 monastery wall (photo © 2010 Clement Kuehn) |
Anastasios was probably the author of the Hexaemeron,(1) an extensive commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis.(2) In addition to mutual references between this work and others in Anastasios's recognized canon,(3) there are correspondences in style and in thematic material, such as a defense of the Chalcedonian creed, arguments against heresies, discussions of the nature of Christ, and a devotion to the spiritual wellbeing of the Church.(4) One reason for doubts about the Hexaemeron’s authenticity is the absence of any manuscript copied before the end of the fifteenth century.(5) More than two dozen surviving manuscripts attest to its popularity in the sixteenth century, especially around the time of the Council of Trent (1563). |
The lack of an earlier manuscript could be the result of censorship. While arguing against Manichaean, Ophite, Monophysite, and Monothelite heresies, Anastasios was not shy about expressing his own opinions on important theological topics. In other works his idiosyncrasies were later brought into line with orthodox beliefs by adding florilegia (comments on specific topics by Church Fathers).(6) In the Hexaemeron, however, Anastasios described a spiritual Church that, in the final book (XII), transcended even the orthodox institution.(7) Perhaps that was going too far. Among the manuscripts of the Hexaemeron distributed throughout Europe in the sixteenth century, only one survives complete, Codex Oxoniensis Collegii Novi 139, now at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. The other manuscripts are missing the last section or entire last book.
The original Hexaemeron was divided into thirteen books, numbered one through twelve and containing two sevens. There is a clear thematic division between Books I-VII (alpha) and Books VII (beta)-XII.(8) It has not been assigned a secure date in Anastasios’s curriculum vitae, but it contains references to earlier works, including his sermons on the nature of Christ.(9) Anastasios realized that his style in the Hexaemeron was different from his previous works—“poetic,” he said—and explained that the occasion demanded this change.(10) By occasion he meant his mystical allegory: that the creation account, and especially the Adam and Eve story, foreshadowed and represented the creation of the Church by Christ and its spiritual union with him.(11) The exegesis is typological in as much as Anastasios often states that he does not deny the concrete facts of the creation account and that he is not overturning any historical or literal commentary by preceding Church Fathers.(12) And he condemns Origen for seeing exclusively allegorical meanings, which Anastasios compares to mythic tragedies.(13) Yet Anastasios’s technique in the Hexaemeron has more in common with the allegorical style of Origen and other Alexandrians(14) than it does with the historical/literal style, often called Antiochene, seen in Chrysostom’s homilies on creation and Basil’s own Hexaemeron.(15)
1) For the editio princeps of the entire Greek text, see C. Kuehn and J. Baggarly, S.J., (eds. and trans.), Anastasius of Sinai: Hexaemeron (OCA 278) (Rome 2007). J.-P. Migne printed a Latin translation of the first eleven books and a Greek text of the twelfth book in PG 89 columns 851-1077A. The adjective hexaemeron means “of six days” and was used to refer both to the biblical creation account and to commentaries about it.
(2) The mss. ascribe it to Anastasios, presbyter and monk at Mount Sinai and, mistakenly, archbishop of Antioch. These two writers were often associated in the Middle Ages. See K.-H. Uthemann, “Anastasius I of Antioch,” in A. Di Berardino (ed.), Patrology: The Eastern Fathers from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to John of Damascus (✝750) (Cambridge 2006), 209; G. Weiss, Studien zum Leben, zu den Schriften und zur Theologie des Patriarchen Anastasius I. von Antiochien (559-598) (Munich 1965), xxvi.
(3) For references, see J. Baggarly, S.J., review of Anastasii Sinaitae Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei necnon opuscula adversus monotheletas (CCSG 12), by K.-H. Uthemann, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 54/1 (1988), 253-5.
(4) See esp. III.373-458 and VII.247-352 (where Anastasios refers to another book he has written in praise of Egypt).
(5) For a review of the discussions about its authenticity, see Kuehn/Baggarly (as note 1 above), xiii-xxiii. Testimonia appear in the eleventh century (Michael Psellus) and twelfth century (Michael Glycas).
(6) J. Munitiz, S.J., “Foreword,” in Kuehn/Baggarly (as note 1 above) ix;M. Richard and J. Munitiz, S.J., (eds.), Anastasii Sinaitae Quaestiones et responsiones (CCSG 59) (Turnhout 2006), li.
(7) See esp. XII.262-493; cf. J. Baggarly, S.J., The Conjugates Christ-Church in the “Hexaemeron” of Ps.-Anastasius of Sinai: Textual Foundations and Theological Context, published extract of S. T. D. thesis for the Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana (Rome 1974), 73.
(8) See Anastasios’s own remarks at VII (alpha) epilogus. Cf. PG 89, 972B; Baggarly, The Conjugates Christ-Church (as note 7 above), 7.
(9) For discussions of the mutual references and a possible chronology of the major works of Anastasios, see Kuehn/Baggarly (as note 1 above) xx-xxii;Uthemann, Anastasii Sinaitae Sermones duo (as note 3 above) cxli-cl.
(10) I.26. This entire passage, I.26-40, is filled with allusions to mystery rituals and mystical literature.
(11) See I.64-67, 72-80, 156-160, 319-320, 356-360, 378-381, 426-8, 687-9, 803-9; III.366-372, 459-481; IV.33-36, 208-218, 302-421, 747-759, 931-940; VI.38-88, 92-126; VIIa.98-105, 240-349; VIIb.36-93, 178-200, 287-307, 361-377, 549-566; IX.39-52, 65-85, 149-165; X.96-104, 446-459, 708-723; XI.149-158, 802-811; XII.195-204, etc. Cf. K.-H. Uthemann, “Allegory,” in A. Kazhdan (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 1 (Oxford 1991), 69.
(12) See I.316-7, 329-332, 423-5; II. 213-232; IV.769-780; VIIb.695-735; VIII.9-18; XI.36-40, 117-125, etc. Cf. the definitions of allegory and typology in P. Bouteneff, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives (Grand Rapids, MI, 2008), 177-182.
(13) VIIb.683-694; cf. VIII.12-18.
(14) Cf. I.146-154, 316-328; VI.606-611; VIIb.414-425, 469-549, 571-676, 743-7; IX.448-467; XI.234-8, 584-7, etc.
(15) VIIb.695-735. For Origen’s and Basil’s exegeses, see Bouteneff (as note 12 above), 94-118, 125-140. For a comparison and contrast of the Alexandrian school of exegesis with the Antiochene school see M. Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis (Edinburgh 2001, trans. from the original Italian edition of 1981), 34-85, 110-120. For translated excerpts of early commentaries, see A. Louth (ed.), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament I, Genesis 1-11 (Downers Grove, IL, 2001), 1-102. For a review of hexaemeron commentaries in general, see F. Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature: A Study of the Greek and Latin commentaries on Genesis, published Ph.D. thesis for the University of Chicago (Chicago 1912).
(2) The mss. ascribe it to Anastasios, presbyter and monk at Mount Sinai and, mistakenly, archbishop of Antioch. These two writers were often associated in the Middle Ages. See K.-H. Uthemann, “Anastasius I of Antioch,” in A. Di Berardino (ed.), Patrology: The Eastern Fathers from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to John of Damascus (✝750) (Cambridge 2006), 209; G. Weiss, Studien zum Leben, zu den Schriften und zur Theologie des Patriarchen Anastasius I. von Antiochien (559-598) (Munich 1965), xxvi.
(3) For references, see J. Baggarly, S.J., review of Anastasii Sinaitae Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei necnon opuscula adversus monotheletas (CCSG 12), by K.-H. Uthemann, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 54/1 (1988), 253-5.
(4) See esp. III.373-458 and VII.247-352 (where Anastasios refers to another book he has written in praise of Egypt).
(5) For a review of the discussions about its authenticity, see Kuehn/Baggarly (as note 1 above), xiii-xxiii. Testimonia appear in the eleventh century (Michael Psellus) and twelfth century (Michael Glycas).
(6) J. Munitiz, S.J., “Foreword,” in Kuehn/Baggarly (as note 1 above) ix;M. Richard and J. Munitiz, S.J., (eds.), Anastasii Sinaitae Quaestiones et responsiones (CCSG 59) (Turnhout 2006), li.
(7) See esp. XII.262-493; cf. J. Baggarly, S.J., The Conjugates Christ-Church in the “Hexaemeron” of Ps.-Anastasius of Sinai: Textual Foundations and Theological Context, published extract of S. T. D. thesis for the Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana (Rome 1974), 73.
(8) See Anastasios’s own remarks at VII (alpha) epilogus. Cf. PG 89, 972B; Baggarly, The Conjugates Christ-Church (as note 7 above), 7.
(9) For discussions of the mutual references and a possible chronology of the major works of Anastasios, see Kuehn/Baggarly (as note 1 above) xx-xxii;Uthemann, Anastasii Sinaitae Sermones duo (as note 3 above) cxli-cl.
(10) I.26. This entire passage, I.26-40, is filled with allusions to mystery rituals and mystical literature.
(11) See I.64-67, 72-80, 156-160, 319-320, 356-360, 378-381, 426-8, 687-9, 803-9; III.366-372, 459-481; IV.33-36, 208-218, 302-421, 747-759, 931-940; VI.38-88, 92-126; VIIa.98-105, 240-349; VIIb.36-93, 178-200, 287-307, 361-377, 549-566; IX.39-52, 65-85, 149-165; X.96-104, 446-459, 708-723; XI.149-158, 802-811; XII.195-204, etc. Cf. K.-H. Uthemann, “Allegory,” in A. Kazhdan (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 1 (Oxford 1991), 69.
(12) See I.316-7, 329-332, 423-5; II. 213-232; IV.769-780; VIIb.695-735; VIII.9-18; XI.36-40, 117-125, etc. Cf. the definitions of allegory and typology in P. Bouteneff, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives (Grand Rapids, MI, 2008), 177-182.
(13) VIIb.683-694; cf. VIII.12-18.
(14) Cf. I.146-154, 316-328; VI.606-611; VIIb.414-425, 469-549, 571-676, 743-7; IX.448-467; XI.234-8, 584-7, etc.
(15) VIIb.695-735. For Origen’s and Basil’s exegeses, see Bouteneff (as note 12 above), 94-118, 125-140. For a comparison and contrast of the Alexandrian school of exegesis with the Antiochene school see M. Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis (Edinburgh 2001, trans. from the original Italian edition of 1981), 34-85, 110-120. For translated excerpts of early commentaries, see A. Louth (ed.), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament I, Genesis 1-11 (Downers Grove, IL, 2001), 1-102. For a review of hexaemeron commentaries in general, see F. Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature: A Study of the Greek and Latin commentaries on Genesis, published Ph.D. thesis for the University of Chicago (Chicago 1912).
