We have been rightly reminded in the general introduction that science, in its
current sense does not equate to ancient forms of knowledge. But there was
such a thing as ‘Byzantine science’ which covered all the forms of knowledge
from an era that shared a similar appreciation for ‘certain’ knowledge accord-
ing to the criteria of reason of that time.
If the criteria of current science are clearly different from those of ancient
forms of knowledge, we must however distinguish between Graeco-Roman
knowledge and Arab, medieval Latin or Byzantine forms of knowledge and be-
tween the latter. We will focus on the late antique knowledge matrix which
gave birth to Byzan tine science.
This body of knowledge can be divided into three groups. The first is the
partial reception of Graeco-Roman knowledge in late antiquity and in Byzan-
tium, whether it was in Greek, Latin or Syriac, while Persian and Indian influ-
ences contributed to Muslim knowledge. The second group included specific
contributions from late antiquity, its novelties (e.g. veterinary medicine or
Philoponus’ theory on the movement of celestial bodies) and its compilations
of previous forms of knowledge (Timotheus of Gaza’s treatise On animals,
c. 500 or the Ethnika produced by the grammarian Stephen of Byzantium un-
der Justinian) both of which were disseminated over the next thousand years.
The third group is specifically Christian, as they had become the majority in
the fifth century and were especially concerned by the relationship between
Graeco-Roman knowledge and revealed scripture. This lead them to discuss
the relationship between faith and reason which is the focus of our paper.
Two anachronistic issues can be dismissed from the outset. First, the eigh-
teenth-century debate between religion and science. This modern perspective
did not exist as such in late antiquity. The second issue is the nineteenth-cen-
tury opposition between ‘modern’ scientific truth and pre-scientific error.
Based on later advances in scientific knowledge, we know that late antique
knowledge was mostly erroneous, but it was believed to be true because it had
been demonstrated or was plausible according to the knowledge of the time. However, there was a debate in late antiquity between faith (pistis) and rea-
son (logos). It was crucial because it clarified the various forms of ‘certainty’ in
late antiquity, and defined subsequent frameworks in the development of By-
zan tine knowledge. This debate was not related to methodological upheavals
or new discoveries, but to a hermeneutic recontextualization linked to the
Christianization of knowledge. Indeed, one of the novelties of Christianity, fol-
lowing Judaism, was to assert that texts deemed to be revealed or inspired con-
ferred a status of certainty to knowledge since they were guaranteed by a
divine authority.
These certain forms of knowledge—because of their divine origin—, were
called by Christians ‘inner’ knowledge [or ‘our knowledge’] as opposed to less
certain or even doubtful forms of knowledge because of their human origin,
which they called ‘outer’ knowledge. As the latter often consisted in philoso-
phers and scholars, considered to be ‘heathens,’ the epistemological debate
was also religious, whereas between Christians it was exegetical. This debate,
which was crucial between the third and sixth centuries, became less impor-
tant with the Christianization of society and the petrification of traditions.
This is why, even if late antique scholars were not all Christians and if few as-
pects of late antique knowledge were based on biblical texts, the status of
knowledge on the world was essential at the time.
1 Christian Exegesis of the Bible (Second–Fifth Centuries CE)1
Typological exegesis was favoured during the first two centuries CE because
the meaning of a text could be attributed to one of a later period. It enabled
Christians to assert that biblical prophecies had been fulfilled in the person of
Jesus of Nazareth and to interpret the text of the Old Testament as an image of
the contemporary Church. It also helped to refute the literal reading of the
Jews the way in which certain Gnostics rejected the heritage of the Old Testa-
ment. Indeed, second century Gnostics often picked and chose from Scripture
passages they considered to be authentic and, if necessary, filled in the blanks
with other passages they considered to be revealed.
ፍትህ ለሁሉም / Justice for All