Pagan and Biblical Exempla in Gregory Nazianzen: A Study in Rhetoric and Hermeneutics

This decade of Nazianzen studies has seen the appearance of remarkable monographs on The Theologian. Because I am primarily a theologian and missiologist, I consider the best of a fine lot to be Sigurd Bergmann’s Geist der Natur Befreit: Die trinitarische Kosmologie Gregors von Nazianz im Horizont einer ökologischen Theologie der Befreiung (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1995). But if your concern is for historical theology done primarily in a penetrating philological mode, this present volume may be your first choice. It is superb. Demoen’s treatment of Gregory’s use of examples from “depagnized Hellenism” as well as the Bible represents one significant way to undercover Nazianzen’s hermeneutic. This book is a thorough inventory and explanation of those examples employed in Gregory’s poetry which thus throws bright light on his approach to pagan culture as well as Christian faith. Correctly Demoen looks at The Theologian through rhetorical categories, the only ones which can do justice to the contribution which this Father of the Church offered.

The one hundred thirty pages of inventory at the end of the volume would have been sufficient for a volume of consequence. There both pagan and biblical histories used in all Gregory’s works are set out in three ways: (1) in the order in which they appear within the poetry, epigrams, epistles and orations (2) in an alphabetical list, and (3) in a list based on the traditional order of biblical books. It is a quick and easy reference for any to use, one that provides more material than Demoen develops within his study of the poetry.

In the first part of his investigation Demoen demonstrates that Gregory used the rhetorical paradeigma in ways consistent with the teachings of rhetoricians after Aristotle. The frequency of their use is rather high, especially in the deliberative poems where Aristotle found them to be most effective. Their function is usually ornamental; they serve as models almost twice as often as they serve as evidence for making a case. Nazianzen does not seem to find their use as evidence as powerful a persuasive tool as did either Aristotle or Hermogenes. He often organizes these exempla as subject matter into traditional categories of “old” and “new,” “suitable” and “unsuitable” which he translates into comparisons of the Old and New Testament, and Christian and pagan. In terms of literary form, Nazianzen’s rhetorical education again shows itself. He develops the exempla in ways found often in the speeches of the schools, particularly in the progymnasmata, and inserts them into his speeches as rhetoricians usually did. He chooses to mention the name rather than allude to the person and to narrate the history as a model. A full insertion of such examples does occur in the function of evidence, particularly in poetry on moralia. Metaphorical examples often function ornamentally particularly in the autobiographical verses. Gregory’s uses of exempla fits well with the rhetorical canons after Aristotle and seems to be in line with later medieval and Byzantine uses.

The important points for hermeneutics Demoen finds clear. The Theologian distinguishes between myth and truth almost always taking the Greek myths as falsehoods. A myth well might be a truth wrapped in fiction, but its deepest meaning is untrue and its literal sense immoral. But those myths, particularly ones in which the gods had no part, when stripped of their religious meaning become fair game for the writer or speaker. They then embody the literary heritage of Hellenism which Christians can and should claim.

Their use by Gregory, however, either as moral examples or metaphors should not be put under the umbrella of Christianization. Indeed one way that exclusion can be established is to note that when pagan deities do appear in the myths and are used by Gregory he treats them as demons. When the myths deal only with the humans they are employed in order to describe how people live...