The Hexaemeron
The Hexaemeron, attributed to Anastasios of Sinai (ob. post 700), is one of the most extensive spiritual allegories from the Byzantine era.(1) Writing in response to a request for guidance by Theophilos, Anastasios offers in twelve books an anagogical exegesis (i.e., an inspirational commentary) of the first three chapters of Genesis. The Latin adjective hexaemeron (pronounced in English like hex aim´ er on ) comes from two Greek words, ἕξ ἡμέραι, which mean “six days” and refer to the biblical account of creation. Thus the full name of the Anastasian commentary is In Hexaemeron, which means "About the Six-Day [Creation]". Anastasios, referring to the letters of Paul, warns against an exclusively literal reading of Scripture. He urges that one be open to the Spirit beyond the words: it is only then that one receives the complete meaning. The author insists that Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was writing not only about the creation of the visible and transient world, but also about the new creation through Christ. Thus Adam represents the Savior, and Eve represents the Church, His eternal bride. Anastasios has little patience for heresies, which he thinks rise largely from a too literal reading of Scripture. To support his typological reading, Anastasios refers to the early Fathers and exegetes, especially Clement of Alexandria, the two Gregorys from Cappadocia, Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite, and even Origen. Anastasios condemns Origen, however, for ignoring the literal and seeing everything exclusively as symbolic.
Nothing in the surviving text makes it impossible that the author of the Hexaemeron was Anastasios of Sinai.(2) Rather, in addition to mutual references between this work and others in his recognized canon,(3) there are correspondences in style and in thematic material, such as: defenses of the Chalcedonian creed, arguments against heresies, discussions about the nature of Christ, a fondness for etymologies, an exceptionally erudite mind, and a fierce devotion to the spiritual wellbeing of the Church. The author often expresses affection for Egypt, while it was still a vital center of Christianity.(4)
One reason for some scholars' doubts about the Hexaemeron’s authenticity is the absence of any surviving manuscript copied before the end of the fifteenth century.(5) Approximately two dozen 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 personal opinions on important theological topics. In his other published works, his idiosyncrasies were later brought into line with orthodox beliefs by adding florilegia: that is, supporting comments on specific topics by Church Fathers.(6) At the end of the Hexaemeron, however, Anastasios described a spiritual Church that transcended the temporal 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 the entire last book.
The original Hexaemeron was divided into thirteen books, numbered one through twelve and containing two books labeled seven. There is a clear thematic division between Books I-VII (alpha) and Books VII (beta)-XII, which discuss the two biblical creation accounts.(8) The Hexaemeron 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 says. And in the Hexaemeron he explains that the occasion demanded this change.(10) By occasion he means his allegory: that the biblical creation account, and especially the Adam and Eve story, foreshadowed and represented the creation of the Church by Christ and then its spiritual union with Him.(11) The exegesis style is typological in as much as Anastasios often states that, despite the allegory, he does not deny the concrete facts of the creation account and he is not overturning any literal commentary by preceding Church Fathers.(12) In fact, despite an obvious respect for Origen's prodigious work on behalf of the Church, Anastasios condemns him for seeing exclusively allegorical meanings, and Anastasios compares his exegeses to mythic tragedies.(13) Still, 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 of 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.
(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); republished by BiblioLife, LLC (Lexington, KY, 2010).
Nothing in the surviving text makes it impossible that the author of the Hexaemeron was Anastasios of Sinai.(2) Rather, in addition to mutual references between this work and others in his recognized canon,(3) there are correspondences in style and in thematic material, such as: defenses of the Chalcedonian creed, arguments against heresies, discussions about the nature of Christ, a fondness for etymologies, an exceptionally erudite mind, and a fierce devotion to the spiritual wellbeing of the Church. The author often expresses affection for Egypt, while it was still a vital center of Christianity.(4)
One reason for some scholars' doubts about the Hexaemeron’s authenticity is the absence of any surviving manuscript copied before the end of the fifteenth century.(5) Approximately two dozen 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 personal opinions on important theological topics. In his other published works, his idiosyncrasies were later brought into line with orthodox beliefs by adding florilegia: that is, supporting comments on specific topics by Church Fathers.(6) At the end of the Hexaemeron, however, Anastasios described a spiritual Church that transcended the temporal 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 the entire last book.
The original Hexaemeron was divided into thirteen books, numbered one through twelve and containing two books labeled seven. There is a clear thematic division between Books I-VII (alpha) and Books VII (beta)-XII, which discuss the two biblical creation accounts.(8) The Hexaemeron 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 says. And in the Hexaemeron he explains that the occasion demanded this change.(10) By occasion he means his allegory: that the biblical creation account, and especially the Adam and Eve story, foreshadowed and represented the creation of the Church by Christ and then its spiritual union with Him.(11) The exegesis style is typological in as much as Anastasios often states that, despite the allegory, he does not deny the concrete facts of the creation account and he is not overturning any literal commentary by preceding Church Fathers.(12) In fact, despite an obvious respect for Origen's prodigious work on behalf of the Church, Anastasios condemns him for seeing exclusively allegorical meanings, and Anastasios compares his exegeses to mythic tragedies.(13) Still, 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 of 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.
(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); republished by BiblioLife, LLC (Lexington, KY, 2010).
