Modern scholars so far have agreed that Robert Grosseteste was a biblical-moralistic theologian who resisted the new fashion for scholastic reasoning and stuck to the trusted method of biblical allegory. This book challenges this consensus. It argues that Grosseteste was not only fully aware of the new developments in the philosophy of science, based on Aristotle's Posterior analytics, but also that, if we look at the whole of the work that he wrote while regent master at Oxford, it is immediately obvious that he based much of his own work on Aristotle's concept of science. He was the first theologian to voice an opinion on the subject matter of theology and the unity of theology as a science. Grosseteste also gave thought to the matter of the first principles of theology, and, although he does not say so explicitly, he seems to have come to the conclusion that the articles of faith, as summed up in the Apostles’ Creed, constitute in theology the true and indemonstrable premises that Aristotle requires as the basis of any science. Finally the author shows that Grosseteste in many of his theological works made use of syllogistic reasoning, based on modern logic. The conclusion is that Grosseteste was not an outsider but that his work was completely in tune with intellectual developments of the first half of the thirteenth century. There is much to recommend this new appraisal of Grosseteste as a theologian. But perhaps the author exaggerates a little in saying that the consensus is that Grosseteste was simply old-fashioned. No one doubts that he was deeply read in Aristotle. He was intimately acquainted with the new trends in philosophy and he at least asked himself how far they could be applied to theology. The fact that he discusses the subject matter of theology extensively confirms that point. The author is less convincing when trying to show that Grosseteste accepted that the articles of faith constituted the principia of theology. He seems to say that the twelve articles are a summary of the faith, but saying that is not the same as maintaining that they are the premises of a theological science. But my main objection to the author's picture of Grosseteste as a full-blooded speculative theologian is Grosseteste's outspoken opposition to syllogistic argumentation in theology, as expressed in the introduction to the Hexaëmeron, his most important theological treatise. There he states that every statement in the Bible is equally credible, and that, therefore, we should not try to deduce one thing from another through syllogisms, nor should we reduce its contents to a number of axioms. The rest of the commentary is proof that he takes these assumptions very seriously. The modernity of the Hexaëmeron lies in that the explanation of the letter is improved by using the most modern insights of natural science, but it is not an example of advanced syllogistic argument. The author has convinced me that Grosseteste is not the survivor of an earlier age, but he has not convinced me that we must see him as standing in the tradition of scholastic theologians of his own age; he followed his own path.