Abstract

John Chrysostom and Basil of Caesarea both preached on Gen 1.1-19 to similar audiences in the last quarter of the fourth century C.E. Both were followers of Nicaea and both claimed to carry out literal forms of exegesis and yet Chrysostom's pastoral and moral concerns and Basil's interest in science and philosophy meant that their preaching on the early books of Genesis was radically different. This article will explore the differences between the two in order to assess which would have been more successful at teaching the newly created world and thus at bringing about audience understanding of the difficult text of Genesis. It will use ideas drawn from cognitive psychology to define what counts as understanding and good teaching in order to provide a new approach for making such assessments of ancient preachers.

pdf

Share