John Philoponus, who had no knowledge of Augustine’s work (Scholten 1996: 77-98), wrote between ad 546 and 560 (Scholten 1996: 56-76; 1997, i: 64-6)
De opificio mundi, a commentary on the first chapter of Genesis that stands in the tradition of the Hexaemeron. His commentary aims generally to prove that a cosmology built on the biblical narrative is compatible with, and even superior to, pagan scientific thinking (Opif. 1. 2). But, like his predecessors, John is also aware of the fact that Genesis is not a scientific textbook, but has the pastoral aim of leading human beings to God (Scholten 1997, i: 44-5, 62). Therefore he favors an allegorical interpretation, since a literal reading of Genesis easily supports a purely cosmological understanding of its message and leaves the reader ignorant of its theological dimension (Scholten 1997, i: 53-5; Fladerer 1999: 256).
Because of its systematic and detached approach to the biblical text, De opificio mundi has been called the first Christian scientific commentary on the six days of creation (Scholten 1997, i: 61). Philoponus’ method has the following characteristics (Fladerer 1999: 391-8): each book of his commentary is structured, as it were, in a circular form, analogous themes being arranged in a symmetrical pattern. All biblical words are in principle homonymic: that is, they depend on the context, and the same word can express phenomena of both the material and the intelligible worlds, since those worlds are ontologically interrelated (e. g., Opif. 1. 42. 10-22). Thus Philopo-nus has the hermeneutical flexibility to shift between literal and allegorical interpretations, depending on whether he is working to avoid the criticism that Genesis is not compatible with the modern physics of his time. Following the pagan Hellenistic principle ‘‘to interpret Homer from Homer’’ (Homerum ex Homero interpretari), and in accordance with practically all Christian thinkers before him, he sees the Bible as a harmonious and organic whole, the overall message of which can help one to interpret individual passages in the text that are otherwise obscure or ambiguous. The aim is to avoid too close a literal reading.
Philoponus strongly emphasizes the importance of the ecclesiastical community’s function: building on the exegetical tradition, it will always seek answers for new questions in the Bible, even if the biblical author has not explicitly given such answers (Opif. 28. 15; Fladerer 1999: 279-82). In order to establish Moses as the true prophet, therefore, Philoponus argues in part against a reading that follows Neoplatonic mysticism (Opif. 4. 17-20; Fladerer 1999: 345-8). In contrast to Basil, he never seeks to entertain his readers, but wants to prove the validity of the Genesis account at all levels of reality - although in doing so, he sometimes has specifically in mind antagonists like the Dyophysites (Opif. 6. 9-17; Fladerer 1999: 369-84).
In many ways, Philoponus’ method is very modern, as are some of his general principles. So he says in 1. 18 that the figurative statements in Scripture have to be measured against the truth of reality: that is, he postulates the reconstruction first of a literal sense of the text. In 2. 13, and similarly in 3. 4, he emphasizes that it is not reasonable to investigate why God made creation as it is. This should not prevent us, however, from using sensual perception where appropriate, in order to understand the nature of the cosmos (3. 10; 4. 2). He also turns to the example of the bee, although he uses it differently from Basil and Ambrose. In De opificio mundi 6. 14, the bee is portrayed as a mindless creature that is nevertheless able to produce wax, honeycombs, and honey more magnificent and complex than anything made by a human artist. Moreover, like all animals, the bee is able to do this without being taught, whereas human beings constantly need instruction. In this respect, animals are closer to God than human beings (Pollmann 2006: 199).
Philoponus’ exploration of the meaning of the Genesis text can be called philological. For example, based on philological arguments, he establishes his own critical version of the text of Genesis 1: 28 by comparing the relevant passages in the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachos (Opif. 7. 4). This method is already familiar from Origen’s Hexapla. But, when Philoponus explores the meaning of an individual biblical word, not only does he look at the immediate context but he also compares other uses of the same word within the Bible. Thus in 6. 5-7, pondering the meaning and significance of the words eikon and homoiOsis in Genesis 1: 26 - ‘‘Let us make a human being according to our image [eikon] and likeness [homoiosis]’’ (a much vexed question among early Christian thinkers) - he argues against Origen that eikoOn does not refer to the Son but to the divine Trinity as a whole, illustrating his point by drawing on the Septuagint version of Genesis 9: 6, ‘‘I made man in the image of God’’ (6. 5; see also 6. 17). In 6. 8, similarly, he employs several parallels from the gospels and from Paul’s letters to prove that there, as in Genesis 1: 26, eikon and homoiosis are used synonymously, referring to a good lifestyle that follows Christ’s model. In 6. 1 and 6. 14, he identifies humanity’s likeness to God as residing in the human, although he does not prove that explicitly, since here he adopts a notion accepted by Christians and pagans alike. In other places, he quotes various different opinions on the meaning of a word or verse and weighs them against each other in order to reach what he considers a sound conclusion - as, for instance, when he assesses the different possible meanings of arche (1. 3). He is also able to make a clear distinction between secure knowledge and speculation (Scholten 1997, i: 14).
So, in comparison with Augustine’s diverse and multifunctional exegesis of Genesis, Philoponus is more single-minded. For him, exegesis is a valid tool that enables one to analyze the biblical text systematically; but its validity consists chiefly in its ability to penetrate and combine the different ways there are of looking at the world, including the cosmologies of pagan philosophy.
World History
