis in TheBrillDictionaryofGregoryofNyssa,citedaboven.2,331-38,esp.331)
placesthetwoworksalittleafter379,whereasJeanLaplace,translatorofOntheMak-
ingofMan in Fiench believes that the Apology was publisheu in Cf his Intiouuc-
tiontoGrgoiredeNysse,LaCrationdelHomme,SourcesChrtiennes(ParisandLyon:
ditionsduCerfandditionsdelAbeille,1943):5-77,esp.4.ThesamegoeswithKck-
eit The Concept of Seeu in Chiistian Cosmology In tuin anu without explanation
Meredith(TheCappadocians,53)pushesthedateofredactionsomewherebetween380
and 382. Later, in his Gregory of Nyssa, The Early Church Fathers (London: Routledge,
1999, reprinted 2002), 5, Meredith proposes that the two writings were published in
theintervalbetweenBasilsdeathand386.Similarly,Heine(GregoryofNyssasTreatise
on the Inscriptions of the Psalms, 7) believes that On the Making of Man was published
sometimebetween383and385,orsoonafter,possiblyinConstantinople,areasoning
whichimplicitlyreferstotheApologytoo,althoughHeineignoresthelattertreatise.Very
generally,Kannengiesser,HandbookofPatristicExegesis,753,believesthatmuchofthe
Nyssens liteiaiy output was piouuceu in the last ifteen yeais of his life St uiegoiy sup-
posedlydiedin395).ThepossibilityofalaterredactionwasalsosuggestedbyJohannes
Quasten,Patrology,Vol.3(Westminster:ChristianClassicsInc.,1986),256.
11
Cf.Bouteneff,Beginnings,154.
12
Cf.Apology3(PG44,64C;Drobner,8.12-9.1).
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 352 5/09/13 12:11 AM
353
mentionedin2Corinthians12:2.
13
TothesequeriesStPeterexplicitlyadd-
ed his own interest in a logically organised ( ) story of creation,
one able to go beyonu Noses ostensibly incongiuous ) pre-
sentationofthefacts,andinbringingGenesistoanaccord(
withthewholeofScripture.
14
Inadditiontotheworriescausedtohimby
the inauveitences of the naiiative Petei was obsesseu with inuing out the
necessaryorderofcreation( ).
15
Thinking
oftheNyssensapproachtosuchmatters,asmadeobviousbyhislengthy
and erudite expositions on natural phenomena, it seems that Peter was
iist anu foiemost inteiesteu in the cosmic oiuei iiiespective of uenesis
I shall ietuin to this mattei But iist we shoulu note anothei point which
mayexplainwhytheApologyissometimesconsideredatreatiseconcerned
with metaphysical speculations. True, the Nyssen hinted that his younger
brotherwasinterestedincertainmysticalaspects,termedasthedarkness
of vision of ineffable things (
inaccessibleforthoseatthefoothillsofSinai.
16
Forsomereason,however,
andinstarkcontrasttohisOntheMakingofMan,inwhichspiritualinter-
pretationsabound,theNyssenwasnotinterestedinsuchtopicsherejust
ashewasnotsteadilyconcernedwithapproachingGenesisexegetically,as
weshallseeinduecourse.
St uiegoiys iist ieaction to the above ciiticisms was to justify his el-
der brothers choice of circumventing the more delicate aspects of Gene-
sis by his pastoral sensitivity. Thus, he noted that in his homilies St Basil
purposely adopted a method and a manner of speech which aimed at ed-
ifyingthemembersofthecongregation,botheducatedanduneducated.
17

The detractors could not grasp the true purpose () pertaining to

13
Cf.Apology3(PG44,64CD-65A;Drobner,9.1-9).TheNyssenattemptedtoanswerthis
question in Apology 75-76 (PG 44, 120D-121D; Drobner, 81.1-83.9) by identifying the
third heaven with the vision of the noetic realm. On the interest of St Gregory in this
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, The Classics of Western Spirituality Series (New York and Mahwah: Paulist Press,
1978),90-93.
17
Cf.Apology4(PG44,65AB;Drobner,9.16-11.2).Seefurthernuancesonthismatterin
}aclyn Naxwell The Attituues of Basil anu uiegoiy of Nazianzus towaiu 0neuucateu
Christians,StudiaPatristica47(citedaboven.6):117-22.
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 353 5/09/13 12:11 AM
354
theteaching( of oui fathei which leu the Nyssenswiftlyto
discardasimproperboththeirquestionsandthequeriesofStPeter.
18
Re-
garding Peters interest in mystical speculations, St Gregory urged him to
leadthesearchbyprayeronlyandguidedbytheSpiritofrevelation(
).
19
Wediscernhereanechooftheprecautions
takenbyStBasilintheprologueoftheHexaemeron,
20
whenreferringtothe
neeu foi peisonal puiiication as a conuition foi loftiei contemplations In
rehearsingthepresuppositionsoftheprayerfullifeanddivineillumination,
St uiegoiy uisplayeu his own awaieness of the uificulties inheient to such
undertakings.Hisprovisionnotwithstanding,bytrustingintheprayersof
his younger brother, the Nyssen eventually accepted the challenge, which
consistedinsearchingtheScripturesfortheorderofthingscreated.
21
We
will see later that this amounted to taking Genesis as a pretext for an in-
tiicate anu eiuuite uepiction scientiic in natuie of physical phenomena
Whilstembarkingonthistask,theNyssenstatedonceagainhisreverence
for St Basil and the latters celebrated homilies, whose authority on such
topics was yet unsurpassed. By contrast, he continued humbly, his own
Apologywasmorelikeaconjecturalscholarlygymnastic(
),
22
adraftessayoranintellectualexercise
23
ratherthana
commandinginterpretationofGenesis.
24

Mentioning the provisional character of the writing, we reach the

interesting matters of the shape and content of this puzzling text,
25
as
Bouteneffdubbedit.Whereastheearliertreatise,OntheMakingofMan,is
both elegant and rigorously structured, a fact made obvious from its pro-
logue,
26
theApologydoesnotseemtofollowaplanandthereforepresents
18
Cf.Apology4(PG44,65A;Drobner,9.16-17).Formoreonthismatter,seeGil-Tamayo,
BEX Apologia in Bexaemeion
19
Cf.Apology5(PG44,68B;Drobner,13.4-6).
20
Cf. Hexaemeron Pu AA See on this Boiu Costache Chiistian Woiluview
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
The phiase belongs to uilTamayo BEX Apologia in Bexaemeion
24
Cf.Apology6(PG44,68BC;Drobner,13.11-14.2).
25
Cf.Bouteneff,Beginnings,154.
26
Cf. On the Making of Man, prologue, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series,
vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 387-88, gives the
contentsbeforetheactualtreatise.SodoestheRomanianversion,at16-8.Inturn,the
contentsarealtogethermissingfromthePatrologiaGraeca44,theeditionofPanayiotis
ChrestouandtheFrenchversionintheSourcesChrtiennesseries.
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 354 5/09/13 12:11 AM
355
no discernible order in contrast with St Gregorys claimed commitment
to the principle of or the ordered sequence.
27
The division of
thetextinnumberedsectionsbelongstomoderneditors,
28
andshouldnot
betakenasillustratingaconsistentarrangementofitsdiscourse.Theonly
noticeable structure is that of the Nyssen loosely following the creation
narrative,
29
whichdenotesadiscontinuousinterestintheinterpretationof
thelatter.Carefullyexamined,thewritingappearstobealabyrinthofvari-
ations on and notes related to Genesis 1 and cosmology, with the author
often abanuoning the cuiient theme foi some ample scientiic uigiessions
onlytoreturntoitandthentoleaveitagainattimesreiteratingthesame
topicincontradictoryoratleastdifferentways,aspointedoutbyMonique
Alexandre.
30
Inshort,theApologyisanunsystematicparadeofsophistica-
tion,anddoesnotpresentthestructureofarigoroustreatise.
We retain from the above that in his engagement with the Genesis
naiiative of the six uays of which he uealt only with the iist foui St uieg-
oiy auopteu a heavy scientiic methou anu a veiy technical jaigon impies-
sive,ifwethinkofhismostlyinformaleducation,andpeculiar,sincehewas
27
0n this piinciple as cential to the Apology see uilTamayo Akolouthia in 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 (Gen 1:3), 23.18-19 (Gen 1:4); chap. 13, 24.15 (Gen 1:5); 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 (Gen 1:2); chap. 17, 28.14-15 (Gen 1:2); chap 18, 30.2-5, 31.3-6 (Gen 1:5-8);
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
(Gen 1:9); chap. 27, 40.16-17 (Gen 1:7); chap. 31, 44.3-4, 10-13 (Gen 1:31); chap. 44,
57.12-14, 57.1-2 (Gen 1:6-8); chap. 63, 71.13-14 (Gen 1:6-7); chap. 64, 71.20-21 (Gen
1:13-7), 72.12-13 (Gen 1:1); chap. 65, 72.16, 73.7-9, 17-18 (Gen 1:3-5); 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
Cf Nonique Alexanuie LExgese ue uen a uans lInHexaemerondeGrgoirede
Nysse: Deux approaches du problme de la matire, in HeinrichDrrie,Margarete Al-
tenburger, Uta Schramm (eds.), Gregor von Nyssa und die Philosophie: Zweites Interna-
tionoles Kolloquium berGregorvonNyssa,FreckenhorstbeiMnster18-23Sept1972
(Leiden:Brill,1976):159-86,esp.160-61.
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 355 5/09/13 12:11 AM
356
afterallaChristianshepherd.True,onecandiscerninthisdisplayofschol-
arlyprowessanefforttoemulatetheapproachofStBasilintheHexaemer-
on.
31
Itislikewiseobvious,however,thattheApologyillustratesthismeth-
odonlyinareductionistway,sincetheBasilianhomilies,apartfromtheir
equallyimpressiveproofofscholarship,ultimatelyaimedatexhortingthe
audiences toward a Christian lifestyle and a doxological mindset. By con-
trast,deprivedofformativegoals,themaintopicsdiscussedbytheApology
are the natural movement of the universe within the divine parameters,
togetherwiththephysicalphenomenarelatedtolight,thecombinationof
thefundamentalelementsandthecyclesofwater.Bouteneffcharacterised
thesecondpartofthetreatisequiteaptlywhenobserving:
[It]mightjustaswellbeentitledOnFire,Light,andEspeciallyWater.
It consists of page aftei page ifteen columns in Pu of speculation
aboutwater,vapour,ice,andmorewater,andonlythena(consider-
ablyshorter)discussionoflight.
32
Taking into consideration these aspects, to which I shall return, Johannes
Quastenscommentthatalongsiderectifyingsomemisunderstandingsof
thebiblicaltextandofBasilsexegesistheApologydealswithmetaphysi-
calspeculations,
33
is not justiieu Tieating a vaiiety of natuial phenomena
extensively anu on puiely scientiic giounus uoes not amount to metaphys-
icalspeculations.ThesamegoesforPaulBlowersassessmentthatinhis
ownApologiainhexaemeron,Gregoryprovidesakindofphilosophicaland
theological supplement to the doxological approach to creation taken in
Basils homilies.
34
Both aspects, the philosophical and the theological, do
notcountamongthestrengthsofthetreatise.Andagainthesamegoesfor
PanayiotisChrestousconvictionthatwhilstStBasilsHexaemeronillustrat-
edthehistoricalandethicalsideoftheinterpretiveapproachtocosmogo-
ny( ),also
apracticalwayoftacklingthematters,StGregorypresentedthespiritual
31
AspointedoutbyQuasten,Patrology,264.
32
Bouteneff,Beginnings,156.OnthenatureofthewatersasthemaintopicoftheApology,
see E Coisini Nouvelles Peispectives sui le Piobleme ues Souices ue lBexamion ue
Grgoire de Nysse, Studia Patristica 1:1 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957): 94-103, esp.
97,100.
33
Cf.Quasten,Patrology,264.
34
Paul N Bloweis Enteiing This Sublime anu Blesseu Amphitheatie Contemplation of
Nature and Interpretation of the Bible in the Patristic Period, in Jitse M. van derMeer
andScottMandelbrote,NatureandScriptureintheAbrahamicReligions:Upto1700,Vol.
1,BrillsSeriesinChurchHistory36(Leiden:Brill,2008):147-76,at157.
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 356 5/09/13 12:11 AM
357
siue )asperceivedbywayofcontemplation().
35
With
twoexceptions,thereisnoconsistentspiritualcontemplationintheApol-
ogy.Themetaphysicalandmysticalsidesarepoorlyillustrated,mainlyby
the Nyssens iuentiication of the thiiu heaven with the intelligible anu im-
perishabledomain,
36
and,moreimportantlyfromanexegeticalperspective,
the biief note on the wateis above the iimament which he took uespite
hisclaimedpenchantforaliteralapproachtothecreationnarrative
37
as
ametaphorfortheheavenlypowers.
38
Thatsaid,giventhissampleofspiri-
tualisingexegesisthescholarlyopinionvouchingforaconsistentlynon-al-
legorical approach to Genesis
39
in the Apology does not stand either. For
instance, in support of his conviction that the Nyssen followed the literal
method, Bouteneff
40
argued that the lengthy dealings of St Gregory with
thewaterscouldhavebeenadirectreactiontothespiritualisationofthis
cosmicelementinOrigen.Giventheinterpretationofthewatersaboveas
a metaphor for unseen realities, as plausible as it seems Bouteneffs un-
derstandingshouldbeconsideredcautiously.TocharacterisetheApologys
appioach to the cieation naiiative as eithei liteial oi spiiitual is a uificult
task.StanislasGietwasrighttoobservethatStGregorysmethodherewas
neithersimplyliteralnoruniquelyallegorical.
41
To end this introduction to the Apology I shall biiely ietuin to the
mostcuriousfeatureofthetreatise,namely,itslackingspiritualscopeand
formative purposes. The work distinguishes itself by a scanty theological
discourseandanalmostcompletelackofinterestintopicspertainingtothe
spirituallife,bywhichitremainsuniquewithintheNyssensentireliterary
corpus.Forsomereason,contemporaryscholarsignorethispeculiarity.In
35
Chiestou 11. Similarly, Donald L. Ross shares the opinion that the Apolo-
gy offeis an allegoiical inteipietation of the cieation anu the woilu cf his uiegoiy of
Nyssa section Woilu publisheu in the 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).On
this passage biiely see Bubeitus R Biobnei Allegoiy in TheBrillDictionaryofGregory
ofNyssa(citedaboven.2):21-26,here21.
38
Cf.Apology19(PG44,81BC;Drobner,32.4-7).
39
See Bouteneff, Beginnings uilTamayo BEX Apologia in Bexaemeion }ohn
Anthony Ncuuckin Patteins of Biblical Exegesis in the Cappauocian Fatheis Basil the
Great,GregorytheTheologian,andGregoryofNyssa,inS.T.Kimbrough,Jr.(ed.),Ortho-
dox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs
Seminaiy Piess esp Simonetti Exegesis
40
Cf.Bouteneff,ibidem.
41
Stanislas uiet Intiouuction to BasildeCsare,HomliessurlHexamron,Greektext,
intro.andtrad.byS.Giet,SourcesChrtiennes(Paris:Cerf,1949):5-84,here23.
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 357 5/09/13 12:11 AM
358
turn,theChurchdidnotoverlookit,andconsequentlypushedthetreatise
intooblivion.BeforeStJohnDamascenesExactExpositionoftheOrthodox
Faith inueeu whose seconu book uisplays similai scientiic piopensities
nootherpatristictextseemstohavefavouredthemethodadoptedbythe
Nyssenswork(tomyknowledge,anotheraspectignoredbyscholars),al-
though it is not the place here to discuss whether or not the Damascene
drew on the Apology. I turn now to the consensus on the continuity be-
tweentheApologyandtheBasilianHexaemeron,anticipatedbytheabove
discussion.
ContinuityorDiscontinuity?
IalreadymentionedthatthechronologyofStGregoryswritingsisuncer-
tain.Nevertheless,aswehaveseenthereisarelativeconsensusregarding
histwoworksoncreation,i.e.OntheMakingofManandtheApology,usu-
allyconsideredashavingbeenpublishedverysoonafterStBasilsrepose.
If this opinion is sounu the uetail is signiicant foi the unueistanuing of
thespiritinwhichtheNyssenelaboratedthetwobooks,withoutthegrasp
ofwhich,furthermore,someofthepeculiaritiespertainingtotheworkof
interest here, namely, the Apology, cannot be properly assessed. Having a
hold on this spirit, in turn, casts light back upon the issue of chronology,
andintruththeevidencepointstoanearlyratherthanlatedate
42
oftheir
redaction.WhatmattersatthisstagehoweveristheconsensusontheApol-
ogyaswrittensoonafterStBasilsdeath.Theimportanceofthisaspectwill
emergeimmediately.
Possibly because the Nyssens two treatises on creation were pub-
lished shortly after the Basilian Hexaemeron and the great Cappadocians
demise,scholarsassumethatthereisacontinuationbetweentheseworks,
similartothelinkbetweenStGregorystreatisesAgainstEunomiusandthe
homonymoustomeauthoredbyhisoldersibling.
43
Thus,theApologywould
represent a corollary or a complement of St Basils Hexaemeron.
44
In reit-
eratingtheconsensus,AnthonyMeredithnotedthatmuchoftheNyssens
bodyofwritingswascomposedindirectresponsetothesuggestionand
memoiy of Basil anu that speciically his tieatises on uenesis represent
42
Withoutprovidingdetails,Quasten(Patrology,263)leavesthequestionopen,asserting
thatOntheMakingofManwasprobablypublishedeitherimmediatelyafter1January
379orlaterinStGregoryslife.
43
Cf.e.g.Drobner,TheFathersoftheChurch279.
44
Cf Coisini Nouvelles Peispectives
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 358 5/09/13 12:11 AM
359
criticalcontinuationsofBasilsownworksinthesameareas.
45
Giventhat
theprologuesofthetwoworksdulyacknowledgedtheBasilianinputasa
startingpointfortheNyssenselaborations,
46
this opinion seems justiieu
Whilstsharingthisopinion,AnnaSilvaspusheditevenfurtherbysuggest-
ingthatinhisdevelopmentoftheBasilianlegacytheNyssenactedupona
mandatefromhisdyingbrother.Moreprecisely,sheproposedthat,likein
asymbolicrecurrenceofthepassingonofpropheticgracefromElijahon
Elisha,weimagineStBasilonhisdeathbedaskingtheyoungerGregoryto
continuehisworkamissionwhichtheNyssenwouldhaveaccomplished
asaworthyheirindoctrinalexposition.
47
AlthoughIdonotdismisssuch
apossibility,Ibelievethatbehindhisdiptychoncreation,andespeciallythe
Apology,thereisalittlemorethantheNyssensvenerationofhisbrother.
What I propose is that alongside undertaking to defend his departed sib-
ling, through the treatise under consideration St Gregory sought his own
establishment as an authority. I am even tempted to believe that he pur-
suedthisgoalirrespectiveofandapartfromhisbrotherslegacy,although
thisisnottheplacetodelveintothematter,whichwouldrequirefurther
exploration.ItiscertainhoweverthathisreferencetoStBasilsheritagein
theApologyisbothlimitedandcritical,totheextentthatthecurrentideaof
continuityintheCappadocianapproachestoGenesisbecomesproblemat-
ic In fact I challenge the iuea of continuity on two giounus iist by the uis-
playofemotionstranspiringfromtheApologyandsecondbytheNyssens
scarcereferencestoStBasilsteaching.ItistotheseaspectsthatInowturn.
The intense emotional burden on St Gregorys shoulders when com-
posinghisOntheMakingofManandtheApologyisbeyonddoubt.Thereis
asharedopinionamongscholars,
48
thathisearlycareerwaseclipsedbythe
gigantic iguie of St Basil anu that he emeigeu eiupteu as it weie out
ofthewoodsofanonymityonlyafterhissiblingdeparted.Indeed,boththe
Nyssens iecognition anu liteiaiy output signiicantly incieaseu aftei }anu-
45
Meredith,TheCappadocians,53.InhisGregoryofNyssa,5,Meredithaddsthatthetwo
workscontinueandpartiallycorrecttheBasilianHexaemeron Similaily Simonetti Exe-
gesis,331)observesthatbyhistwotreatisesStGregorydefendsanddeepenstheBasil-
ian inteipietation of the cieation naiiative See also Chiestou 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: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2004), 411; Meredith, The Cappadocians, 53;
Silvas,GregoryofNyssa,40.
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 359 5/09/13 12:11 AM
360
ary379,thepresumedtimeofhisbrothersdeath.
49
Thisevidenceprompts
metoproposethatbehindhistwoworksoncreation,andparticularlythe
second,therecanbediscernedasenseoffrustrationwithStBasilsimpres-
sive stanuing Bettei camoulageu in OntheMakingofMan,aworkintended
to ill the gaps left by the Basilian appioach to anthiopogenesis this fius-
trationislikelytohavetriggeredinhimthedesiretoprovehisworth.What
wassupposedtobeaprudentstatementintheprologueofOntheMaking
of Man backs my point Theie St uiegoiy afiimeu that in completing the
uninisheu anthiopology of St Basil his concein was to ensuie that the glo-
ryoftheteacherwasnotdiminishedinhisdisciples.
50
Thisistantamount
to saying that he was no less pioicient than his biothei
With the months passing after St Basils repose, this nuance reap-
peared even more explicitly in the Apology. The prologue of the treatise
containsthestunningpropositionhiddenundertheguiseofahorticultur-
alparableandrepeatedexpressionsofrespect
51
thattheNyssenswork
would improve St Basils teaching on the creation the way a noble sprout
booststhenaturalqualitiesofalowerclasstreewhengraftedontoit.
52
This
beingthecase,thetitleofthetreatisemaysuggestonlytoacarelessread-
erthatitisprimarilyaboutdefendingtheBasilianHexaemeron.Anumber
of scholars believe just that,
53
although the interest of the Apology seems
tolieelsewhere.Deprivedofthehighereducationenjoyedbyhisbrother,
whom he had in turn as a private teacher, and overshadowed by the lat-
teis piominent statuie now it was time foi the youngei uiegoiy to afiim
his piesence Bis effoits to suipass St Basil in knowleuge ieinement anu
logic alike, pervade the work. Given our legitimate reverence for the Nys-
sens legacy which is inueeu a signiicant contiibution to the aiticulation of
Christiantheologyandspirituality,perhapsthisassessmentlooksimperti-
nent.Nevertheless,therearesignsintheApologywhichbetraytheimpet-
uousness of someone eager to conquer the stage, as it is said in common
parlance,afterElvishasleftthebuildinglikethestraightforwardremark
thattheauthorwillbeadoptingapositionatvariancewiththatofhissib-
ling yet no less appiopiiate anu wise iegaiuing eg the piesence of iie
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
See Chiestou Biobnei Allegoiy uilTamayo BEX Apologia in Bex-
aemeron,387.
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 360 5/09/13 12:11 AM
361
in all things.
54
Ronald Heine observed that this adversarial attitude reap-
pearedinotherworksbyStGregory,likethetreatiseOntheInscriptionsof
thePsalms.
55
Wemayinferthat,togetherwithrevealingtheNyssensintent
of selfafiimation against the memoiy of his biothei the stiong emotional
note tianspiiing fiom the tieatise coniims the opinion which places the
ApologysoonafterStBasilsdeath.
Closely related to the previous, the second ground on which I chal-
lenge the idea of continuity between the Nyssens tract and the Basilian
homiliesoncreationreferspreciselytotheattitudetowardStBasilexhib-
ited by the Apology. Reading the title of St Gregorys work, i.e. An Apolo-
gyfortheHexaemeron it is uificult to uiscein its tiue object oi what this
work is meant to defend. The prologue does not clarify this aspect either.
Asshownabove,itreferstotwodistinctissues,namely,somequeriescon-
cerning the Genesis narrative and a number of criticisms levelled against
the Basilian homilies. St Gregory pointed to these matters from the out-
set,whenheexpressedahumblereticencetowardscrutinisingthedivine
inspiration ( ) pervading the Genesis account, as well as
StBasilsdivinelyinspired()andrichinterpretationofit.
56

Yet,althoughthetermhexaemeroninthetitleoftheApologymaysuggest
an afiliation with the Basilian woik a possibility fuithei implieu by the
issues addressed in the prologue, the treatise is not primarily concerned
withthecelebratedhomiliesonthecreation.Indeed,withtheexceptionof
the justiication of St Basils pastoial appioach nowheie in the Apologydid
StGregorytouchonparticularaspectspertainingtohisbrotherssermons,
not even when he pointeu out like in the uiscussion iefeiiing to iie the
different method he was to adopt in the treatise. He preferred instead to
addresstopicsrelatedtothecreationnarrativeand,evenmoreso,cosmol-
ogyandnaturalphenomena.MyunderstandingcorrespondstoE.Corsinis
followingobservation.
[La faon uont uigoiie uveloppe ses aiguments nest celle ue
quelquunquidfendelacausedunautre.Toujoursest-ilquaulieu
ue isouuie les uificults uu tiait ue son fieie uigoiie uveloppe
une thse qui non seulement nest pas celle de Basile mais qui sy
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
Coisini Nouvelles Peispectives The mannei in which uiegoiy uevelops his ai-
gumentsisnotthatofsomeonewhodefendsanotherscause.Itisobviousthatinstead
of solving the uificulties peitaining to his biotheis tieatise uiegoiy uevelops a thesis
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 361 5/09/13 12:11 AM
362
Ishallreturnwithmoredetailsinthenextsection.Inlightoftheabove,we
may coniuently suimise that the Apologywasnotprimarilyaboutdefend-
ingtheHexaemeronoraboutcontinuingStBasilswork.Usuallyignoredby
scholais the above inuings point to St uiegoiys unueitaking to consoli-
date his position as an independent thinker, albeit within a Cappadocian
context.InlinewithLouthscommentreferredtoearlier,Iwouldtherefore
reverse Bouteneffs note
58
concerning the two Cappadocians and say that
although related still theirs were two disparate voices. I turn now to the
Nyssens approach to the creation narrative and cosmology, which offers
more glimpses of the Apologys nature and the literary genre to which it
belongs.Thesedetailswillcontributetofurtherourunderstandingofthe
rapportsbetweentherelevantworksofthetwoCappadocianfathers.
TheMethodandtheGenreoftheApology
Earlierwesawthat,alongsidethepervadingorderofthecosmos,thepro-
logueoftheApologyemphasisesthedesireofStPetertolearnaboutlessob-
viousaspectspertainingtoGenesis,interestswhichcoincidedwiththoseof
theunnamedcriticsofStBasilsHexaemeron.Relevanthereisthat,follow-
ingPetersrequest,thepurposeoftheApologyshouldhavebeentodeter-
minethecoherenceoftheGenesisaccountassuchandwithinthebroader
scriptural context. Anthony Meredith and John Behr concurred in identi-
fying this as the goal of the treatise when they observed independently
that whereas St Basil endeavoured to depict a comprehensive image of
the cosmos, the Nyssen was interested in the coherence of the scriptural
plotandtheorderofcreation.
59
Inotherwords,incontrastwithStBasils
homilies,whenconsideredfromanexegeticalviewpointtheApologywould
representamorerigorousapproachtoGenesis.PartlyIdisagreewithMer-
edith and Behrs assessment of the Basilian Hexaemeron which I inu as
overallillustratingthecommonexegeticalpracticeofthetime,ofanalysing
thetextsline-by-line;however,hereisnottheplacetoaddresssuchmatters
which, far from being that of Basils, opposes it directly (my translation, emended by
MargaretBeirne).At102CorsinireiteratedtheindependentnatureoftheApologyfrom
the Basilian Hexaemeron Similaily Laplace Intiouuction obseiveu that whilst On
theMakingofManandtheApology pietenu to continue the uninisheu homilies of St
Basil,enralit,lepointdevuequedirigelesdeuxfrresestfortdifferent(inreality,
thepointsofviewdrivingthetwobrothersareverydifferent).Seealsothesimilarcon-
clusion of uiet Intiouuction
58
Bouteneff,Beginnings,166,notesthatitisabouttwodisparate,yetrelated,voices.
59
SeeBehr,TheNiceneFaith,411;Meredith,GregoryofNyssa,5.Forfurtheropinionson
this mattei see Ncuuckin Patteins of Biblical Exegesis in the Cappauocian Fatheis
Simonetti Exegesis
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 362 5/09/13 12:11 AM
363
indetail.Instead,Ishallfocusonboththeirsandtheestablishedperception
oftheApologyasanexegeticalworkaconsensusrecentlyendorsedbythe
criticaleditionofHubertusDrobner,whichpresentsthetreatiseasapartof
StGregorysOperaExegeticainGenesim.
60
Ichallengethisconsensusonthe
groundsofthemethodemployedbytheauthor,whichpointsmoretothe
apologeticgenreandlesstotheexegeticalone.
ThevariousquestionsregardingGenesisandconveyedbyPeterserve
indeed as pretexts for the Apology. That said, I propose that both the co-
herenceofthenarrativeofcreationanditsconsistencywiththewholeof
Scripture became secondary concerns within the treatise. The suggestion
thattheapproachoftheApology combining Sciiptuie anu scientiic infoi-
mation, as we shall see below, envisaged the expectations of an educated
readership,
61
couldnotjustifytheNyssenscarelessdealingwiththeques-
tions posedby the prologue. My contention is based on the evidencethat
St Gregory neither insisted on the broad scriptural context, which seems
tohaveofferedhimavocabularyratherthanthemeanstosubstantiatehis
assertions,
62
norengagedtheGenesisnarrativeinameticulousmanner,as
shownabove.
63
With the exception of the iist two veises of uenesis which
he analysed more carefully, to the extent that he compared four available
60
Cf.alsohisTheFathersoftheChurch,279.
61
SeeBouteneff,Beginnings uilTamayo Akolouthia
62
According to the critical edition of Drobner, the following are the relevant parallels to
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,
God as the one bringing to existence all creation (chap. 17); John 1:9 and 1 Tim 6:16,
Godaslightanddwellinginthetranscendentlight(chap.19);Deut4:24andHebr12:29,
uou as consuming iie chap Eph the mastei of the woilu of uaikness inhab-
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.
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 363 5/09/13 12:11 AM
364
translationsinGreek,
64
therestofthetreatiseshowsfarlessinterestinthe
narrative. There is actually a massive gap, between chapters 31 and 63,
whereexceptforoneinstance(inchapter44)noreferencetotheaccount
onthecreationcanbefound.BeforeweproceedwiththeexaminationofSt
Gregorys method, it may be useful to pay attention to the unique sample
of consistent exegesis in the entire Apology, namely, the interpretation of
Genesis1:1-2.
65
As a general rule, St Gregory read Genesis from the Septuagint, the
versionpreferredbytheearlyChristianslongbeforehisowncentury.
66
Itis
inteiesting howevei that in his attempt to make sense of the iist veises of
thecreationnarrativehefelttheneedtocomparetheSeptuagintwithother
translationsintoGreek,byAquila,SymmachusandTheodotion,whichwere
mainlyusedbytheHellenisedJewsofLateAntiquity.Itisuncertainwheth-
ertheNyssencitedtheseothersourcesdirectlyorfromOrigensHexapla,
asitisalsounclearwhyheneededtovisitotherversionsofthetext.With
referencetothelatteraspect,Iwouldsuggestthatthiscomparativeanaly-
sis was perhaps motivated by his awareness of the misuse ()
ofthedivinewordsinthescripturalpractice;
67
thus,hemayhavedecided
thattoreachaclearerunderstandingofthefactsitwasnecessarytocollate
varioustranslations.Irrespectiveofthereasons,onethingiscertain,name-
ly,thathealternatedtheSeptuagintandAquilasversionintheelucidation
of the iist woiu in uenesis uisplaying a piefeience foi the lattei which
reads in geneial oi in summaiy insteau of (in
thebeginning).
68
Thispreferencemayhavebeendrawnfromthefactthat
Aquilas tianslation inuiiectly coniimeu the intuition of the Nyssen about
Genesisasofferingtwodistinctviewpointsonthecreation,thatis,asone
eventandasaseriesofevents.
69
64
Apology7(PG44,68D;Drobner,14.13).
65
Foi an analysis of the Nyssens ielection on the two veises see Alexanuie LExgese ue
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
Ju livre 6enese lv le version qrecque Je lo Septonte et so rception,ChristianismeAn-
tique3(Paris:Beauchesne,1988),67,71,withreferencestotheNyssensuseofAquilas
phrase.
69
Forcreationasoneevent,seeApology8(Drobner,16.14-17.19).Forcreationasaseries
ofevents,suggestede.g.bythemetaphoroftheseedthathasthepotentialtogrow,see
Apology 16 (Drobner, 27.11-14). The best summary of this double perspective can be
foundinApology64(PG44,113C;Drobner,72.10-15).
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 364 5/09/13 12:11 AM
365
StGregorysanalysisofthechaosmetaphorfromthesecondverseof
Genesisisevenmoreremarkable.Herehecitedallfourtranslations,point-
ing out that whereas the Septuagint reads
(invisibleandunstructured),
70
theotherthreeversionscontainverydif-
ferent solutions. According to the Nyssen,
71
Symmachus gives
iulefiuitless anu unspeciieu
72
Theodotion renders the
phrase as ueseiteu anu nothing anu inally Aquila
reduces everything to (utter nothingness).
73
These cita-
tionsdonotwhollycorrespondtotheHexapla;
74
eitherStGregoryuseda
differenteditionofit,orhesimplymisquotedit,iftheOrigenianworkwas
indeed his source. A few lines below, the Nyssen noted his dislike for the
lastrenditionofthechaos,which,alongsideechoingtheEpicureannihilism
infactthefamouspolarityofDemocritus, playing aiounu the
notionsofbodyandnothingnesswaslogicallyunsound( lit
unintelligible).
75
Hisinterestinthesenuancesnotwithstanding,neveragain
did St Gregory repeat this exercise in the Apology, in fact paying less and
lessattentiontothetextafterthispoint.
uiven that aftei the analysis of the iist veises the tieatise iefeis to
the creation narrative quite infrequently, this may indicate that the Nys-
senprimarilyusedGenesisasapretextforhisowndiscourse.Forinstance,
whenheeventuallyaskedwhythescripturalaccountmentionedthelumi-
nariesafterthreedayswhereastheirrolewaspresupposedfarearlier,
76
St
Gregoryposedthisquestiononlyafterlengthyexplanationsofthevarious
naturalphenomena.
77
Moreover,whenreturningtothescripturalaccount,
sometimestheNyssenprovedtobeacriticalreader.Atsomepointhefelt
70
QuotedinApology Pu B Biobnei 0n the signiicance asciibeu by the
Nyssen to these woius see Alexanuie LExgese ue uen a
71
Apology17(PG44,80B;Drobner,28.12-15).
72
0n the signiicance asciibeu by the Nyssen to these woius see Alexanuie LExgese ue
Gen1,1-2a,173-74.
73
ForAquilasversion,PG44,80B,gives
74
The text of the Hexapla as we know it offers different solutions for Aquilas and
Theouotions iespective tianslations Thus foi Aquila it gives wheieas
foi Theouotion with the vaiiant Cf OrigenisHexaplo-
rum, Tomus I: Prolegomena, Genesis Esther, ed. Fridericus Field (Oxford: Clarendon,
1875),7.Fordetailsonthesetranslations,seeAlexanuie LExgese ue uen a
70;eadem,LeCommencementduLivre,76-77,79.
75
Apology Pu C Biobnei Cf Alexanuie LExgese ue uen a
170.
76
Cf.Apology64(PG44,113AB;Drobner,71.19-21).
77
Cf.Apology27-63(Drobner,40.16-71.18).
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 365 5/09/13 12:11 AM
366
the need to question the accuracy of Genesis, which did not seem to fol-
low the order of creation, at least as presented by logic and the available
sciences. More precisely, he found what appeared to be an illogical break
withinthenarrative,which,ratherthanintroducinglaterstagesofthecre-
ation process was supposed to deal with the makeup () of the
aii immeuiately aftei tieating the themes of light anu iie
78
Caughtinhis
leaineu expositions St uiegoiy foigot that uenesis uoes not mention iie
atall,justasitdoesnotsharetheHellenisticdoctrineofthefourelements
either.Givensuchexamples,itisclearthattheApologywasintendedlessas
arigorousexegesisofGenesisandmoreasacosmologicalcomplementof
theanthropologyarticulatedinOntheMakingofMan.Certainlythelatter
tieatise uisplays similai piopensities towaiu incoipoiating scientiic infoi-
mationmainlybiological,anatomicalandmedicalinnaturewithinthe
theological discourse, and can itself be considered as an exegetical work
onlyinalooseway.Itisverylikelythatbothworksaimedtofacilitatethe
transfer of the Genesis message from its original, Semitic setting, into the
cultural categoriesoftheHellenisticworldofLateAntiquity atask only
paitially fulilleu by the vaiious tianslations of uenesis into uieek 0n this
note,IturnnowtothemethodatworkintheApology.
We have found that in the Apology the creation narrative seems to
have served as a pretext for the Nyssens erudite descriptions of natural
phenomena, in light of the available sciences.
79
This inuing coniims my
earlierobservationthatoneofStPetersquerieswasabouttheorderofthe
cosmosassuch,irrespectiveofGenesis.Atleastonethingiscertain;byhis
iich scientiic excuises the Nyssen satisieu this scholaily inteiest of his
brother. I propose therefore that the opinions, mentioned above, accord-
ingtowhichtheApologyapproachesGenesisinanexegeticalfashion,and
thatitinterpretsthenarrativeofcreationliterally,arequestionablewhen
consideredoutsidethecomplexitiesofthetreatise.Afterall,theendofthe
prologuewarnsthatsincetheworkillustratestheauthorsefforttoexer-
cise()intellectuallytowardsmakingsenseofthings,itshould
78
Cf.Apology24(Drobner,37.11-38.10sq).
79
Accoiuing to the ciitical euition of Biobnei the cosmological anu scientiic souices of
theApology,referredtoeitherdirectlyorindirectly,likewiseaseitherreliableorques-
tionableauthorities,amountto23authors.ItisnotclearwhetherDrobnerconsidered
thesesourcesasactuallyusedbyStGregoryorheonlymeanttodrawparallelstowell-
known scientiic souices of Late Antiquity In a piivate conveisation Auam Coopei to
whom I am grateful for this observation, noticed that Simplicius, twice mentioned by
Drobner (at 25.7 and 29.12-17), was a 6
th
century author; the Nyssen could not have
consulteu his woiks Coisini Nouvelles Peispectives suggesteu that the souice of
St uiegoiys scientiic infoimation must have been school hanubooks
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 366 5/09/13 12:11 AM
367
notbecreditedasanexegeticalteaching( ).
80
We
have to look into a bioauei fiamewoik anu not only the ielu of exegesis foi
themethodatworkinthetreatiseandthegenretowhichitbelongs.One
way to determine these is by discovering the Nyssens true interests. It is
signiicant that alongsiue paying attention to the cosmic phenomena some-
timesStGregoryemphasisedthatcreationpointstotheCreator.Hisexpo-
sitiononGenesisandcosmologybegins,symptomatically,byevokingGods
will, wisdom and power ( )
81
as the
vantagepointfortheconsiderationofeverythingthatis.CharlotteKckert
toucheu biiely on this aspect
82
Thus, despite Peters other query, which
referredtoalogicallyorganisedaccountonthedaysofcreation,theaimof
StGregorywasnottoreachabetterunderstandingofGenesis.Hisinterest
seemstohavebeen,alongsidetheefforttointegratethescripturalmessage
withGreekculture,andatleasttosomeextent,tofunctionaliseGenesisas
a theological tool, more precisely to ascribe it the task of interpreting the
cosmoswithinaGod-centredperspective.Inhisownwords,
[T]he prophet wrote the book of Genesis as an introduction to the
divine knowledge ( ), the intention
() of Moses being to lead by the hand () those
enslaved by the senses through the visible things to the percep-
tionofthethingsthattranscend( )thesenses.
83
Together with its obvious Platonic overtones, the above citation evokes
twopassagesfromtheBasilianHexaemeron,
84
relevanttothethemeofthe
cosmosasaschoolfortheGod-seekingpeople.
85
StGregoryenvisagedthe
Apology as an interpretive tool indeed, but not of Genesis. Regardless of
theissuesraisedbyhisyoungersibling,itwasnotthenarrativeofcreation
thatwasinquestionhere;weshouldnotforgetthattheNyssenvoicedhis
respect for the inspired character of Genesis from the outset.
86
My point
coincides with a note of Bouteneff, who discovered a similar attitude to-
80
Apology6(PG44,68C;Drobner,13.20-14.2).
81
Apology7(PG44,68D-69A;Drobner,14.13-15.8).
82
See Kockeit The Concept of Seeu in Chiistian Cosmology
83
Apology 8 (PG 44, 69D; Drobner, 17.2-6). Here, the Nyssen reiterated what he already
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
Cf Costache Chiistian Woiluview
86
Cf.n.56above.
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 367 5/09/13 12:11 AM
368
ward Genesis in another Nyssenian work.
87
In all likelihood our treatise
wasmeantasaframeworkfortheconsiderationofthecosmostheway
it was depicted by the available sciences through a scriptural lens. Only
when perused with the eyes of faith, as shaped by the wisdom of Gene-
sis,couldtheworldbeseenasadivinesymboland/oratheophany.Daniel
StramaraaptlysummarisedtheNyssensnotionofthecosmosasleadingto
theknowledgeofGod,inpenetratingwordsalbeitwithoutreferringtothe
Apology.
Godscreationrevealstheologicalprinciplesatwork.Thelawsofna-
tuie ielect the laws of uou The stuuy of natuie leaus to a gieatei
appreciationfortheDivineNature.
88
Although the theological perspective was not the focus of the treatise, by
thisinterest,namely,thedepictionofcreationaspointingtoGod,theApol-
ogy is more closely related to the Basilian Hexaemeron than admitted by
Neieuith anu Behi This inuing stanus uespite the fact that the appioach of
theNyssentotheGenesisaccountwaslessexegeticalandinfactmoresci-
entiically oiienteu than St Basils Relevant howevei is the fact that like St
Basil,inpresentingthecosmosasatheophanytheNyssenborrowedfrom
the apologetic genre, illustrated decades earlier by St Athanasius Against
thePagans.
89
Together with the unavowed goal of translating the Christian world-
view through the available sciences, the prominent feature of the Apolo-
gy remains St Gregorys passion for cosmology. Both aspects corroborate
the apologetic genre as the context of the treatise. Corsini seems to have
alsohintedattheapologeticnatureofthewriting,withoutusingtheterm
though, when stating that the treatise was primarily concerned with the
refutation of the Stoic doctrine of ekpyrosis.
90
Whilst I am not convinced
that this was the focus of St uiegoiys woik I ietain the coniimation of its
contextual chaiactei which its the apologetic genie
As already pointed out, there are however strange aspects about the
Apology, such as its very thin theology and the heavy display of scientif-
icprowess,whichmakeitpeculiarevenfortheapologeticgenre.Scholars
87
Cf.Bouteneff,Beginnings,154-55.
88
Baniel F Stiamaia Suiveying the Beavens Eaily Chiistian Wiiteis on Astionomy St
VladimirsSeminaryQuarterly46:2-3(2002):147-62,at155.
89
SeeforinstanceAgainstthePagans34-44(PG25,69A-88D).
90
Cf Coisini Nouvelles Peispectives
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 368 5/09/13 12:11 AM
369
haverepeatedlypraisedtheNyssensawarenessofthesciencesofhistime,
inparticularphysicsandcosmology,
91
whichheexuberantlyparadedforhis
eruditereadership.TheportrayalofMoses,thepresumedauthorofGene-
sis,asphilosophisingontheemergenceofthecosmos(
)
92
seems to have been the pretext for this abundant re-
couise to scientiic infoimation Philosophy means heie scientiic enquiiy
oi moie speciically the attempt of aiticulating a holistic image of ieality
Monique Alexandre pointed out the Nyssens intention to elaborate une
vision systmatique du monde, de sa cration, de son ordonnancement,
desapermanence,
93
emulatingthatofMosesandtheoneofhisownold-
er sibling. In turn, and along the same lines, Gil-Tamayo asserted that the
Apology iepiesents an effoit to ueepen anu haimonize the afiimations
of uenesis anu the scientiic knowleuge an unueitaking meant to enuoise
thecreationnarrativeasaworthwhilesourceforthegeneralworldview.
94

AlthoughattheendoftheprologueStGregorystatedthathispurposewas
not to reconcile the contradictory opinions that were put forward,
95
the
prospect of his attempt to bridge the two visions into a holistic depiction
of reality is worth pursuing; in fact, I intend to return to this matter in a
separatearticle.
We have not yet reached an answer to the questions concerning the
reasonsforwhichStGregoryadoptedthisunusualapproachofdiscussing
the topics at hanu moie fiom a scientiic angle than a theological one Eaili-
91
Cf Bouogae Intiouuceie }ohn F Callahan uieek Philosophy anu the Cappauo-
cian Cosmology, Dumbarton Oaks Papers esp Coisini Nou-
vellesPerspectives,95,101-103;Meredith,GregoryofNyssa Simonetti Exegesis
Foi the use of science in othei uiegoiian woiks see }ean Banilou uigoiie ue
Nysse et la philosophie, in Drrie, Altenburger, Schramm (eds.), Gregor von Nyssa und
diePhilosophie citeu above n Laplace Intiouuction Noiwenna Luu-
low Science anu Theology in uiegoiy of Nyssas DeAnimaetResurrectione:Astronomy
andAutomata,JournalofTheologicalStudies Stiamaia Suiveying
the Beavens Susan Wessel The Reception of uieek Science in uiegoiy of Nys-
sasBe Eominis 0piicioVigiliaeChristianae63(2009):24-46.Forthepropensityofthe
CappadocianstorelyonscienceinordertodemonstrateChristiantruths,andtheirgen-
eralappreciationforscholarship,seeJaroslavPelikan,ChristianityandClassicalCulture:
TheMetamorphosisofNaturalTheologyintheChristianEncounterwithHellenism(New
HavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,1993),22-39.
92
Apology1(PG44,61A;Drobner,6.2).Althoughscienceshouldbealsoconsideredinthis
context the statement coniims Banilous note that foi the Nyssen theie is no sepaia-
tion between theology anu philosophy cf uigoiie ue Nysse et la philosophie
93
Cf Alexanuie LExgese ue uen a a systematic vision of the woilu of its
creation,orderandpermanence(mytranslation).
94
uilTamayo BEX Apologia in Bexaemeion
95
Cf.Apology,prologue(PG44,68D;Drobner,14.6-8).
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 369 5/09/13 12:11 AM
370
erIdiscussedapossiblesolutionforthisconundrum,namely,hisintention
to asserthimselfas a scholarafterthe reposeof hisbrother, and the idea
proposedbysomescholarsthatheexclusivelytargetedaneducatedread-
ership.Itcouldlikewisebeaddedherehisapologetic-likeinterestinshow-
ingtheChristianworldviewasarespectablevoiceinthecosmologicalde-
batesofthetime.Furthermore,andrelated,itcouldbeevokedacontextual
reason,namely,thefactthat,togetherwiththeothertwoCappadociansand
otherChristianwritersofthetime,StGregoryhadtocounteracttherevival
ofpagancultureboostedbytheshortreignofJulian;inshort,hemusthave
intenueu to offei a sample of Chiistian science in answei to the ciitics who
believedChristiantheologianstobeunableoflikeexploits.Giventhelack
ofclaritywithinthetreatise,theissueremainsundecidable.Whatmatters
isthattheabovearesignsoftheApologyscomplexmethod,which,farfrom
beingreducibletoscripturalexegesis,prominentlydrawsontheearlytra-
ditionofChristianapologetics.
ConcludingRemarks
The article addressed a number of misunderstandings related to the pur-
poseandthecharacterofStGregoryofNyssasApologyfortheHexaemeron,
mainly referring to its connection with St Basils legacy and the genre to
which it belongs. We noticed that the Nyssens treatise was not primarily
about defending and/or continuing the Basilian Hexaemeron, and that St
Gregoryentertainedhisowndistinctaims.Althoughtheauthorneverdis-
closedhisgoalsinfull,otherthanexpressinghisinterestintheorderofthe
cosmosandthelogicalarrangementofthecreationnarrative,weinferred
that to a large extent the Apology was designed to demonstrate his own
scholarly worth, notwithstanding the treatises peculiar lack of structure.
Welikewisefoundthatthemetaphysicalspeculationsandthespiritualtop-
icsarenotamongthestrengthsofthistreatise,andthatitstheologicalside
isnotverysolideither.Verylikelybecauseofitsweaktheologyandthelack
ofspiritualrelevance,theApologywasforgottenbytradition,althoughsim-
ilar approaches emerged again later, in the Byzantine era. In terms of the
method at work in the treatise, we have seen that even though beginning
fromcertainexegeticalpresuppositions,StGregorypreferredtheapologet-
ic style This piefeience tianspiies thiough the iigoious scientiic appioach
in the description of natural phenomena, and the attempt to bridge the
sciiptuial anu scientiic woiluviews We noticeu that in his enthusiasm foi
thetaskathand,theNyssenoversteppedhoweverthenaturalistdimension
ofthecommonCappadociandiscourseandthusproducedatreatisewhich
mainly iepiesents a scientiic examination of the cosmos anu not a theolog-
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 370 5/09/13 12:11 AM
371
icalcontemplationofthecreation.Nevertheless,thisnaturalisticandscien-
tiic appioach founu a foitunate theological counteiweight in an impoitant
statement on the primacy of Gods creative intention, wisdom and power.
This statement pointed to St Gregorys apologetic attempt to make room
forGenesisandtheologywithinthecosmologicaldebatesofhisowntime.
Therearehoweverotheraspectsthatdeservetobehighlightedbyway
ofconclusion.OneisthefactthatwithallitseccentricitiestheApologyof-
fers a glimpse of the complexities of patristic tradition, which cannot be
reducedtoanyfacileconsensus.Likewiserelatedtopatristictradition,by
the critical appreciation for the legacy of his older sibling, the Nyssen set
throughtheApologyaliteraryprecedentforthecenturiestocome.Forin-
stance,StMaximustheConfessorsMystagogyadoptedasimilarapproach
intheseventhcentury,
96
havinghadtograpplefurtherwithcertainliturgi-
calriteswhichhadalreadyreceivedtheirstandardinterpretationintheAr-
eopagitictreatise,TheEcclesiasticalHierarchy.
97
VerymuchlikeStGregory,
theConfessorwaschallengedtonavigatebetweenhisrespectforthework
ofanotherandhisownpursuits.
Another worthwhile aspect is the Nyssens contribution to Christian
apologetics anu inuiiectly the contempoiaiy ielu of science anu theology
Its weaknesses aside, the treatise represents a fascinating experiment in
the context of the fourth century attempts to articulate a Christian worl-
uview within the paiameteis of the cuiient scientiic paiauigm Contem-
porary Christians have much to learn from the know how of those times.
Nevertemptedtoconsidertheologyandscienceasantagonistic,StGregory
showedinhisApologyhowthenarrativeofcreationcanserveasatheolog-
ical lens foi the inteipietation of an establisheu scientiic woiluview This
approach remains relevant since the current climate is no less challeng-
ingtotheChristianconsciousnessthanthatofLateAntiquity.Givenallthe
above, it results that the Apology remains a rich treasure which requires
furtherexploration.
96
Cf.TheMystagogy,prologue(PG91,660D-661A).
97
TheEcclesiasticalHierarchy(PG3,369-584).
StAndrewsBook2013_R.indd 371 5/09/13 12:11 AM