Studies of religious interaction in the fourth century AD have often assumed that the categories of 'pagan', 'Christian' and 'Jew' can be straightforwardly applied, and that we can assess the extent of Christianization in the Graeco-Roman period. In contrast, in this 2007 text, Dr Sandwell tackles the fundamental question of attitudes to religious identity by exploring how the Christian preacher John Chrysostom and the Graeco-Roman orator Libanius wrote about and understood issues of religious allegiance. By comparing the approaches of these men, who were living and working in Antioch at approximately the same time, she strives to get inside the process of religious interaction in a way not normally possible due to the dominance of Christian sources. In so doing she develops approaches to the study of Libanius' religion, the impact of John Chrysostom's preaching on his audiences and the importance of religious identity to fourth-century individuals.

This article seeks to investigate the question of religious apathy in the 4th c. by looking at the writings of John Chrysostom and Libanius. It will first explore the accusations of religious laxity that Chrysostom makes against his audience and the picture that Chrysostom’s writings give of the attitudes of his audience towards religion. It will then turn to look in broader terms at the place given to religion in the 4th c. by exploring the writings of Libanius on this matter. By taking into account this broader perspective, this article will suggest that Chrysostom is unfair to accuse his audiences of religious laxity and that instead what we see is that they disagreed with him over the extent to which religion should permeate their lives.

No 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.

No abstract